So, after the issues currently going on in Japan, I ask you: what's wrong with nuclear power?
Found a couple articles here for nuclear energy, and a few articles against. Should we engage in the pursuit of nuclear energy, even knowing that sometimes, natural disasters can cause merry hob with our power plants?
How much more dangerous is nuclear energy compared to coal? If we're going to have an energy source that pollutes, which one do you want? Is there another answer, or is there truly no way to come up with "clean" energy?
Here are the articles:
1. Bernard Cohen's Minimum Opus in defense of nuclear energy: Find it HERE.
2. An interesting article, also by Cohen, about the "radiation phobia". Read it HERE.
3. This article argues that BP's spill last year is actually an argument AGAINST nuclear power. Interesting. Read it HERE.
4. This article, on BBC.com, is the most recent report on Japan's crisis. Read it HERE.
5. This is the article that got me thinking about it -- from the NYT. Read it HERE.
Read and respond to the articles. If you have any further questions about nuclear energy, look them up. Otherwise, it's 300-500 words, as usual.
MP
Bernard C Cohen seemed to have the most compelling argument. With consideration of his articles it would be hard for anyone to go against Nuclear power. It is so much safer and cleaner than energy produced by coal. The only reason why people are afraid of nuclear power is because it contains the word nuclear in it. Thanks to the media 80% of people expect the plant to just spontaneously combust like a nuclear bomb. There’s a reason why journalists are journalists. They aren’t smart enough to understand the actual science involved in nuclear energy so they just create the most compelling story to get the biggest reaction out of the readers. Because they have scared the crap out of the majority of gullible people in the country it is hard to convince them that nuclear power is actually a better source of energy. Even when proven facts show otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWith everyone so sensitive about the environment nuclear power should definitely be more than 20% of our power source. I understand that not every power plant should be converted because of the expense to do that but it should be the majority of our power. It would solve so many problems. No more oiled covered seals, black smoke filling the ozone and no more dangerous mining that destroys the land and kills people. There are virtually no cons to nuclear power. The only harmful thing is the meltdowns that rarely occur and ever since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island the engineers have perfected how to contain the radiation. Even when radiation does leak out like in Japan it really isn’t as much as journalists make it out to be. For example BBC.com says that there is 6500 times the legal amount in the environment right now. How much is the legal radiation? My guess is that it’s the amount used in X-rays which is so small that even when multiplying it by 6500 it still is almost negligible and you would have to have extreme prolonged exposure. When it does reach ocean waters it will get so diluted in the water that it will have absolutely no effect unlike when oil is carelessly spilled by BP.
Again journalists are just trying to make a better story for the press. Without these journalists it would be very likely that all our power would be nuclear. But if were to switch to nuclear power the news would have nothing to report. There would be no global warming, no miners trapped in mines, no oiled covered seagulls and no Middle East conflict over oil. The world would almost be perfect and a perfect world isn’t very easy to sell. So journalist exaggerate the only flaw of Nuclear power saying that every city that has nuclear power plants will end up like Hiroshima with degenerate babies and thousands dead. When in reality there is so much warning to a nuclear meltdown that pretty much no one will be harmed.
In nature there is always the law that when you get something out of it, it has another effect in a different way somehow. If we want energy to power our homes and businesses, we are going to have to deal with the fact that we can never achieve perfect. Nature just doesn’t allow it. We can always strive to make it better on the other hand. Tests are showing the facts that nuclear power is cleaner then coal. Quite frankly I don’t feel like that government would push for so many nuclear power plants if they were far more unsafe then coal burning. Coal burning is a dirty pollutant where as nuclear power is contained. We can also do research on alternative ways of making energy like wind turbines and water turbines. But there are also risks with those as well. There has only been one incidence of a devastating nuclear reactor failure and that was in Chernobyl in Ukraine. I killed many and deformed even more. But from these mistakes we learn how to avoid them and have been successful since. I feel that whenever there is a risk, there is always going to be the people out there that make a big fuss about it just to complain. I’m sure that if you took away their electricity coming from those reactors, they would be upset and regret them not being there. There is always going to be risks of dying everywhere you go. I feel like a perfect, non polluting world is impossible to achieve. When it comes to the incident in Japan, its something that could not be helped. It was not due to human error, but because of nature. They are doing the best that they can to clean up the sight and allow the people to return home. It’s just something that happens once in a blue moon, and we have to be prepared for it. We can’t expect things to always be perfect, we just don’t live in that kind of world. I say keep on building new reactors and at the same time make them as safe as possible.
