Nuclear Energy Benefits Debate: Safe or Not?
Jun 29
- Nuclear energy benefits may seem like a step towards a better energy future but they are not in reality
- Radioactive waste can carry risks for centuries or longer, and using this material can not be done in a completely safe manner
- The potential for weapon use and environmental damage outweighs any nuclear energy benefits
No matter what nuclear energy benefits these power plants may offer, the drawbacks are too enormous to even consider nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuel use. One of the biggest threats to safety when it comes to this type of power generation is the weapons of mass destruction potential that nuclear waste has. Terrorists and third world dictators pose the biggest threats, because these groups could sneak in and take over the nuclear reactors, with the potential for widespread contamination, destruction, and death. Surprise inspections at these power plants have turned up security problems time and time again. When the consequences of a mistake or intentional misuse could affect thousands or millions of people, and wide areas of the world if not the entire planet, these risks greatly outweigh any nuclear energy benefits that may be had. There are too many ways that this type of energy generation could be used to damage the environment and the population of the earth, as well as destroy the earth. There are many other alternative renewable energy sources that can be utilized, which do not carry these very serious risks and dangers. Trying to generate power by taking advantage of nuclear energy benefits would put everyone in the world at risk. It is not possible to completely secure these facilities and prevent any mistakes from being made. Fossil fuel dependence must be eliminated, but not at the high risks that nuclear power generation poses. The future of power may be a number of different alternative sources, but nuclear power does not play a role because it is not safe or friendly to the environment.
Related Posts
- What is Hydrokinetic Power?
- Oil and Gas Crisis - Can It Be Averted?
- Underwater energy sources: Tapping into nature’s hidden power
- What are the Least Polluted US Cities?
- How are Biomass Boilers used in Indiana Prisons?
3 Responses to “Nuclear Energy Benefits Debate: Safe or Not?”
You Can Use This Form to Leave Your Feedback or Ask Additional Question
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wonderfully engaging article that is right to the point with a lot of great suggestions.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:04 amYou describe this as a debate, but it isn’t a debate at all. It merely is a recitation of anti-nuke misrepresentations, without any attribution. For facts about nuclear energy, please look at “The Case for Nuclear Energy”. Then you can have a real debate.
I can respect your support of renewable energy. In truth, it will take all the renewable energy we can manage, all the nuclear plants we can build, and more conservation than anyone wants to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. To spread misinformation about nuclear energy because you see it as a competitor against your favorite energy sources is misguided.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pmThe threat from a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant is far less than scores of other targets.
You have to get over those horrible cold war movies. Radiation is not some mystical dark magic that kills anyone it comes in contact with, it is a dose related phenomenon. Even with Chernobyl, for instance, only a few dozen deaths were proven from the contamination, despite years and years of environmentalists trying to add every cancer death they possibly could to the total.
The nuclear threat, like the terrorist threat, is overblown by people that demand your obedience. All you need to free yourself is to apply evidenced based thinking to issues that you are told never to do so with. One of those things is the dangers of radioactive contamination.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm