Opinion: On Nuclear Energy, by Alia Falaknaz

Nuclear plants are used to satisfy and generate the demands for energy and electricity at constant rates (Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident 32). However, has it ever been wondered what would happen to the future generations while having radioactive substances roaming around? Due to having the risks of nuclear power outweighing the advantages, people should be aware of its threat and take a moral from some incidents that had occurred post-nuclear disasters, especially governments and nations that rely on it. The risks associated with civilian nuclear power can be felt with the occurrence of accidents which causes security concerns that must be addressed (Carrington 1). Sadly, the release of nuclear power is accompanied by deadly factors that affect innocent souls at all age groups. For example, according to Rose Kivi, the author of How to Start an Animal Rescue, “nuclear power plant disasters have contaminated humans, animals and the environment” (1). With that being said, radiation exposed post-nuclear plant incidents have many long term effects, as it causes cancer such as Leukemia and affects reproduction. Besides health issues, due to the accident at the Mayak Plutonium Facility, post the incidents, “radiation levels in the area are among the highest in the world, with natural water sources in the area still contaminated with radioactive waste” (Kivi 1). Moreover, misfortunes occur mostly due to terrible labor fallacy, inaccurate capital, and inaccurate technical qualities. For example, what caused the Chalk River accident in Canada; an incident that occurred in December 12, 1952, that is considered as the only nuclear station in Ontario that faced a major accident (Major accident at Chalk River), was an outcome due to having the wrong button released which lead to a large number of steam explosions though safety measures were taken into consideration (Kivi 1). The advantages of using civilian nuclear power lie in the fact that the country with the nuclear power can have a balance of power and can cause its enemies to flee. It could also help in other developmental projects like power generation resulting in the production of cheap electricity. However, the risks are so great that they cannot be easily ignored and must be causing great difficulty for those countries conducting civilian nuclear power. In the “Global Security Environment” article, “the United States is the country that is putting sanctions for suppressing the widespread of civilian nuclear power in order to check and restrict these countries attempting to become a nuclear power” (Dunstan 2005). It is a serious matter due to the fact that it could cause a big loss of lives since nuclear power causes harm and bloodshed to people living in a specific area. Hence, nuclear power is not the energy of the future; as Damian Carrington, an environment editor at the Guardian wisely claims, “more efficient and safer renewable energy sources will become feasible in the twenty-first century” (1). Thus, cost saving alternatives are present that would not only save innocent souls but will also beat global warming (Carrington 2). Besides financial limitations and opposing groups, countries tend to be aware of the nuclear risks and are now taking an action against it (Flavin et al. 1). Therefore, hopefully, this awareness rises globally leading this threat to end. For instance, as claimed by Christopher Flavin, Senior Vice President at the World-Watch Institute and Nicholas Lenssen a private energy analyst and a former senior researcher at the World-Watch Institute, “In the last decade, nuclear has gone from being the world’s fastest-growing energy source to its second slowest” (1). Moreover, the nuclear industry in Europe is starting to shrink due to the post-1986 incident, when an explosion at Chernobyl lead to the release of a “poisonous cloud of radioactive dust” (2). Also, China’s wide nuclear plans are most likely to end, though it has a wide array of alternatives such as wind and solar power (4). According to Patrick Moore, chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, nuclear power has never caused harm to people, whether they are working in the plant or the public; therefore, the incidents are all a result of mechanical failure (2). Thus, the mechanical fallacies should be prevented in which this energy source is not meant to be the reliable energy mode. While having the danger exposure greater than the advantages; luckily, the nuclear share of power is falling and decreasing (Flavin et al. 1). Moreover, ambitious nuclear programs and plants are likely to decrease and fall short (Flavin et al. 4). Devastations undertook in the past, like, the Chalk River in Canada and Tokaimura in Japan (Kivi 3) should be held into consideration in which this issue should be resolved for the sake of human satisfaction and stability that serves as a necessity. In conclusion, since the demand for energy is increasing, a reliable mode of energy should be implemented in which the concept of nuclear energy should be taken into consideration in which it is not the reliable mode of energy. No matter what, a mother cannot live without her child while a child can not live without a mother, because a loss of a family member is wrecking. A promise of a resolution to this threat should be kept and all nations should end this threat. Or else, what would happen to the upcoming generations?

by Alia Falaknaz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s