Three-Mile Long Island. Chernobyl.
What do each of us think about when someone says, “Nuclear Power?” Chances are, the first thing that pops into our head is something related to the above: A Nuclear Disaster.
And who can blame us? The cessation of combat after World War II led us into a new world filled with mushroom clouds and radioactive decay. The world was under the thumb of the Cold War for decades, wondering whether the communist threat would pull their itchy trigger finger first.
Nuclear Power received a very bad rap because of the associations that naturally come along with it.
But the disasters mentioned in the first breath of this argument don’t give any credence to the paranoia that has been ever present regarding nuclear power. I will show throughout this debate many things, one of which is the fact that there is very little risk, in actuality regarding a nuclear disaster that can even come close to matching the devastation of our worst nuclear fears, much less the correlative health risks and deaths that are incurred through the procurement of coal or the installation of hydroelectrics.
In fact, the health risks/death stats are indeed where I will begin this debate. As the debate continues, I will show the benefits of nuclear power, I will look at waste associated with our energy industries and will of course present for your consideration the viability of alternative energy sources. I also would like to present the fact that there are many nuclear facilities in operation around the world and the implementation of fourth generation nuclear power plants have already been constructed and ordered for construction.
It is without doubt that the biggest enemy of nuclear power is the misconception of the possibilities as well as a fundamental ignorance regarding the perception of a plant meltdown and pre and post scenarios of such an instance. Consider the following:
By June it was realized that the average effective radiation dose to the population of Greece would not exceed 1 millisieverts (100 mrem)[snip]
It was estimated that in Greece during the period of concern following the Chernobyl accident, i.e., during most of May 1986, 23% of early pregnancies at perceived risk were artificially terminated and that during the whole of 1986 about 2500 otherwise wanted pregnancies were interrupted because of perceived radiation risk.[1]
A functional lack of comprehension resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary abortions. This does not include the more immediate locations in Russia which experienced similar atmospherical effects, but illustrates perfectly the lack of functional awareness retained and propagated through our societies.
Now the mass hysteria regarding the perception of radioactivity resultant of a breakdown can be illustrated by The Linear Hypothesis, or rather the lack of direct evidence in support. This hypothesis is meant to track the occurrence of cancer in time periods following a nuclear accident. In many cases, including Hiroshima, incidence of cancer was markedly lower than was expected.
Now the incidence of thyroid cancer occurrences in the aftermath of Chernobyl experienced an increase, yet there are many factors to include. For one, there is natural exposure to varying radioactive levels as well as measures that could be instituted in a populace to decrease the likelihood of exposure to higher levels.
Since radioactive iodine is short lived, if people had stopped giving locally supplied contaminated milk to children for a few months following the accident, it is likely that most of the increase in radiation-induced thyroid cancer would not have resulted.[2]
As well, the number of people who were exposed to high levels of radiation were those involved in relief efforts, notably, only 28 people died as a result of direct radiation exposure. This number pales in comparison to coal mining related deaths as well as casualty rates associated with dam bursts.
We have learned from our past. Coal was a cheap and readily available source for our energy needs, but was utilized without either concern for its’ miners nor an adequate knowledge of the long term environmental effects as well as associated health risks. The building of dams, has produced its’ own problems as well its’ own disasters.
Regarding the Three Gorges Dam
“The Government knows it has made a mistake. Now they are afraid that the catastrophe that they cannot prevent will spark civil unrest. So they want to go public before the troubles start,” she said.[3]
The Three Gorges Dam has a “total power generating capacity of 22,500 megawatts” which makes it the largest Dam in the world. But the environmental consequences are proving to be much more problematic than the endeavors of the CCP had foreseen, a relevant subject in its’ own right much much too comprehensive for my opening.
"Expanding our nuclear power infrastructure is a viable short-term solution to the problems presented by fossil fuels".
Indeed, it is an incredibly viable option when one considers that the Chernobyl incident could have been averted had adequate preventative measures been instituted, especially the construction of an outer casing for the reactor core. But we see these safety considerations in third and even fourth generation designs, which have already been constructed in China.
The safety reasons for continuing nuclear power sources in our own country amount to uneducated social stigma. France gains 77% of their energy from nuclear sources and China is increasing there reliance on this bountiful means of energy production already.
As well, the safety reasons for our dependence on coal and hydro power sources almost necessitate a more overt transition to nuclear power. I will show throughout the course of this debate that casualties, direct and indirect, from these two industries far surpass that of past nuclear associations and as well have their own geographical influence to rival radioactive exposures.
I will also discuss the economic factors surrounding each industry as well as focus on the environmental impact each method of energy production has had. By the end of this debate, there will be no doubt as to the viability of expanding our nuclear power infrastructure and a need for this conversion will be seen as necessary to retain national and international technological and economic prosperity.
Change is something that we as a societal whole have been resistant to. Nobody is sure what can happen when a new technology or social more becomes a prevalent concern or possibility precisely because we can not predict what will result from implementation.
But without change, where would we be? We would still be stuck taming horses for the Pony Express. My esteemed opponent would have to wait days…or even weeks to receive my opening, which was made available to the entire internet world in less than 10 seconds. Nuclear Power is a major solution for our energy concerns.
I submit that nuclear power is not only viable…but necessary. Just ask China.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[edit on 18-3-2008 by The Vagabond]
