The Pros And Cons Of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants

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).

It’s clear that a Nuclear power plant such as the Fukushima Daiichi can be classified as an HRO if not an Ultra HRO, where an accident has an effect that, even in the technologically advanced Japan, can threaten the lives of millions and negatively impact their health for many years.

“An atom is the fundamental block of all matter, atoms are composed of smaller subatomic particles neutrons, [Neutral], protons [Positive (+)] and electrons [negative (-)]. Nuclear energy is the energy formed from the nucleus of an atom through different methods as fission (which is the way in which an atom is split into smaller subatomic particles by hitting its nucleus with a neutron) and fusion (which is the process in which new heavier atoms and large amounts of energy are produced by bonding atoms together). (Nuclear Energy).Nuclear energy has various pros and cons, some of its advantages are that it reduces global warming as a result of decreasing greenhouse gases emission and CO92 production. While, its main disadvantage, is that the

When an 9.0 magnitude earthquake rocked Japan on March 11th, 2011, it was the first of a series of horrific events that Japan would be forced to endure. Many homes, families, properties, and belongings were lost on that day. And when the tsunami rolled over the island, many believed that it was over for them. Not only had people’s lives been put in disarray and desolation, but there had not even been simple necessities available. Food. Water. Communications. And electricity. When the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had been hit by the earthquake and tsunami, the reactors were shut down and so was the electricity. Over the course of months the reactors suffered, extreme heat, fires, hydrogen explosions, and radiation exposures. At the time,

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

     The protest movement against nuclear power was already big after the Three Mile Island incident, but when the Chernobyl disaster happened, it was rocket-powered. The disaster put a stop to all construction of nuclear power plants nation-wide (Davis 315). The Three Mile Island accident, however, couldn’t have happened at a worse time. Americans need nuclear energy because the country is so oil dependent. But even back in 1979, people recognized that nuclear power needed to be part of our energy source (Readers Digest 72). The incident was responsible for the abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear Energy plant and opened the door to an escalation of protest activity (Davis 315).

Recently, the deserted Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has been emanating an alarming amount of radiation. Kyodo of Japan Times reported that the radiation reading has reached its highest level since its emergence in March 2011 (Kyodo, 2017). As a result, there is a greater presence of air and water pollution in Fukushima that could easily spread to surrounding areas. Therefore, it seems appropriate that in an interview with the Washington Post, radio-ecology expert Tom Hinton stated Fukushima is “an area that is among the most radioactively contaminated in the world” (as cited in Andrews, 2016). This resurgence has generated conspiracy theories, false maps and, interestingly, little news coverage. While many across different continents

According to a new study, gathered by the researchers from Costas Synolakis of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and Utku Kânoğlu of the Middle East Technical University in Turkey who went through all the reports about Fukushima’s disaster in 2011, the nuclear disaster should have never happened. During the research the found design problems, saying: “…the diesel generators as the linchpin of a future disaster. Fukushima Daiichi was a sitting duck waiting to be flooded.”

In an attempt to cool down the reactors, the scientists that works at Fukushima filled each containment barrier with sea water and a mixture of boric acid.

In “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima” writer William Tucker argues that even though Nuclear power is dangerous and risky compared to coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and solar energy, its more powerful and efficient than any other energy resource. There have been incidents like Fukushima where nuclear power caused destruction, but it doesn’t mean we should stop using it. There have been multiple incidents caused by coal mining and natural gas that has been deadly, but they are still being produced and used. Then why is nuclear power being avoided. Energy produced by hydro, wind and solar sources needs too much space in order to create large volume of energy.

William Tucker, journalist for the Wall Street Journal specializing in environment and energy, provides us with intriguing information in his article, "Why I Still Support Nuclear Power Even After Fukushima". Tucker explains his belief that nuclear power is still the most effective means of power with minimal risks, despite the radioactivity associated with nuclear power. Fukushima, a nuclear reactor harboring city in Japan, was devastated by a tsunami after a massive earthquake in 2011. Despite the history of Fukushima, Tucker goes as far as to say, "There are no better alternatives available" in terms of energy resources. Whereas Tucker does indeed bring up compelling points regarding

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake damaged a large portion of the eastern coast of Japan and formed a tsunami that caused nuclear reactors to become unstable. These three nuclear reactors that became unstable, made an already devastated place turn into a very hazardous place to be. The tsunami alone did insurmountable damage to the buildings on the east coast, this also resulted in thousands of people’s deaths. The tsunami blocked multiple roads and highways, cut off water and electricity for millions of households, and created an unfortunate situation for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plants. The nuclear power plants and the tsunami created a national crisis in Japan

On March 11th, 2011, the northern section of Japan was hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, followed by a 15 meter tsunami, causing the death of over 15000 people. (Spacey) Even though the earthquake and the tsunami caused a tremendous amount of deaths in the northern region of Japan, the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant caused a severe damage to northern Japan’s ecosystem that people still cannot go back to their homes; despite it is 4 years after the disaster. After the earthquake, the tsunami destroyed the power supply used by Fukushima’s three nuclear power stations, causing severe levels of meltdown to be occurred inside the reactors in the timespan of 3 days. It was not until 2 weeks after the tragedy, when the reactors were finally stabilized, and took several months to approach what is called a “cold shutdown condition”, in which the fission in the reactors are completely stopped.(Fukushima A)

The people that are pro nuclear power are for it because of its ability to create power and energy for little money. People that are for fossil fuels believe they provide less of a chance for catastrophe than a nuclear meltdown would. With these differing opinions the Japanese government’s plan on what to do regarding nuclear energy has been confusing to understand. Current Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, came into his term at office looking to keep the nuclear industry booming. In December 2012 Abe was recorded saying that, “he would seek to build more nuclear reactors,” (Tabuchi). However this unwavering support of nuclear energy has come into question after a few statements that were made in the last couple of months. In the middle of September 2013 Abe was recorded as saying, “the country would lower the ratio of nuclear energy over the next three years and make every effort to accelerate the spread of renewable energy sources and promote energy conservation,” (Richter). While this quote does not spell an end to nuclear energy it does show the confusion and uncertainty that Japan finds itself with. These mixed messages from the nation’s leader do not help the situation and if Abe were to look towards his citizens and government for a more reassuring opinion he would not get any answers. Abe is getting both support and disapproval from his people.

Well, we are here at the end of our journey, which it helped us to learn a lot more about nuclear energy and some the drawbacks that comes with it. We also learned about the tragic event that happened in Japan’s catastrophe the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. “What is going on with the Japanese nuclear reactors is, without question, a terrible event that can possibly add more hardship onto an already unspeakable tragedy. The explosions and the threat of a radiation leak are troubling, and Japanese engineers and scientists are doing everything humanly possible to contain the situation. (Turk & Bensel, 2011)