Scientific Controversy

 

 

 Nuclear Innovation or Disaster? The Feud about Nuclear Energy  

 

 There is an abundance of scientific controversies such as cloning, DNA modification, and global warming. One scientific controversy that has been debated and argued for many years is the use of nuclear power for a substitute power source. Nuclear power has its pros and cons which make researchers, scientists, and people argue over whether we should use other types of power sources instead. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the opposing views of how and why nuclear power is an ongoing and major controversy. Everyone knows about nuclear power plants, but what exactly is it and when was it created? 

Nuclear power is the energy that is released during fission, decay, or fusion which generate heat to produce electricity. It was first utilized to generate electricity for the civilization in 1954 by the Soviet Union. Overtime, several countries adopted the idea of using nuclear energy as a substitute and more efficient way to generate electricity. Debates started erupting about using nuclear energy on whether if it was beneficial and environmentally friendly.Page Break 

 

Photo of green life in Fukushima prefecture before & after nuclear devastation 

              Credited Photo:  Sandhya Sriram 

An incident that happened in Fukushima, Japan led many people to protest nuclear power plants. A nuclear reactor exploded on 2011 in Japan due to the 8.9 magnitude earthquake. It released radiation into the area, forcing residents to migrate, and the environment and animals to be contaminated with radiation. Waste was and is still dumping into the Pacific Ocean today, which affects sea life, drinking water, and food. This led to many people getting ill, killed, and making areas inhabitable. Therefore, this incident contributed to a big change in public opinion about nuclear power, although nuclear scientists believe otherwise. The people didn’t want another disaster to occur or for a disaster like Fukushima to occur in their country, 

There are two sides of the controversy, one is pro-nuclear power and the other is anti- nuclear power. The people who are mostly pro-nuclear power are scientists and researchers, although there are some ordinary people who agree with it. Nuclear scientists and researchers support the cause because using nuclear energy is a more efficient, reliable, cost effective, and eco-friendlier way of producing electricity. Nuclear energy is more efficient because approximately six grams of nuclear energy is equivalent to a ton of coal or roughly 120 gallons of oil (Sen 2019). Since, using nuclear energy is easier to produce and is more efficient, it can power major cities, with little time and resource waste unlike other sources of power. Many countries continue this practice and support it because it is more cost effective than using ordinary fossil fuels. Nuclear energy estimated cost per mills kilowatt hour is 24.38 cents, while using oil costs 35.41 (Beckrich 2013). Nuclear energy is a cheaper substitute unlike fossil fuels overtime, so the government can spend their money on other resources such as healthcare and medicine which will benefit the people, causing them to be pro-nuclear power. Fossil fuels and oil are less reliable because the average full capacity of it generating electricity was 20-55% (Beckrich 2013). Nuclear scientists calculate and put in perspective the reliability of powering homes with nuclear energy, rather than natural or fossil fuels. People want a constant flow of electricity running though their house and their appliances, so they support the idea of using nuclear energy to reduce the number of blackouts. If blackouts were to occur because of power shortages, foods will spoil inside the fridge, which can lead to stomach pain or illnesses that affect peoples’ health. Lastly, nuclear energy is a better alternative because it releases less carbon dioxide. 

Page Break 

 

 

Graph comparing the different levels of CO2 being released with different types of fuels 

(As seen coal is the number one leading factor of CO2 emission, while nuclear is 3rd from last) 

Credited: https://world-nuclear.org/ 

 

Using nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the air. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are released into the atmosphere because of electricity plants burning fossil fuels. These are emitted into the air, which causes the depletion of the ozone layer since it slows down the production of it. Nuclear power releases 90-140 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh, which is about two percent of the amount of CO2 we emit, compared to 72% that is released by burning fossil fuels (Gordienko et al. 2012).  People agree on the use of nuclear energy because it can help prevent global warming because of how much waste is being produced. It also reduces air pollution and the amount of toxic greenhouse in the air because it emits less CO2 unlike fossil fuels, so the air is cleaner and healthier to breath. This can lower illnesses that can occur with inhaling toxic gas, reducing the likeliness of getting lung diseases. Although nuclear power plants can cause other diseases and disorders that makes this topic controversial. 

