The Security of Nuclear Power in the U.S.: We May Be in Trouble

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

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).

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.

Nuclear power plants are a safe, clean and reliable source of energy production. They are uniquely qualified to meet the growing demand for energy in the USA.

On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, around 4 a.m., there was a failure in the water pumps at the Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania. This led to a partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all conducted particular studies of the radiological consequences of the accident. Approximately two million people were estimated to have received an average of one millirem of radiation, and there was a maximum dose to a person who was at the site of 100 millirem (“Backgrounder”). To put this into perspective, an exposure from a single chest X-ray is two to six millirem (“Doses”). However, this put fear into the minds of politicians and others all across the country. What the people do not know, though, is nuclear is better. Instead of using fossil-fuels and wind power, America ought to switch to nuclear energy to power the country because it is safer, cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable than the current ways of producing energy

John Paul Jones states, “It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” The controversy regarding the utilization of nuclear energy focuses upon the assessment of whether the hazards involved are worth the potential benefits. Throughout the progression of mankind, advancements in energy and power production have consistently transformed all lifestyles. Such advancements have, in addition, provided extensive information pertaining to the sciences. Regrettably, resources scarcely exist, and destruction of the planet is inevitable. Innovations for power source fabrication, ones that prove to be renewable, are not optional projects. Such requirements are demanded on every continent. Despite

Nuclear fission is a cost-effective, and relatively clean way to generate power. Since, the mid-1940’s, with the formation of the first atomic bombs, engineers have worked on improving nuclear power. In the 1970’s and 80’s nuclear power plants were built in cities to provide power for homes, workplaces, and other facets of life. Nuclear reactions were not well understood by the general public and therefore nuclear engineers inherited a certain status. Also as a result, nuclear power plants raised concerns for many Americans. The chances of a nuclear reactor failure were very slim, however, the consequences were devastating. Engineers feared that if the general public knew of the possible consequences that there would be massive amounts of unnecessary fear. As a result, operators of nuclear reactors were not informed of procedures to follow in the event of an emergency.

Nuclear power, the type of energy that sits on the edge of humanity’s greatest hopes, and its darkest fears. With a country such as the United States continuing to expand its industry, housing, agriculture and commercial buildings there is a need for more and more energy each year. Nuclear power is one of the many ways the United States gets its energy. Nevertheless, it is one of the most controversial means of energy production. The main concern with nuclear energy is the nuclear waste that is produced along with it. The potential health and environmental risks posed by nuclear waste is what truly scares some of the American public. Therefore, is the amount of energy output by nuclear power plants outweigh the potential risks that nuclear waste can have on human health and the environment? Nuclear power plants should be kept as a means of generating energy for the United States, however, transportation and storage of nuclear waste needs to continuously be checked for safer alternatives.

Being a supporter of nuclear power in today’s society could be potentially risky. So conveys author William Tucker who believes there is no other alternative, even after the Fukushima disaster (228). Tucker uses a plethora of examples and statistics to demonstrate how nuclear power could be the best alternative; moreover, he doesn’t specify which energy technology is most dangerous, but states that they all are in different ways. All alternatives have risks that determine how harmful they can be; however, it is up to the people to decide how much they are willing to risk. Progressing on from the risks, Tucker claims that we need nuclear power “if we are going to maintain our standard of living” (228). As others try to disprove this statement,

The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights. If we hope to continue consuming energy on the scale that we currently do, we need to find a better way to produce it. Fortunately, the best contender is an energy generation form that the United States is already familiar with, albeit equally as uncomfortable with. Currently, nuclear power makes up 19% of our country’s power generation, and with community and government support, the industry could spread its wings further to help relieve the dependence we have on burning fossil fuels [3]. Many people have misconceived many ideas about nuclear power, believing that it is expensive, unsafe by its very nature, and a threat to a

Fukushima catastrophic is a warning to the world about the hazards of nuclear power and contained lessons for the other governments who plan new generation of nuclear power stations. First lesson is the full disclosure on potential risks and share creditable information with the public. Furthermore,

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 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.

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.