NEI Nuclear power disasters Another argument against the production of nuclear power is the risk of horrific nuclear explosions in power plants. Ina nuclear power plant in Europe suffered from an accident that has become known as one of the most devastating in regards to nuclear power activity in world history. Thirty-one people died and countless more were affected by exposure to radioactive substances released in the disaster.
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.Category: essays research papers; Title: Nuclear Power. My Account. Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power. Length: Need Writing Help? Nuclear power plants do not give off any form of combustion, they do release minute traces of radioactive particles.
Nuclear power plants operate reliably and have a continuous output of iridis-photo-restoration.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.
Low Operating cost Although nuclear power reactors are expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to operate. 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 . Nuclear power has been around since the first atomic plant was made operational on December 2, These plants are an efficient way of producing electricity.
Nuclear power has been around since the first atomic plant was made operational on December 2, These plants are an efficient way of producing electricity. They can power every electric item we use today, from TV’s to computers and every thing in between. When I hear someone say “Nuclear Power,” I don’t think of a form of power, which won’t run out as fast as oil and coal. I think of disaster, loss of money and death. Nuclear Power grew more than % in the ’s and % in the ’s. A reason against banning Nuclear power is that ‘it provides a lot of our energy sources’, and can be used to generate electricity and to power ships, so therefore we need nuclear power to continue doing these things, and if we were to get rid of it then we would only have to resort to finding another way of providing this energy, which is only going to cost even more money, on top of what we’d already be paying to .
They can power every electric item we use today, from TV’s to computers and every thing in between. Reasons against nuclear power Now that's about all the good stuff I can think of for nuclear power.
In my opinion, there are many more reasons to be against nuclear power than to be for it. Before I specifically look at why I don't think the two arguments supporting nuclear power are valid, I will look at other arguments against nuclear power.
Against nuclear power plants essay writer. 5 stars based on reviews iridis-photo-restoration.com Essay. The blind side essay on courage from to kill art personal response essay philippe roguin essays phylogenetischer artbegriff beispiel essay substance dualism essays toyota etios valco type essay 13th annual conference on vaccine research.