People who are Anti-nuclear power are afraid of the effects that it can cause to their lives. Although nuclear energy reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, which can benefit your health, it can be more dangerous regarding long term health. The main reasons why this topic is controversial is because of the radiation that is being emitted and the nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is a huge topic regarding nuclear power. Power plants are creating a surplus of waste which cannot be dumped or emptied out or it will contaminate the area. Power plants are running out of space to put and store waste inside nuclear waste facilities, so they use cheaper and less safe materials to contain the waste (Blatt 2011). This can lead to a more hazardous living space since it is not properly disposed of. The dangerous hazard can lead to radiation being emitted from them and from the power plants. Radiation is main reason why people disapprove of nuclear power plants, which makes it so controversial. Nuclear power plants are supposed to make our lives easier, by producing electricity faster and cheaper, although the gases and radiation that emits from the plants are harmful and can affect human health. According to the Todd Larson from the Green America Magazine, “Studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia.” Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer. The radiation that is being emitted from these power plants can cause gene mutation, skin burn, radiation poisoning, and cancer.  

Page Break 

 

 

Examples of some mutations that can be caused with exposure to radiation 

Credited: https://biology-igcse.weebly.com/ 

 

Radiation can affect an individual’s health which can lead to early death if they are exposed to a high amount. Cancer is a well-known genetic disease that has little to no known cure for it, unless treated quickly. Since radiation is being emitted into the air, people are exposed to radiation, therefore it can lead to people getting diagnosed with cancer. Also, parent’s offspring can also be affected because radiation changes gene and protein structures which can lead to children being born with mutations or illnesses. Lastly, there are not enough sites to produce enough energy in the future because of overpopulation. Therefore, nuclear companies plan to deforest woods so they can build their power plants. Environmentalists and ordinary people do not want to damage animals’ homes and their source of oxygen. Another reason for people to be anti-nuclear power is because of the amount of supply and demand. To meet the world’s required energy, there must be 14,500 power plants which is an issue since there is not enough to build more sites with the preexisting 444 nuclear plants (Larson, Gravitz 2006). Lastly, there are many skeptics who believe nuclear power plants are a prime target to terrorist attack because of the lack of security. This leads to endangerment of the surroundings residents that live near plants. Many influencers and organizations like, Green Peace, Friends of Earth International, and Steve Allen bring awareness of this heated argument, and they convince people why nuclear energy shouldn’t be allowed. Since big organizations and influencers are involved, more people will join the rally against power plants, which brings even more tension between the two groups. There are many reasons why people are for and against the use of nuclear power which makes this topic controversial, although there are some ideas to create a compromise between the groups.  

There are a few propositions that can be made to resolve this controversy. My first idea is for nuclear power plants to be located somewhere deserted where there are no homes, but still next to water so the reactors can be cooled. There is a limit on how much radiation can be spread and if the power plants are nowhere near cities, radiation poisoning can’t occur. This will reduce the amount of sick people. Also, the next proposition is to raise the funding that goes towards power plants, so they can have more adequate and safer nuclear waste storages, so the environment and plant life doesn’t get contaminated. The final solution that can resolve this controversy is to use a healthier and more eco-friendly alternative to produce electricity such as windmills and solar panels, although it might not be as effective, it’ll reduce the number of health hazards dramatically. 

Nuclear power has been a controversial topic for nearly a century now. Many people are anti-nuclear power because of the effects it has on your body like, it can cause mutations and cancer. Others say it’s more efficient, cost effective and more eco-friendly. There are no proper solutions to this controversy to change people’s ideology of it. Thus, this will be an ongoing controversy like many others like climate change that will still be fought over on which side is best for decades. 

Page Break 

REFERENCES 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.