Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of radiation essay
Effects of nuclear power
Effects of nuclear power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of radiation essay
The central argument of the film was not explicit, meaning there were a couple arguments that linked together. The main argument was that nuclear power is not as terrifying of an energy source as it is perceived to be. Many of the people interviewed in the film were very against nuclear power, however, once they saw and analyzed the facts their view quickly changed. The secondary argument, which was made at the end of the documentary, was that the next generation will understand the environmental change and will put nuclear in the correct context. They will understand that nuclear energy is a crucial source of energy for the future. This argument is effective mostly due to the fact that the film used environmentalists who were previously against …show more content…
The film touched on the sheer amount of waste that was produced and how the waste was being stored. Specifically, they mentioned that all the fuel rods that have been disposed of since the first nuclear power plant began in the United States, would only fill up a football filled if stacked three meters high. In continuation of the talk about the amount of waste being produced, the documentary talked about this waste can and will be used by the fourth generation of reactors as a source of fuel. The storage of the waste did not provide any interesting fact to help sway the argument besides the standard fact that the waste containers are stored near the plants and are monitored to ensure that no radiation is leaking from the …show more content…
With that being said, there are always a few crucial components that are going to be missing from a film. In particular, it was stated in the film that there has not been a single death from the construction of commercial nuclear energy in the United States. Even though this may be true, it only stated commercial nuclear energy so it does not account for potential deaths in military energy plants. Additionally, we are all bathed in radioactivity, so radiation is not dangerous in an everyday sense. The problem I have with this statement is that an exact number of the amount of radiation we take in every day was not given in this film. I understand that it is different amounts in different areas in the world and increases with altitude, however, we should have an exact number available. It was also said that the spent fuel is reused again and again until the end of plant life. Even though the spent fuel is reused many times, it is only used until it is still fissionable and once it is not fissionable it becomes waste so it is never completely used. Lastly, Yucca mountain was an experiment to store nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years. The problem with this experiment is that we do not know what the future will be like that far away and we do not want people in the future to
The engineers in Visit Sunny Chernobyl created a new frontier past the safety zone because they want to test the limits of the reactor. What the scientists didn’t account for is that fact that the reactors already had the potential of a dangerous chain reaction. (Blackwell 6) Consequently, their boundary destroying led to catastrophic consequences and the total annihilation of a land area because of massive radiation. Blackwell thought Chernobyl was so horrific he expressed that no one should visit without a “working understanding of radiation and how it’s measured” (Blackwell 7). These are some horrific consequences that followed from surpassing the
The article “Nuclear Waste” is an interesting perspective from Richard Muller. Muller is a very credited author and he speaks his mind about the situation where people are trying to figure out how to deal with nuclear waste around the U.S. There are many proposed ideas but Muller has a very simple and straight forward idea that he believes is the ideal decision. The essay he wrote can be interpreted in different ways but his motive for writing is very clear. Muller’s background is quite impressive because he is highly credited. When reading Muller’s essay, you notice points that supports his argument and truth about the situation around nuclear power.
One of the most talked about opposition toward nuclear fission is the radioactive waste it produces. A radioactive waste is what is left behind after using a reactor to make electricity. There are two levels of waste, low and high, but both are regulated by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. High level waste is made up of fuel that’s been used directly in the reactor that is highly radioactive but can still be disposed. Low level waste is the contaminated items that have been exposed to radiation. The nuclear wastes are then stored in a safe and secure location with different types of methods such as wet storage, dry storage, and away from reactor storage. Wet storage is the main method of disposing the waste because it is the
This is done to make sure the risk of meltdown is minimized. The nuclear waste is so toxic that every precaution is taken to make sure of is disposed of safely to keep it from poisoning the environment. In an article titled 11 Facts about Nuclear Energy we find out that, “Every 18 to 24 months a power plant must shut down to remove its spent uranium fuel.” Nuclear Power plants can have a meltdown that releases extremely toxic waste into the environment. The reason some people are opposed to nuclear power plants, some estimates say that there is a 50% chance of a meltdown in a U.S. reactor in the next 20 years (“55 Interesting Facts about. Nuclear Energy”). These meltdowns can be small or large, both of them take a lot of money and time. The Three Mile Island disaster alone took 975 million dollars and 14 years to clean up (“55 Interesting Facts about. Nuclear
Included in the release were radioactive elements with a half-life of 16 million years. Yet, we humans cannot defend ourselves from such radiation because we are biologically not fortified to do so.... ... middle of paper ... ...
