Instead of giving you superpowers, nuclear waste kills you within days if you stood near it without protection. Nuclear waste is a dangerous substance made up of the mutated uranium atoms called isotopes which are created in the process of nuclear energy (nuclear fission). Because the substance is radioactive, it is not safe to be around so it has to be locked up for thousands of years while it becomes safe to be in nature again. Many people think that nuclear energy should be shut down because nuclear waste cannot be disposed of. Nuclear power should continue even though it is hard to transport it to a safe repository. More underground storage areas should be created to combat the transportation problem and the issue of the waste should get more attention and …show more content…
research for a solution. The radioactive waste has a place to go and is safely stored in repositories while an alternative solution is being searched for.
More action to create more storage is being done. Nuclear waste is stored at surface level in the UK, but there are plans to create deep underground locations to lock up the waste, but they are still planning on the location (Wong, Sam). The main fear driven by the existence of nuclear waste is that the waste may get into their homes or contaminate the drinking water. Those assumptions are false, and the waste will always have somewhere to be stored as long as it is being made, so you will not have to worry about it getting into contact with you.Also, the Yucca Mountain in Nevada is a decided location to become a repository for nuclear waste and is currently in use ('Stop Dithering on Nuclear Waste' [Science Agenda]). For the nuclear power generators in the US, there is a large safe place for waste which is well funded.Nuclear waste should never come in contact with somebody who does not choose to work near it. Of course, if you do choose to work with nuclear waste so that the waste, opportunities to make the waste atomically stable are being researched with some
successes. Scientists and researchers have been looking for another solution other than letting nature take its course when helping nuclear waste lose its radioactivity and keeping it in while the waste is unsafe. Bacteria processes waste products so that they done seep into the environment by breaking down isosaccharinic acid, an acid that helps waste leak out, by degrading it and keeping the unstable atoms solid and in place (Wong, Sam). The bacteria helps decrease a huge risk of the waste seeping out of any imperfections in the securely safeguarded walls of the underground chambers. This will help the waste stay even safer during the thousands of years where waste sits waiting. The waste has proven to become safe through geological isolation (locking the waste up underground) in a few cases, the main one being where high levels of uranium were there was a spontaneous nuclear reaction. It lasted for 500,000 years until the reaction stopped. 2 billion years later (the present day), the tons of radioactive waste eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements. The amazing fact that it decayed into a safe product is being researched in several places around the globe. The occurrence shows that nuclear waste will not just be sitting alone underneath mountains without any progress, the waste will and has proven to eventually decay into a stable form. Researchers are bringing the ability to change nuclear waste into a stable form to the next level from locking it up. Even so, lokcing the waste is not even the worst idea, because it will make progress and become safe to be in the world again someday.
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
“The atomic bomb certainly is the most powerful of all weapons, but it is conclusively powerful and effective only in the hands of the nation which controls the sky” (Johnson 1). Throughout World War II, the war was in pieces. The Germans were almost at world domination along with their allies, the Italians and Japanese. The Japanese and United states had remained at combat with each other since the bombarding of the Pearl Harbor ("U.S. Drops Atomic Bomb on Japan "1). There was abundant controversy as to whether the United States should have used the atomic bombs or not. There were many factors as to the argument relating to the atomic bombs leading to the United States final decision. Many people had arguments for the bombing and others had arguments against the bombings but it is still not determined if the United States made the right decision.
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.
“With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces”- President Truman. In the 1945, President Truman was faced with an atomic dilemma in the most destructive war that mankind has seen so far. His choices were to either bomb Japan or let more American soldiers die. He chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He chose the most likeable choice in America at the time. If I was able to tell President Truman one thing, it would be, drop the atomic bombs on Japan and end the four year war for America. Japan started the war on America with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, America repaid the debt back to Japan many fold(top secret).
Near the end of the Second World War, America and Japan continue to fight with no signs of surrender in sight from either side. President Truman warned the government of Japan that he would use weapons of mass destruction if there was not an end to the war, but they refused to surrender. The decision that Japan made to ignore President Truman left him with two choices; develop the atomic bomb or invade Japan with American forces and allies. After careful consideration, President Truman made the choice to develop and use the nuclear bombs as a way to end World War II. On August 6, 1945, the president unleashed the massive weapon of destruction on the city of Hiroshima dropping the atomic bomb code named “Little Boy”. A few days later on August
On August 6, 1945, the first bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Three days later on August 9, the second bomb hit Nagasaki. Whether the United States made a moral and ethical decision is still an ongoing debate. President Truman was faced with a difficult choice. The U.S. chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war, by significantly shortening it with the use of atomic weapons. It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than thousands of lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops that would have been killed in invading Japan.” This was a grave
Imagine yourself in the middle of a rainforest, listen to the sounds around you, smell the fresh air, hear the wildlife; take that image and get rid of the trees around you, the sounds of wildlife, and the smell of fresh air. Instead of a rainforest you are now in the middle of a seemingly endless sea of trash and waste. The fresh scent in the air gone, the sprawling land of greenery and trees gone, and the sounds of the forest is reduced to the sound of heavy machinery trying vainly to reduce trash into smaller more compact waste.
“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.
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
Nowadays, environmental protection has became a mainstream trend, we do all the things trying to make the earth greener, within all of them, recycling plays an essential part. But based on my observation on campus, there is an unsatisfied action appearance.
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.
You may have gained some insights in the waste treatment industry. You may also be surprised by the technologies learnt. What important is not knowing the particular method or the measurement taken to deal with existing problems, but knowing Hong Kongers are indeed all giving their helping hands in building a better Hong Kong. Let’s be a responsible Hong Konger!
Our planet is suffering from severe pollution, which ranges from contaminated air, water and soil as well. Humans are doing nothing to reduce the amount of pollution that is harming our earth. To understand how pollution works first you must understand that there are different types of pollution. The most common types of pollution and the ones that I will be focusing on which are the ones doing the most harm to our planet are air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and littering. In order to help out and reduce pollution in our planet people need to be more aware of what these problems are and about the severe damages that they are causing our planet. Before industrialization really jumped into place and had an effect on large cities, nature had its own way of cleaning up its own air and itself. Wind scattered gases, rain washed many substances and the rest dissolved into the ground; while plants absorbed carbon dioxide and made it into oxygen. With big cities growing more every time and with more towns that were becoming more industrialized a lot of more waste began to be released into the environment and the atmosphere and soon this was more than enough for nature to handle. In order to stop and reduce pollution people need to understand the damage that it is causing our environment and our planet as well. People need to be more aware of how they can help out and do their part in reducing these problems that are causing our planet to die slowly with people not even noticing it.