Lisa Tran

Chemistry

Period 5

The Harm of Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear power should not be used as a source of energy. It is not sustainable and the

unfavorable possibilities outweighs the benefits of nuclear power. Replacing fossil fuel fired

power stations with nuclear energy simply replaces one fundamental environmental problem

with another, states World Wildlife Fund. The solution to global warming is not nuclear power.

According to the article from Green America, the waste of nuclear power plant will put

citizens at risk, because it remains for more than 100,000 years. Also, deciding where to store the

nuclear waste and the transportation process would put communities in danger because it is such

a hassle and extremely toxic.

Moreover, if an accident was to occur, such as a natural disaster or human error, the leak

would poison thousands of people. Events where these incidents happened include the

Chernobyl and Fukushima disaster. The article states that during the Chernobyl disaster, 400,000

people were poisoned by radiation and forced to evacuate. Another example, in 1979 at Church

Rock uranium mine in New Mexico, 1,000 tons of radioactive mill waste spilled. According to

the article, a 2007 study shows that radiation is still present and could harm the Native

communities.

Furthermore, a Texas study discovered that the increase of cancer rate is due to nuclear

power sites. According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, Plutonium 239 is so
dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer,

lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects.

Scientists have concluded our uranium would be depleted in less than 10 years if the level

of nuclear power expanded to provide all the world's electricity. The article claims, To increase

our access to uranium, there will be heightened pressure to open new mines and expand existing

mines, including in fragile or protected areas, bringing increased risk to mine workers and local

communities, and contributing to the overall issue of increases in background radiation local to

the mines and globally.

Inevidently, the nuclear power plant cost will increase and in result hardworking

taxpayers and consumers will pay the price. For example in Finland, problems and cost overruns

of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget is experienced.

Also, the US governments current energy policy providing more than $11 billion in

subsidies to the nuclear energy could be directed to building solar systems or something more

useful. According to World Wildlife Fund, investment in nuclear power can drain funds from

energy efficiency and renewable energy programmes, which most have lowered greenhouse gas

at a cheaper costs than nuclear energy. In the long terms effects, nuclear power is not ineffectual.

Many argue that nuclear power is needed to head off the climate change. Investments in

nuclear power reduces greenhouse effects and is much cheaper than any other method.

The article The nuclear power resistance- what went wrong? by Matt Smith is bias

because his sources are retrieved from CNN which is not reliable. Also, those who are paid to

work in nuclear force like Dan Dominguez, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San
Diego, will of course argue pro nuclear power as an energy source. Therefore, he is not

trustworthy.