In addition to the potential dangers of accidents in generating stations, nuclear waste is a continuing problem that is growing exponentially. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for about 600 years and disposing these wastes or storing them is an immense problem. Everyone wants the energy generated by power plants, but no one wants to take responsibility for the waste. Thus far, it is stored deep in the earth, but these storage areas are potentially dangerous and will eventually run out. Some have suggested sending the waste into space, but no one is sure of the repercussions.
Nuclear power has no place in having a safe, clean, sustainable future. Today, the manufacturing of nuclear power plants has become a critical topic throughout the world that many strongly believe should be stopped. Nuclear Power is not safe anywhere in the world nor is it environmentally friendly. Nuclear power plants are truly something that could cause mass destruction in the world and has the potential to wipe out a whole country with ease. Despite proponents’ that claim that nuclear power is safe, there is a history that proves otherwise and marks a number of disasters caused by nuclear power plants.
...ishing. While it makes clear that changes need to be made politically, this is a film meant to appeal to the environmentally concerned citizen. The film-like elements, while distracting to those watching the film with analytical intent, would most likely evade the average viewer. Such thematic elements help to increase viewer engagement, already lacking in environmental films, as becomes significantly easier to watch. Rupert Murray created a film not to be picked apart by critics, but to serve as conversational material between average citizens. He takes steps to ensure that viewers are given simple directives and memorable arguing points, such as repeating images of the MSC sustainable logo. While the statistics may have be victim to claims of arbitrariness, it is easy to visualize an individual at a party asking if others have heard that seafood will end in 2048.
...nce World War II to the present day, the technology of nuclear power has increased significantly in terms of energy output and safety. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is far superior to its counterpart fossil fuel and renewable energy. Compared to fossil fuels, tiny amounts of fuel used by nuclear reactors is equivalent to a large sum of coal. This is a no brainer. Why mine a ton of coal when a little uranium can be used to gain the same amount of energy? Not only is it efficient, it’s safe to use. Used fuel is packed away in storage safely, so there isn’t any chance of radiation leaking out. In the present day, nuclear power incidents haven’t been occurring lately. Advancements in technology and equipment used have made nuclear energy a very reliable and safe source of energy. With today’s energy needs, nuclear power has the ability to keep up in the race.
In conclusion, there are different opinions on the issue of the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is only one of many energy options. Nuclear power can decrease pollution to the environment because it does not produce harming gases like other plants do. However, there are also drawbacks that can influences human health by emitting radioactive substances. Thus, all parties should make a deeper research and analysis based on the argument to decide the use of nuclear energy as a safe and cost effective source of energy.
“Face it. Nukes are the most climate-friendly industrial-scale form of energy” (Power, Reiss, Pearlstein, 655). This statement is what I’m trying to promote through my argument. It also ties Inconvenient Truths: 10 Green Heresies by Matt Powers, Spencer Reiss, and Jonanna Pearlstein and Nuclear Power is Best Energy Source: Potchef Stroom together by bring out the main point all authors are trying to get across. Global warming has been a big concern for years now and one of the biggest causes for it, is the burning of fossil fuels to get energy. People that live in the United States of America use a huge amount of energy in their daily lives and that amount continues to grow with our population growing with it. My purpose of this piece is to persuade people to switch to nuclear power for a cleaner energy source because it’s the cleanest energy source.
Specific purpose: To persuade the audience that nuclear power is the best source of energy today.
To make the claim that the movie is inferior to others it would have been helpful for the critic to possibly include statistics about the movie and overall representation of it by other people but even then that is opinionated. There is far and few examples of factual information and one of them is that this film was produced to raise awareness about global warming. A scene thrown away with the statement “irrelevant” by the critic shows the main character buying solar panels for his house, this directly connects with the subtopic of a healthy earth that the film presents that the critic did not fully touch on but could have been interesting to hear the information and opinion about. Later on the critic shows the viewer the first clip of the movie that birds appear in it. “They look like crap” he declared, transitioning into another scene of the movie then stating “after that extremely cheesy scene” showing that he believed the visuals looked awful.
The greatest disadvantages of nuclear energy are the risks posed to mankind and the environment by radioactive materials. ‘On average a nuclear plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel cla...
Nuclear power is a very interesting yet controversial subject. One of the main benefits of nuclear power is the electricity produced by nuclear power plants. These plants produce one-fifth of the electricity used in the United States, providing more electricity than other sources like solar and wind. It is claimed that of all of the energy sources available, nuclear energy probably has the lowest impact on the environment, because nuclear power plants do not release harmful gases that can threaten the air, land, water or cause impact on global warming. So, if the energy produced by nuclear power is a cleaner, more environmentally friendly and efficient source of power, then where is the controversy? The controversy is not necessarily in nuclear power itself, but instead in the “front end” process of obtaining the uranium needed for it, and the “back end” process of disposing of it after it is used.