1. Intro
The usage of nuclear power has created one of the most controversial issues that humanity can’t ignore in recent years. Today’s environmental movements stand for the idea that our planet Earth have been decaying due to the urbanization considered to be one of the fastest spreading disease of civilization. On the other hand, many science and engineer organizations state that the fear of the destructive effect of nuclear power and radioactive contamination is greatly exaggerated to the stereotyped perception of the problem. In this essay we will refer to the three articles related to the nuclear power issue and find out what arguments are provided for both points of view and where the truth lies.
2. Nuclear power as a problem
Let’s firstly examine the main ideas of anti-nuclear activists because they tend to be more popularized among society. Such organizations as Greenpeace, Friends of Earth, Green Party promote their ideas through the mass media encouraging people to save the planet by being “closer to nature”. We can’t deny the fact that Greens have done a lot towards their purpose. They have been developing and implementing the newest planet-friendly technologies that are mainly aimed at reducing the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere to prevent global warming, which is thought to be the biggest threaten to the environment nowadays. One of the most effective ways of popularizing the idea of saving Earth is distribution of warning articles revealing the main hazards for civilization and agitating society to get rid of these hazards in all aspects of life.
As far as nuclear energy is considered to be among the greatest threaten to our planet, an article “Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination” by the Nils-Axel Mörner provide the facts proving the disastrous consequences that may be caused by nuclear power plants and the sector in general. It assesses the risks of radioactive contamination at uranium mining and fuel production (“In order to obtain 1 ton of reactor fuel, about 2600 tons of uranium ore have to be quarried, leaving huge sores in nature" (Mörner 177) ) , the accidents of nuclear power plants such as the Chalk River, Kyshtym, Harrisburg and Chernobyl accidents and the Fukushima accident in 2011. It also reveals the problem of the handling of the high-level nuclear. Author presented the Swedish-Finnish concept of encapsulating waste in cupper canister and placing them in drill-holes in the crystalline bedrock, with all its benefits and drawbacks.
However, the perception of this article can seem to be doubly. On the one hand, author is strongly against the usage of nuclear power because of the researched statistics about deaths caused by power plant accidents, the amount of obtained fuel and the effectiveness in contrast to other sources of power.
“Today’s operation of nuclear power includes far too high risks of disastrous contamination. . . . The “cost & benefit” balanced seems strongly tilted over to the “far too costly side”.” (Mörner 179)
On the other hand, the article doesn’t deny the fact about continuing production and usage of the nuclear power, though emphasizing on the main drawbacks like the unsafe conditions and high risks for radioactive contamination. However, the main point of the article is the suggestion of improving the nuclear waste handling for situation not to become worse.
In this way we can make a conclusion that the “Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination” article is not a part of the aggressive and unreasoned anti-nuclear campaign shouting the mottos like “Shut them down, don’t make me frown”, but it is a research paper which is printed for society to know the truth and predictions for future, though only from the negative point of view.
3. Nuclear power as a solution
Continuing our research we see that the other side of the coin also has many persuasive arguments and facts. Many scientists believe that scary article titles and terrifying statistics related to the nuclear power plant accidents are just unfairly popularized myths and the Greens just can’t provide thorough analysis of the situation. “These individuals are only willing to accept virtually unattainable levels of safety-any risk, however limited or unlikely, is seen as an unacceptable danger to the Earth environment. Such opinions should be rejected.” (MacAvoy 232).
Mark Lynas in his article “Why greens must learn to love nuclear power” listed just facts and numbers proving that the common attitude to the nuclear power usage is much more stereotyped than we think.
This article refuted the major part of the ideas propagated by the environmental organizations. Nuclear power turned out to be as safe as wind power and even safer than other technologies (according to the technique based on the measurement of deaths per gigawatt-year). Moreover, the International Energy Agency proved that nuclear power is the cheapest option among all power sources. Finally, what seems to be the most unbelievable statement in terms of the Greens – nuclear power may rather mitigate global warming, than provoke it (“The world's 442 operating nuclear reactors, which produce 16 per cent of global electricity, save 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year compared to coal, according to the IPCC” (Lynas 2) ). Also, as well as the author of the previously analyzed anti-nuclear article, Mark Lynas in his work emphasizes the importance of the improved radioactive waste handling? Yet he considered this problem from another perspective – through the new generation of nuclear plants, which will burn up existing waste stockpiles. As Tom Blees, whom the idea was, stated: “Thus we have a prodigious supply of free fuel that is actually even better than free, for it is material that we are quite desperate to get rid of” (Lynas 3). Moreover, radioactive waste of the new generation of power plants will have much shorter half-lives, becoming twice less dangerous.
4. Conclusion
Works cited
Mörner, Nils-Axel. "Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination." Journal of Environmental
Protection JEP 05.03 (2014): 175-80. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
Lynas, Mark. "Why Greens Must Learn to Love Nuclear Powe." (2008). Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
Joseph J. MacAvoy. “Nuclear Space and the Earth Environment: The Benefits, Dangers, and
Legality of Nuclear Power and Propulsion in Outer Space.” 29 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 191 (2004). Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
