Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production.
*Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction . [6]
While increased exposure to high radiation increases the chance of getting cancer, it doesn’t mean you will definitely get it. [2] Therefore, it’s hard to accurately calculate the number of death caused by ionising radiation released by a major nuclear disaster like Chernobyl.
The media often exaggerate events to gain viewers/buyers, bad news always sell.
the graph above shows that Coal, the fuel used in many power stations kills 110.4% more people than nuclear power!
No, nuclear power is not safe.
Nuclear reactors contain very large amounts of radioactive isotopes. If this radioactivity were to escape the reactor, it would have serious effects. This is because the radiation often carries a large amount of energy, which breaks up the molecules that absorb it into smaller bits called ions by changing the difference between the number of and . The process, called ionisation can damage or kill living cells. The effects of exposure to high levels of ionising radiation include increased rates of cancer, this happens when the cell’s DNA is damaged, and the cell develops out of control. The ionising radiation also causes genetic defects and even death when irradiation is extreme, as the radiation can kill the cell. [1] Even though it can be hard to prove if cancer is specifically caused by exposure to radiation, I think my source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica one of the mostly highly reliable resources because firstly its article writers are experts. This source is also more reliable than an Internet or newspaper article since it will not benefit from leaning to one side of the argument. Even books or reports written by scientist may use sensationalism to gain publicity and to make money.
Although there’s only a small possibility for a big disaster to happen, the risk is so high that some people don’t want to accept the risk. [2] Although nuclear power accounts for fewer numbers of immediate deaths per Twy of energy produced, the number of death does not include any injury or death associated with the plants construction or decommissioning.[2] Radiation sickness does not always cause immediate death. Common effects of ionising radiation such as cancer may take years to kill the victim. The data on the table on page 2 was based on historical data. It will be unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned.[6]
Just because nuclear power stations are well designed and managed in the UK, it doesn’t mean it’ll so every other country. If nuclear power becomes a popular option, other countries, including developing countries with no expertise in the subject, will attempt build nuclear power stations to show that they are not behind in the technological race. This can be compared to the nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the US in the Cold war. The potential effects can be very dangerous
[11]
The biggest concern about nuclear power stations is that creates radioactive waste, which are extremely difficult manage and to dispose of. There had been incidents when radioactive waste was not disposed of properly.[12] Shielding during transport was can be defective, or it could simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store. Scavenging of abandoned radioactive material has been the cause of several incidents of . Although radioactive waste accounts for a very small percentage of background radiation, the risks of contamination are very real. [8]
Some radioactive waste lasts for tens of thousands of years and there is no way of changing the rate at which radioactive materials decay. [7] It would also require effort and international co-operation to store it. Storing nuclear waste is a long-term commitment. Trusting the government to handle it is no option because, no government, state, or any kind of political entity in the history of the world had lasted for more than a thousands years or so. What would happen if there was a political upheaval? Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, which can be used to make weapons. Because of the difficulty to keep track of all the world’s plutonium, it is entirely possible for the large amount of nuclear waste in store to fall into the wrong hands. Also, We must ask ourselves, “What is the likelihood of future generations knowing where their ancestors dumped their waste a thousand years ago?” someone in the future might stumble upon some old nuclear waste by accident and cause a contamination.
Conclusion
Nuclear power can be the answer to the growing gap in our energy supply. If the stations are designed and managed well, the risks of something going wrong are very small. But I don’t believe we should use nuclear power as the main source of our energy need because the risks outweigh the benefits. The consequence of a major disaster is something that is hard to deal with. Radioactive contamination does not respect national boarders, as shown by the Chernobyl disaster. Mostly importantly, the problem with radioactive waste nuclear power stations produce cannot be ignored. The problem doesn’t just affect us; it will affect many more generation. But because our civilisation is dependent on electricity, I think it is acceptable to use nuclear power for the moment while we adapt to smaller energy consumptions and invest in alternatives.
Bibliography
- Encyclopaedia Britannica
-
21st century science: GCSE science higher
3)
4)
5)
6)