ReplyDeleteWell the Nuclear Power article convinced me that it is the safest source of energy. Burning coal can allow you to live 13 days longer? Really? That sounds cool, I guess. This article makes Nuclear Power seem like the safest way for energy and it also has a lot of statistics that say burning coal is less harmful, well they say "many times less harmful." Cohen’s next article about radiation phobia, he’s saying how Nuclear Power is the most dangerous? I’m confused now! This article says that 10,000 people die a year because of the radiation! This unbelievable. I’m really not sure what I consider safe reading these. The BP spill was horrible, I can remember because I was in Ft. Lauderdale Florida and there were protesters outside of BP with signs of the oil spill, and there was even a guy dressed in a black trash bag signifying oil. This article is on Nuclear Powers side too, but the oil spill made it go wrong. I’m still not sure what source of energy is safer. WOW! Japan is the most expensive disaster in history! That is ridiculous! But Japan was definitely a tragedy! My heart goes out to them! It’s so scary to think bout how many people died because of the radiation and the same amount unaccounted for? Wow. I believe this tragedy hurt the energy source in the world extremely. Too much radiation is not good at all. New Nuclear Plants are probably needed but what is it doing to our atmosphere? It’s hurting it..I’m still confused because I don’t know if I should believe Nuclear Power is good source of energy or a Bad source.
ReplyDeleteUmm, am i supposted to really be weighting which is a better energy source, coal or nuclear power? I kinda feel ugh..underqualified for this task. I mean i read these articles, they're all making some good points, but honestly this is one of those topics that i dont even appraoch with a 10 foot stick because i know whatever conclusion i reach is gonna be wrong, lack any real merit, and if anyone who acutally knew what they were talking about heard me say whatever it is that i did say, theyd say that was the dumbest thing i ever heard. see what im saying...
ReplyDeleteHere's what i do know. the production of any forms of energy that we use today, be it gas/electric/coal/nuclear/chi/whatever they all come at the expense of creating some sort of pollution. What i got from those articles was that people can bicker and nag and throw facts at each other and use all the statistic, bar graphs, and group presentations in the world but in the end its all really the same. Any energy we use is coming at the cost of pollution. Bottom line, no alternative, accept this and move on.
So where was i going with all this? Dont know, but ill finish this up by offering up a plea to whoever is making the decision on what fuel to use.
Dr Guy who picks what fuel source the world is officially going to back (Ill call him Ted Rockefeller- as I assume this man is in-fact Ted Turner coordinating America's next energy fiscal market quarterly with a Séance induced spirit of John D. Rockefeller---- if you dont know who this guy is wikipedia him immediately. This guy ran U.S. Oil-a company that literally monopolized the oil industry making John D. Rockefeller one rich son of a bitch. Check it out, in 1937 in the middle of the GReat Depression Rockefeller was worth $1.5 billion, which with todays inflation would put his networth somewhere around $700 billion dollars. By comparision the richest man currently living, Carlos Slim, is worth a mere $75 billion-John D. Rockefeller could buy the richest man in the world almost 10 times over.....I Really Felt all that was necessary, truly truly necessary.)
Anyway, Ted Turner as you probably get to make this call all i can ask is please, whatever fuel you go with, try not fucking up the earth to bad. Again, I dont know shit about fuel so dont start attacking me with hazmat suits for not backing nuclear power or stoning me with coal nuggets for not joining the club, and for god sacks dont tell hank hill i'm not going along with propane,
Really though, in the end the goal should be finding some way of balancing our need for energy with the limits and capabilities of our planet, work with this planet rather than working this planet... or you know we could always just pick this place clean and move on to mars, wouldnt mean much to me, I've always felt polar bears and ozone were overrated anyway.
