Wednesday, 9 May Persuasive Essay on Nuclear Power I know nuclear power is much in the news right now because of the recent accident in Japan, so many teachers are assigning persuasive essays on the topic of nuclear power. I've had two inquiries recently through my form for asking questions about essays.
Reactor safety[ edit ] Outside of the Soviet Union, no member of the public ever died because of nuclear power. In the Soviet Union, Chernobyl was the only exception to this rule. Anti-nuclear activists are highly concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors, as well as the possible effects of their operation on the health of neighboring populations.
Reactors emit deadly radiation! Normally operating nuclear power plants emit small amounts of radioactive gases arising from the fission of fuel into the atmosphere.
Anti-nuclear organizations usually maintain that even the lowest dose of radiation is harmful. This is a somewhat distorted interpretation of the linear no-threshold hypothesis, which says that health effects of ionizing radiation are directly proportional to the dose, and are exactly none only at zero dose.
The hypothesis is supported by extensive data for radiation doses above mSv, but using it to quantitatively predict cancer risks for lower doses is discouraged. Even with no nuclear power, people would be exposed to small doses of radiation. This is called background radiation not to be confused with cosmic microwave background.
Radiation from natural and artificial sources has the same biological effects. The usual background dose is 3 mSv per year, but there are considerable variations. These variations do not cause any statistically significant differences in cancer rates or other radiation-related illnesses between low- and high-radiation areas.
In order to circumvent the above considerations, some fringe anti-nuclear groups attempt to use pseudoscientific theories to prove that low level radiation is more harmful than implied by the LNT hypothesis, or that man-made radioactivity is much worse than natural radioactivity.
One of them is the second event theory proposed by Chris Busby.
Chernobyl could happen again[ edit ] The Chernobyl disaster was no doubt a very severe accident, with wide reaching consequences. Anti-nuclear groups claim that any reactor can explode just like Chernobyl and render a large area uninhabitable for many centuries.
This ignores the following facts: For example, it had no concrete containment shell. Nobody is proposing building more of them. The accident was the result of a combination of poor staff training, poor reactor design, an unnecessary experiment which would not be attempted in more safety-oriented regulatory regimes, and unfortunate timing of a failure at a coal power plant which forced a rescheduling of the experiment to a night shift.
Every remaining reactor of this type has been modified to prevent this scenario from happening. All of them are in Russia.
Health consequences from radiation releases that resulted from the Chernobyl accident were largely limited to emergency response workers. Health problems in the general population were due to intense fear of radiation and psychological trauma rather than radiation itself.
Chernobyl area is not a dead zone. It is a de facto wildlife preserve. Armed assault on the plant or a plane crash is the usual scenario. Terrorists assaulting a nuclear power plant would have a tough job, because the guards are armed with automatic weapons and are trained to withstand attack from multiple groups coordinating with each other.
Slamming an aircraft into it would probably cause a lot of damage, but would not destroy the reactor, because its containment building is essentially a very sturdy bunker designed to withstand airplane hits, missiles and earthquakes.
This is not very dangerous, but would have a giant psychological impact. Nuclear power will lead to nuclear proliferation[ edit ] Nuclear reactors produce a small amount of plutonium during their operation. This plutonium can be extracted and reused as fuel.
However, plutonium is also the material used in most nuclear bombs. Therefore, say the activists, more nuclear power, and more nuclear reprocessing in particular, will naturally lead to more nuclear weapons. And we wouldn't want that. A more extravagant version is that "nuclear power industry is a fig leaf on the nuclear weapons industry".
The main flaw in this argument is that there are different kinds of plutonium, varying in their isotopic composition, and they have vastly different weapons potential. To obtain it, rods made of U aka depleted uranium have to sit in the reactor for only 30 days.
Longer irradiation causes a buildup of Pu and Pu, which are not fissile. Typically, nuclear fuel sits inside a power reactor for five years. This is completely useless for weapons. However, this has never been achieved in practice, and it would be a challenge even for existing nuclear powers.
It would be absurd for a proliferate state to spend its resources on a very dubious route of obtaining nuclear weapons, when there are more affordable ways that are known to work.
Those include constructing a plutonium production reactor or using high enriched uranium.If the subsidies were removed, they contend, renewables would quickly displace nuclear power and fossil fuels. There are two errors common in this kind of argument: Conflating government spending on nuclear weapons and environmental remediation programs associated with weapons sites with nuclear power subsidies.
Nuclear power is a hot topic among scientists. This sample essay explores the pros and cons of nuclear energy, why we need it, and how to use responsibly.4/5(5). Argument Against Nuclear Power Essay. Words 8 Pages.
Every Friday in Japan, the lawn of the office of the Prime Minister fills up with hundreds of Japanese citizens to protest in concern about the country’s ongoing nuclear program in spite of the meltdown of the Fukushima-Daichi power plant.
miles north of Tokyo, the meltdown. ("Nuclear Power in the World Today"). The question remains whether or not nuclear power is a viable option for the future of the world’s energy requirements especially in .
Nuclear Power And Nuclear Energy Essay Some are concerned about the exposure risks in transporting the waste from all over the country into a single location. Opponents suggest that until a technology for safe and permanent containment has been developed, it is irresponsible to continue nuclear production.
Nuclear power plants operate reliably and have a continuous output of initiativeblog.com plants do not generally face operations and maintenance problems. This is a contrast to other alternative energies which depend on the activity of the weather.