Seaton Carew Analysis

Something always curious and provoking happens in science writing. Gwyneth Cravens is an author of five novels and many publications, and one who studies a topic in great detail. She creates an enormous work about nuclear energy for the last decade. Cravens’s research in her last published book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy has led her to do an about-face on the issue. In her article “Better Energy” which was published in May 2008 in Discover magazine, she disputes and claims that nuclear energy is currently best alternative and should be considered as our future energy source. At the beginning “Better Energy” she commences by introducing James Lovelock, who was greatly

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

Debates about the use of nuclear power plants in New York City have received much attention in the last few years. Many scientists believe that the use of Nuclear Power would be beneficial for New York City, since an abundant amount of electricity is necessary to fuel the Big Apple; however, one primary argument espoused by opponents is that the use of nuclear power will bring about negative effects like radiation exposure, debt and may allow the power plant to become a potential target for terrorist attacks. This paper describes selected constitutional issues related to the use of nuclear power plants with a focus on the risks it poses and concludes with implications for alternative sources of energy.

In other words the overemphasis on research and safety brings to light more solutions to the problem, thus raising new questions regarding safety, and instilling new fears in the public’s minds. As a result of those new found safety concerns the new fear instilled in the public will make them more reluctant to storing the waste, when that happens the waste will continue to pile on, eventually becoming extremely dangerous and prone to becoming a

The average annual radiation dose received by Americans is 360 millirems (or "mrems"), about 300 of which come from naturally occurring sources like radon. By contrast, you would get only 0.01 mrems per year as a result of living 50 feet from a nuclear power plant. Even a single annual cross-country airplane flight exposes you to 3 mrems, while a medical X-ray gives you a dose of 20 mrems.

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,

We have come up with some contentions that contribute to our argument. These are that, nuclear energy is very expensive. There is a low supply, and even if there is enough, it is difficult to clean up the radioactivity. Nuclear power is definitely wanted by many terrorist groups. And lastly, but definitely one of the most important reasons, is the unknown risks.

Imminent death is a scary thought as well as the idea of a massive explosion killing thousands of people. Nuclear muntions have been a part of our nuclear arsenal for several decades now. The amount of mass destruction that can be seen from a nuclear explosion is dreadful but may sometimes be deemed necessary. The purpose of nuclear munitions for the United States is to deter enemies from attacking our homeland, ally countries, and other crucial interests.10 The destructive power of nuclear weapons had a steadying capability on superior countries because the cost would not outweigh the benefits. The importance that nuclear weapons served after World War Two increased due to tensions between Russia during the Cold War. The ability to retaliate with our superior nuclear arsenal has the power to influence any opponent that threats made to our homeland can result in certain devastation.10 The main focus of the use of nuclear munitions is geared toward massive encounters. Massive nuclear encounters could result in whats called a nuclear winter. This is when an enourmous amount of nuclear munitions have been detonated to cause soot and ash to cover the sky enough to block out sunlight and make the weather cooler.5 The alteration to the atmosphere for a nuclear winter could last several years depending on the amount of detonations. The severity of this is what causes the United States and

The debate was to discuss why the committee should agree to deploy a nuclear power station in Heartlepool. Our main concern about the generation of energy by nuclear is the radioactive natural waste, the worry about its health and safety. It frightens the public as it being looked as a mas destruction or perhaps a nuclear weapons and this makes it hard for one to easily adopt to the benefit of nuclear energy but just a few realize the changes it bring to our lives over fewer years.

Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.

The public effects of the Chernobyl disaster were far reaching. First of all, it negatively influenced a number of counties’ domestic opinions regarding nuclear programs. Although nuclear protests were common in the 1970s, by 1986 it had dropped from public scrutiny to the point

On this assignment we are going to research all energy sources and their drawbacks, we are also going to explore on some the negative ramifications that even the clean hydropower have, additionally we are going to weigh those against the possible consequences of developing nuclear power, a controversial alternative to fossil fuels. We will discuss the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in drawing conclusions about risk versus reward of nuclear energy use.

The opening of the Habog facility is only the latest event in the history of nuclear power in the Netherlands. It is impossible to discuss nuclear history in Europe without addressing the Chernobyl disaster and its impact on the rest of Europe. Authors Ruud Koopmans and Jan Willem Duyvendak argue, that of the surrounding countries after the Chernobyl disaster, “only Germany witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of anti-nuclear protest events. In France and Switzerland only a small increase took place, and in the Netherlands no change at all was detectable.” However, before the Chernobyl disaster there was already an anti-nuclear movement in the Netherlands. When the Dutch government added a charge on to electricity customers’ bills in the early 70s to subsidize a new nuclear reactor they were met with resistance. A few years later,

A barren wasteland lies motionless and without life. Abandoned buildings strewn with dust and debris litter the landscape. Children’s playgrounds once strewn with laughter and smiles emits only the subtle squeak of a rusty swing floating back and forth. This land of nothingness is the result of the worst nuclear power meltdown of all time: Chernobyl. This was one of only three nuclear energy malfunctions in the last six decades. The other events are Fukushima and Three Mile Island. One might say that from these three events that Nuclear power is dangerous and should be abolished; however, consistent evidence provides us with knowledge that nuclear energy is the cleanest and most efficient form of energy around. Three Mile Island was an incident where the media took control of fairly subtle problem and turned it into mass hysteria. The media’s role in the Three Mile Island incident is alike that of Big Brother in George Orwell’s, 1984.