Science has become remarkably advanced over recent decades. Such advancements have provided us with better and improved living standards but there have also been negative consequences. Nuclear power is a prime example that has generated a lot of debate. Nuclear power is now considered by some to be the cleanest and most efficient way to power our lives. But what is nuclear energy exactly? According to National Geographic Education Online Encyclopedia, nuclear energy is the process of breaking down uranium. This is called fission. This energy binds subatomic particles together despite the magnetic energy. It provides the biggest source of energy ever known. This power will be used as the main energy source in the future; however, there have been events in the past which have created a debate about the pros and cons of using nuclear power. Nuclear power has a positive impact on the environment by preventing the effects of global warming; however, the risk of radiation emissions, security weaknesses, and unavoidable natural disasters, some argue are greater than the risks associated with using traditional fossil fuels.
The most significant risk of nuclear power is a release of radioactive waste. In the early 1960s, a fire at the Windscale Nuclear Power Plant caused the release of an enormous amount of radiation into the environment. After this fire, opposition to nuclear power has increased. The radiation emission presents a very long-term threat to the world. However, according to some researches, nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuel. While it may be true that nuclear power can provide us with cleaner and more efficient fuel, it is only a short-term solution which carries with it extremely dangerous long-term consequences. For example, after the Chernobyl disaster, only 47 people died as a direct result of the initial explosion. However, its effect will continue for 50 years after the accident, because the radiation that was released has caused cancers and other illnesses. There are some estimates that the final death toll will be in excess of 10 000 (Monk, 2008). Nowadays, the danger still exists. For example, in Turkey, there was a recent proposal to build a nuclear power plant on a fault line within a known earthquake region. This demonstrates that governments and experts fail to fully understand the risks involved and more inquiries are needed before we continue on this path.
Most opponents associate nuclear power with weapons. Brian Martin asserts that ‘Nuclear power and nuclear weapons grow out of the same source’ (2007). This means a nuclear power plant can produce an atomic bomb. Despite nuclear plant being for civil purposes such as producing electricity, some countries use them for military gain. If nuclear power is used for the armament industry, it will cause lots of danger to humanity. For example, the atomic bomb is the most powerful and long-term effective weapon ever created. According to the 2005 BBC report, 60 000-80 000 people died during the US nuclear bombing of Japan, but the death rate has increased because long-term radiation emission has caused sickness. More than 135 thousand people have died in total. Moreover, there is another serious security problem; terrorism. Nuclear plants are potential targets for terrorists. According to the 2001 FEMA report ‘Nuclear power…has the added risk in some cases of being very close to highly populated centers, they are prime candidates for strategic nuclear targeting or conventional bombing’ (as cited in PSR, 2006). A successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would cause irrevocable damage. This situation can be seen as a security weakness of a nation. Therefore, the country’s defense is weakened because of nuclear power.
Nuclear power does not present downfalls; it can also have a positive impact on the environment, more specifically releasing lower level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is cleaner and more eco-friendly than fossil fuel. Owing to fossil fuel consumption, air pollution increases. If this situation does not change, global warming will increase as a result. For instance, in the future, because of the consequences of global warming, hole in the ozone layer will increase; as a result, skin cancer will spread. Some experts believe nuclear power can prevent this problem. Martin also points out this current and the important issue. He mentions that nuclear power is a nonpolluting alternative energy source to fossil fuels, that’s why it can be a solution for global warming. (Martin, 2007) Some people advocate nuclear power as a possible solution to global warming which is the most serious environmental problem of this century.
However, when we look at the nuclear power effect on the environment, preventing global warming is a benefit and in contrast to the waste produced by nuclear power. Nowadays a nuclear plant’s waste is buried. Nuclear plant’s waste includes high-level radiation and its effect remains dangerous for a very long time. Still, there is no safe method to safely store this radioactive waste. In this way, waste is only hidden; it is not a real solution. Global warming is a very major problem these days and the nuclear power and nuclear plants could be the solution for this important issue. On the other hand, radioactive waste is a danger to the environment.
On balance, although nuclear power has a positive effect on the environment especially regarding global warming; there are some downfalls, for instance, the potential of being a target for terrorists and radioactive emission. Nuclear power plants can cause security problems if they become a target for terrorists or other enemies. Also, it is the source of hazardous by-product, for example, an atomic bomb which caused the biggest trouble at past (its effect still continues). In addition, it is feasible that accidents can occur, causing the emission of radiation, this will cause lots of dangerous illnesses like cancer. Brian believes that proponents emphasize ‘one narrow feature’, global warming, and advocate the nuclear plant by ignoring everything else. (Martin, 2007) As a result, nuclear power’ disadvantages outweigh its advantages.
References
BBC (2005). Fact File: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml
Martin, M. B., (2007). Opposing nuclear power: past and present. Social Alternatives. 26 (2), pp.43-47.
Monk, M. P., (2008). Confusion and logic in the Nuclear Power Debate. Institute of Public Affairs Australia., pp.9-11.
National Geographic Education (). Nuclear Energy. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/nuclear-energy/?ar_a=1.
PSR, (2006). Nuclear Power and The Terrorist Threat, pp.1.
(2013)
Sinem Atılgan Uşaklı 