Nuclear Energy Sources - Essay Example

Indeed, the Fukushima Daiichi area - “a wilderness with a partially melted-down puddle of nuclear fuel entombed in concrete at its core, surrounded by an exclusion zone” – along the uninhabited Chornobyl zone in Ukraine will continue to spread radioactive isotopes for hundreds of years (Biello, 2011). This means that neither our children nor our great-grandchildren (if humanity survives, of course!) will get a chance of living healthy lives. Just as today it is clear that human beings are unable to handle the disastrous effects of nuclear energy, the question of banning its use in favor of other, less dangerous sources of energy, seems at least weird.

Since the world, whose primary goal is to produce more and to earn more, is fuelled by energy, the use of fission to generate has a lot of financial benefits. Specifically, many Americans believe that the use of nuclear energy is a really good alternative to the use of fossil fuels that are becoming “more scarce and more expensive” (“MacRumors Forum”, 2011). Statistically, as reported in the findings published in the Risk Analysis journal, the number of supporters of nuclear power use in the United States (before the Fukushima nuclear disaster) was more than twice higher as the number of those opposed to the idea of its increased use. Namely, 66% of respondents supported the idea of relying on nuclear power versus 25% of those who opted for relying on coal (Manas-Rutgers, 2011).

Surprisingly enough, the number of supporters of this source of energy was still high among the American participants of the MacRumors forum that discussed the pros/cons of nuclear energy use a few days after the Fukushima disaster (“MacRumors Forum”, 2011. Apart from financial benefits, it is often said that nuclear power is environmentally friendly. For example, Steven Kerekesfrom the U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute believes that nuclear power generation plays a prominent role in the reduction of carbon emissions around the world. It does not affect the climate, therefore it is quite clean and safe, Kerekes said in his interview with Earth Teaching back in 2010 (DeFreitas, 2010).

However, the arguments in favor of nuclear energy use seem lame if one considers the arguments against it. The financial benefits are outweighed by health risks associated with dealing with nuclear power waste and meltdown. While the generation of power seems relatively clean if compared to fossil fuels, the byproducts need to be stored for hundreds of years in secluded facilities, some of which are situated “deep inside the mountains” (“Nuclear Power: Risks and Rewards”, 2012). Given the fact that high-level radioactive waste has to be kept for hundreds of thousands of years till it is recognized safe to be released into the environment, opponents of nuclear waste rightfully contend that in reality there does not exist a place in the world that is truly safe. Indeed, as Jim Riccio, Nuclear Energy Campaign Director for Greenpeace, says “nothing you put the waste in will last longer than the waste itself, so burying it acquiesces to the fact that it will eventually leak….just like every other radioactive dump site” (DeFreitas, 2010).

Apart from this, the aftermaths of nuclear accidents that occasionally happen throughout the world prove fatal not just for the biosphere in the vicinity of the nuclear plants but for the populations of the neighboring as well as remote countries. For example, the meltdown in Chornobyl severely affected many children not just in Ukraine, but also in Belarus and Russia since many radioactive are airborne. Specifically, according to the data provided by the United Nations, the number of cases of thyroid cancer among kids in Belarus was an astounding 285 times before Chornobyl levels (Radiation Bulletin, 2004).

In conclusion, the far-reaching consequences of nuclear power operations which include the leakage of radioactive waste and death tolls of nuclear disasters are viable proof of the need for a total ban on nuclear energy use. Even if the use of fossil fuels seems to be less clear with its air pollution and even if the use of solar and wind energy is far less profitable, these sources of energy generation are easier to handle. It is unlikely that they will blow up the whole planet one day or will destroy nations in an instant. So I am all against nuclear power. What about you?