Research On Nuclear Power And Ethics

If nuclear weapons are used in war sustainable life on this planet will be ended. Nuclear Weapons have only been used a few times in the history of this earth. The few times nuclear weapons were used the amount of damaged they caused was devastating. The first country to use nuclear weapons was the United States during World War II. On August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 and 166,000. Then on August 6th, 1945 the second atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. These statistics show how devastating nuclear weapons were when they were used and how they can be if they are used again. This paper will examine the Dangerous effects of

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

For years, many scientists, environmentalists, and energy experts have been studying how human’s creation and use of energy has impacted our environment. These experts have discovered some troubling facts. Most of our country’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. But there’s a safe and effective solution to this problem: nuclear power. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

　　　　On contrast, opponents hold different conceptions, they do not regard nuclear energy as a green and clean source of energy. According to Ross(2007), a news director for the National Urban League, fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive and harmful gases to atmosphere, and it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. As a matter of fact, the essential raw material for nuclear nuclear power is uranium, which is a dangerous radioactive element. Opponents also claims that uranium tailing which is byproduct of the procession of getting energy are being inappropriately disposed, which make the situation even worse. On the other hand, after the tragedies of nuclear energy in Chernobyl, three mile island and other district, some people have become more and more impregnable to believe the nuclear energy is dangerous. Dr.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent of the power in the U.S. (Loewen 53). In addition nuclear has an exemplary safety record. The group of people who oppose nuclear and promote renewable power sources, hereafter termed environmentalists, do so for very sound reasons. However,

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

In the following, the benefits and drawbacks of generating electricity with the use of nuclear energy will be discussed.

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a

In the modern society, energy is considered one of our most valuable resources. Humanity has managed to tap several sources of energy and utilize it for their daily activities. Almost everything in the society is dependent on energy; otherwise, humanity would cease to exist. The sources of energy vary from firewood, solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The sources vary depending on the amount of energy that can be harnessed. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject when it comes to energy matters. Theorists argue that the world’s sources of energy are being depleted at such high rates, that the future will not favor humanity. Richard Watson establishes this ethical argument in his work known as Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics: he argues that any ethics should be based on the survival of humanity (Watson 245). Therefore, an inquiry that should be made in line with energy and ethics should consider the question; is modernization worth killing humanity? Nuclear power sources provide such high energy that can power industries and sustain industrial processes for longer times. The problem with the nuclear power energy is the danger it poses to the society and humanity as a whole (Ingram 37). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia is a good example relative to the effects of nuclear power and the environment. This essay seeks to analyze and evaluate the ethical issues raised by the Chernobyl nuclear plant as source of energy

Global demand and consumption of energy is at an all time high; the world needs a safe, efficient, clean, and high producing source of energy production. The solution is something we already use for energy production, Nuclear power. From the beginning of nuclear energy there has been concerns over the safety of the power plants and its impact on the environment. With climate change and more accurate information on nuclear power the tide is shifting in its favor. This paper will explore the positives of nuclear power, political change on nuclear power, safety of the energy source and new technologies associated with the nuclear power process. Most importantly are the risks associated with nuclear power worth it? Research suggests that nuclear power is safer now more than ever and has less of an impact on the environment than coal or oil. Public support and misconceptions over the years have been up and down due to political agendas and those who are misinformed about nuclear power. Individuals who are involved in the energy field are in favor of nuclear power and building more plants with newer technology.

Nuclear energy could be the future of energy and potentially solve the energy crisis problem. Nuclear energy is a sustainable energy source and it can provide millions of times the amount of energy output from a fixed mass of fuel than any other energy source, such as fossil fuel, for the same mass of fuel. Nuclear energy is also very clean for the atmosphere. It produces no greenhouse gases at all. However, nuclear energy can be very harmful to both people and the rest of the natural environment if not managed well. Nuclear meltdowns etc. can release