When considering the rough economic climate that today’s society is dealing with, I think it is the responsibility of the powers that be to explore all cost effective methods of safely providing energy. Bernard Cohen’s article Nuclear Power is the Safest Choice, illustrates the power that mass media has in dictating public opinion. Media outlets never report that coal burning, which is the most prominent source of our energy, is actually more harmful than nuclear power. Only negative connotations are tied in when media covers nuclear energy. I found it quite interesting when Cohen related the possible dangers of using alternative sources for energy to people with various addiction or health complications. The dangers of nuclear power are so microscopic that they would barely go noticed in today’s day and age. It makes one think why media does not report these facts to the masses.
ReplyDeleteIn Mark Gimein’s MSNBC article, one quote in particular stood out to me. Regarding the view of nuclear energy as a primary source of power, Gimein states “But for all the attractions of nuclear, there remains the looming question of what happens if things go wrong. Nuclear power suffers from what you can think of as a paradox of catastrophe: The worst-case scenario is so terrible that we are actually less able to quantify it and consider its effects than we are with other potential disasters. It is my opinion that the worst case scenario, Gimein writes about, is really the only scenario that media outlets provide to the public. You can’t tell me that in today’s day and age, with today’s economic struggles that the general public would not be in favor of doing anything reasonably possible to make thins financial easier on themselves. Especially when presented with ALL facts.
In Cohen’s second essay Ignorance About Nuclear Power is Killing Us, it really hit home when he discussed the hundreds of millions of dollar that could be saved, if not for irresponsible coverage by the media. Prior to doing any research on the subject, I too was somewhat fearful about the damages that could be caused by nuclear power. However, as Cohen states, the language and manner in which the topic is reported by media outlets can easily sway public opinion, even without a great deal of knowledge on the subject. When the media uses such inflammatory language as “lethal radioactivity” and “deadly radiation”, they do not paint the most clear illustration and do not give the public any sort of perspective as to the likelihood if a nuclear disaster actually occurring. You would think that a responsible journalist would want to give a more clear definition on the subject matter at hand. In regard to radiation, however, that is obviously not the case.
I have to agree with Cohen, we as the American public are misinformed and scared of the word “Nuclear”. After reading all the articles I really cant see what the problem is. Nuclear is drfinatly one of the cleanest forms of energy we have and unlike wind it can generate power output equal to coal. Everyone points to the Three Mile Island incident but as Cohen says, there was never really a crisis, the fail-safes worked just as they were supposed to and no one was injured. Chernobyl is also a point that critics like to bring up however we have to remember that incident happened in the Eastern block country of Ukraine that wasn’t managed well and probably should not have had a nuclear reactor. We also need to look at the U.S. Navy who has been operating a large number of reactors in very small spaces such as ships and submarines with almost no incidents. The people behind the operation of nuclear power plants are some of the brightest minds in the world and the plants are made to very exacting safety specifications with many fail-safes and backups.
ReplyDeleteAs we can see in Japan, natural disasters can cause a problem for power plants but it doesn’t seem that the failing reactor in Japan is much worse than what recently happened in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP oil spill. Obviously there are dangers but there were plans to evacuate and no one as far as Ive read has been injured from the radiation. The company also seems to have a clear plan to clean up the mess whereas in the BP incident everyone just kind of stood around and stared at the oil pumping into the water.
After everything I’ve read I really cant see the harm in Nuclear power, its by-product is steam and where is the harm in that? I would much rather breathe steam than the carbon monoxide being pumped out by all the coal plants around the country. I really hope that there is a resurgence in nuclear plant construction, I would love for my electric bill to drop!!
Don’t let the Fukushima incident scare you. Respect the power of the Atom and all will be well.
ReplyDeleteI will advocate nuclear power until the day I die, whether from radiation or not, or until we learn to harness dark matter. Probably before I die. I believe nuclear power is definitely the fuel source of the future. While not a Professor Emeritus in atomic energy, I do have knowledge in the usage of fissile material as a fuel source, as well as the experimental, and difficult to contain, fusion reactors (You think I spent all those days pulling guard duty doing nothing?). Nuclear fission reactors are quite safe……until human error coupled with inadequate storage and containment methods make it unsafe.
Does anyone remember the Chernobyl disaster? Mark Gimein does. It did happen a month before I was born, but I remember studying about it. It is the perfect example of handing nuclear power while ill-equipped. Reactor number 4 experienced intense power surges due to a lack of oversight during a routine exercise and two explosions followed, blowing of the 2000 ton concrete cap and spewing radioactive fuel into the night sky. The Soviet Union did not inform the nearby population, or the world for that matter, about the incident until a few days later. The nearby city of Pripyet, Ukraine has remained uninhabited to this day.
