In recent years many have heard this line repeated numerous times on television: We need to develop other means for our energy sources, so we won't need to depend on monopolistic and commonly unstable foreign nations. There are many ways to go about finding alternative renewable sources such as expansion of wind energy, solar energy, thermal energy, hydroelectric energy etc. My main focus is on the future use of nuclear energy. Almost immediately upon hearing the word "nuclear" there are some that imagine a hazardous, cancer causing glowing material. Other citizens may see it as an alternative to oil dependency. This brings us to the question asking: will the development of nuclear energy prove to be harmful to us, or save us from a future energy crisis.
This ethical dilemma addresses the pros and cons of expanding exploration into nuclear technology. There are environmental, political, economical, social, and health implications that may be involved with such a process. For now we'll take a look at the cons of nuclear energy development, these are the issues that frankly worry and/or scare many Americans. Horrible incidents including nuclear bombings, explosions, and large area contaminations are a few examples given for public apprehension pertaining to this subject. The public is also worried about the storage of nuclear waste, which takes thousands of years to lose its hazardous elements.
West of Philadelphia near Harrisburg is Three Mile Island, which houses aU.S. nuclear power plant. Its fame derives from a meltdown that occurred in the reactor during the late 1970's. While the average amount of radiation affecting residents nearby was about as much as you would get from an x-ray exam, the chemical contamination of the Love Canal Neighborhood remained fresh in the publics' mind.
Chernobyl, Ukraine is home to what many people consider the worst accident is nuclear power's history. A nuclear explosion was triggered killing dozens immediately, and major concerns about the contamination of groundwater and soil continue to persist.
Nuclear weapons proliferation is definitely a concern when, it comes to nuclear energy. There are nations that abuse a source that could provide electricity to its citizens, into something to be used for a world political and econmical tool. This is probably done to play on the global citizens & governments passed visions of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing horrors. This type of abuse does much to negate the positive effects nuclear energy may have.
My stance on nuclear energy is that it benefits should continue to be explored, but at a slowed pace. The most substantial benefit would be to the environment. Nuclear energy does not release pollutants into the air, like fossils fuel fuels. Continued growth could result in a much cleaner atmosphere and environment for all of us. There are political benefits that would keep Americans vested interest outside of areas that are prone to conflict and violence. Nuclear plants may be expensive to open initially, but in the long run the electricity and energy produced, will cost far less than what the United States imports in oil daily.
This subject will be that is always open for debate, because it is a ''hot-button'' issue, which is why I don't really believe this type of energy will become more mainstream until the social climate changes. As I said there are plenty of other alternatives to take a look at as well, but this type of energy should be discussed. We must keep in mind that many of our energy resources are finite, and alternatives should be adiscussed, before an energy crisis is reached. Thus at this point in the 21st century ethically, a definite majority opinion on this topic may be hard to come by.
???????Top Image provided by : www.ornl.gov
Bottom Image provided by: IAEA