Don’t let that scare you though. Fission reactors have come an extremely long way since then, as you can see, the Fukushima reactor only leaked as a result of an 8.9/9 earthquake. Hardly the fault of the power plant. Nuclear power is safe when it can be reliably contained and controlled. But when human error or natural disasters come into play, anyone with an intro to physics course can tell you that the gamma radiation will be disastrous to any soft tissue organism (an isotope of Caesium, Caesium-137 was the culprit in Chernobyl). Despite this side effect, nuclear power remains one of the most viable producers of electricity.
Cohen, Ph.D, who lectures on nuclear technology, is absolutely right. The fear that surrounds the use of atomic energy is unwarranted. Nuclear power has such incredible potential, (especially fusion), but that potential will never be realized as long as the public is horrified with tales of the apocalypse.
Also, I want to clarify that Dr. Cohen’s article says that coal will shorten, not lengthen, your lifespan by 13 days.
Nuclear power would be a better solution to our energy crisis because the alternative sources are depleting at a rapid rate. Although some may argue that nuclear power is dangerous, which it may be, there are dangers involved in the production of other energy sources such as coal and oil. Nuclear power can be a completely safe alternative as long as the plants are built in sound locations; Japan is located in the Ring of Fire, surrounded by fault lines so there is a large amount of seismic activity occurring around the country, so issues were bound to occur. Having the plants built in more sound locations where natural disasters are less likely to occur and with proper oversight over the plant, the risks of radiation leaking and effecting the environment can be minimized. Japan is an extreme example of what can go wrong with a nuclear plant, since the reactors began melting down due to the lack of power to supply coolant to its core, if the plants were designed correctly there should have been backup generators located nearby in case of a power outage. Then they began using sea water to try and cool the reactor which led to radio-active water seeping into the ground and contaminating the surrounding environment. When nuclear plants are located in stable settings, for example Perry Power Plant, the risks of nuclear disaster are small enough that the efficiency of this power source greatly out way the risks. This may be the cleanest power source that we can use until we can devise a means of harnessing the power of fusion.
ReplyDeleteI do not know very much about nuclear energy so I don’t think I could accurately decide if it is a worthwhile venture without researching it in depth. Before reading the articles I thought when I was don’t I would have an understanding about how nuclear energy worked and some of the facts of why it is good or bad. All of these articles minus the NYT and the one about Japan’s current situation were just statistics and “facts” about why or why not nuclear energy is safe. In both of Cohen’s articles I would have liked to see more information on why it is safer than coal and what makes them both dangerous rather than to know that driving a small car could make me live 50 days less. Maybe Cohen thought that whoever was reading his articles had the knowledge and would trust his research on those surveys. I also noticed he only gave what seemed like one particular set of data. Maybe it was a compilation of data but either way it is not transparent or in depth enough to form any kind of opinion on. My biggest gripe is his article about the myth of radiation phobia; he speaks nothing on why it is safe just he just says that it is safe and that nothing else is, sounds a little too persuasive. As far the BP spill argument goes, I think it is an interesting argument for sure but, you can’t live life expecting the worst to happen all the time. He also talks about how they were rushing to produce oil. Yes we are rushing to produce energy but none of these nuclear reactor companies want to risk their business and having a catastrophe that they can control happen. A natural catastrophe would probably the more plausible outcome to a “low probability, high cost event”, I would just hope they choose an area away from likely chances of disasters that they can withstand. The article about the current situation in Japan is just a news update, but I have found a little issue with the fact they say how many deaths there were leading one to think about from the nuclear reactor but that number was probably also with the deaths from the disaster. I know this is not what this blog was supposed to be about but what I got from the reading is that some people really believe in nuclear energy and some do not and I feel like most of these opinions are similar to the ones with issues such as abortion.
ReplyDeleteStuff like this isn't my forte, um doesn't catch my attention even if it is important buttttt if it was a life or death situation I would say that they always want to tell us something is dangerous or bad for us but they never let us truly know why. I just feel like Cohen tried to feed us information without really saying anything just went in circles, stated some convincing information and just thought majority of the uneduacated would of went with what he had to say without any proof or facts more to say. I just think situation in this world that has happened is unfortunate but disasters are bond to happen. I honestly don't know much about stuff like this and I don't want to pretend like I do I just think the world is all talk at time and everyone sits around saying what they think should be done or what others should do but they dont actually do it or stand up for it themselves.
ReplyDeleteI am not a huge fan of nuclear power what so ever. Coal has been working just fine and they are even working on coming out with clean coal. I don't understand why we want to end up like Japan. The radioactivity is even starting to reach us in the U.S! That is a serious issue. Now a days a lot of natural disaster seem to be happening, mainly because of global warming and cooling. (Yes I know a lot of people don't believe in this but I guess I will have the last laugh when the the arctic tundra starts to melt into the ocean causing sea levels to rise and flooding the rest of our lovely world. Oh and also global cooling is going on so i suspect all of Mexico will be one big ice block.) If we have these nuclear power plants running while everything is going on, it can have horrible damage on us. Most likely anyone who is pregnant in or around Japan will end up having some type of problem with their baby. Why would we want to risk the future of our race by starting down the road of nuclear power. Also many people believe it is cleaner for the air well guess what? So are electric cars, recycle solid municipal waste instead of incinerating it and stopping the use of things as simple as hair spray! Why don't we change the little things we do everyday before we change something this big and global. Heck there are even three types of electric cars out already! Try changing yourself and the amount of pollution you put out into the world before changing a system we have been reliant on for energy and jobs for years now.
ReplyDeleteWith any risks that come with nuclear power, I believe that it is a very reliable source of energy and that we should embrace it and perfect the creation of nuclear energy for future generations because a lot of power can be made out of little nuclear material. I don't find anything wrong with nuclear power as long as it is being handled by professionals in a closed safe environment then I think nuclear power is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of nuclear waste may be a challenging task but there are ways of getting around it and making it environmentally safe. Nuclear energy and coal are both dangerous. Being a coal miner is a life threatening job. Also extracting fossil fuels from the ground can be difficult depending on the environment. Many lives throughout the past have been lost due to the extraction of fossil fuels and other kinds of natural resources of energy.
Nuclear power plants are safer if they are inside a closed and controlled environment. The only reason the nuclear reactor in Japan leaked was because of the enormous earthquake. I think that if a nuclear power plant has the right technology in both creating energy and disposing of the nuclear waste it creates then it can be used as a primary energy source and is better than fossil fuels.
Alternative energy sources are available, but they are not enough to be used as a primary source. Wind power, solar power, and water power is a good source of energy for small cities that do not require as much power as major cities do. Wind mills are a great way to give power to small towns and cities.
But in the end, given all the energy sources we can use in today’s world in my eyes I still think nuclear energy is the best and can only get better. By the time the earth’s natural resources have fun out(which is an estimated 50-70 years) nuclear power plants will be perfected.
I think that we can indeed come up with a source of truly “clean” energy, but I doubt it will actually be accomplished any time soon. I believe that it is major companies that are holding the world back when it comes down to finding a completely reliable energy source. When there finally comes a time where the world can remove its dependence from oil, coal, and nuclear power there's going to be an uproar. It's somewhat of a double standard of sorts. The world (or primarily the United States, rather) wants to find a better source of energy, but it also likes the money that the other companies bring in.
ReplyDeleteI don't really like the idea of using either coal or nuclear power, but if I absolutely had to choose one over the other I think I would choose nuclear. I just wish that there was some way to make it impossible for the reactors to melt down, which is really the only risk, but it is also extremely hazardous. I just want there to be as little air pollution as possible. I'm not an environmentalist, nor do I pay close attention to the progress of green sciences or anything like that, but I still want clean air and a healthy living environment. I like being able to see the sky, when other countries who rely on coal (such as China) cannot.
I find it scary that we can't develop a source of energy that doesn't have multiple health risks in the long run, be it from possible radiation, or inhaling pollution from coal. I hate that in reality, we have to look at long lists of health hazards, and choose whichever method that has the shortest list. I still feel, that nuclear is the way we should go when it comes down to choosing one over the other. There have been two major accidents, Chernobyl and the plant in Fukushima Japan, and the one in Japan was cause by a major natural disaster, not a fault in the plant.