Risks and Benefits of Nuclear

Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Power Energy

When Albert Einstein introduced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, he revolutionized the future of man on Earth. One of the implications of Einstein's theory, represented by the infamous equation E = mc2 was the equivalence of mass and energy.

This equivalence meant that very small amounts of energy represented tremendous amounts of energy, which could be released through nuclear fission (Rennie, 2003).

Nuclear fission, when it occurs instantaneously, releases vast amounts of destructive energy; it is the basis for nuclear weapons. When it occurs much more gradually, it releases the same energy, but in ways that can be harnessed and controlled, for several beneficial purposes: it is the basis for advanced medical imaging technology and is instrumental in many cancer treatments, among many other industrial applications.

Fossil fuel supplies are finite, and quickly being depleted at a rate that guarantees need for alternate energy sources; our current dependence on OPAC oil and geopolitical issues in the Middle East further complicates the situation; and global warming is a consequence of the byproducts of generating energy from fossil fuels. Therefore, one of the most important uses of nuclear energy is its ability to be generated in ways that can be converted to electrical energy, for an efficient man-made source of unlimited usable energy in civilian nuclear reactors (Gundersen, 1999).

The dramatic use of two atomic bombs to end World War II in 1945 forever associated nuclear technology with its potential destructive power. Likewise, the fact that radioactive isotopes release radiation that is harmful to human health, (even deadly in high doses), is always a concern in any use of nuclear energy. Several operational catastrophes in functioning reactors in the first two decades of their use heightened those concerns. To many people, nuclear energy is another potential danger of irresponsible applications of human technology; to others, it represents the most economical alternative to fossil fuels and other sources of energy that are dependent on natural resources.

Because nuclear energy has such potential for destruction, and because even its beneficial uses are potentially so dangerous, it is an issue that requires a complete analysis that addresses the concerns expressed in both positions from the emotional perspective, the logical perspective, and the ethical perspective.

Emotional Perspective:

The emotional perspective is very easy to understand. The first demonstrated use of any type of nuclear energy was the instantaneous incineration of approximately

100,000 civilians in Hiroshima on August 9, 1945, followed three days later by a similar detonation of another atomic bomb over Nagasaki. Approximately three decades later, human error in responding to an equipment malfunction nearly resulted in a catastrophe at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Only a few years after a reactor meltdown was narrowly averted at Three Mile Island, a Soviet reactor did meltdown and the resulting explosion contaminated the entire city of Chernobyl, and eventually killed thousands who died from the medical consequences of radiation exposure (Gundersen, 1999).

Logical Perspective:

From the logical perspective, the emotional concerns about nuclear energy are unfounded for several specific reasons. First, the destructive use of nuclear energy in weapons of war has absolutely nothing to do with civilian uses of nuclear energy in reactor power plants. The dangers posed by accidental discharge of radiation and/or radioactive waste require careful consideration just as other man-made power plants in hydroelectric dams and high-voltage power grids require safe procedures in connection with their responsible use.

Second, the danger posed by even the worst-case scenario of a complete reactor meltdown and breach of its containment vessel does not result in a nuclear explosion envisioned by many who oppose nuclear power reactors because of this mistaken belief.

A nuclear meltdown would be a local catastrophe requiring evacuation (and likely permanent abandonment) of the surrounding communities, but that risk is not substantially different in magnitude from a burst hydroelectric dam, or from the aggregate harm of continuing to pollute our atmosphere with fossil fuel waste products..

Certainly, nuclear energy requires strict regulation, careful facilities planning, and myriad other equally important practical considerations for administrating the industry safely so that its risks are minimized. However, the emotional objection to peaceful uses of nuclear power is based on incorrect assumptions about what those risks actually are, as well as on the illogical association of the beneficial uses of the technology with its destructive potential used in weapons of war.

Ethical Perspective:

In the case of nuclear power, the ethical considerations are closely related to the logical analysis. Once it is established that the emotional objection to nuclear power on overall principle is unsustainable, the ethical analysis pertains more to issues of deciding where to employ it and how to regulate it to ensure that it does not impose unreasonable, and therefore, unethical risks to some for the benefit of others.

While nuclear explosion is not a risk associate with nuclear reactors, human error and/or technical malfunction can still threaten the existence of local communities. In the event all the layers of safety measures and safeguards failed and a nuclear reactor core actually melted down, the resulting release of radiation would render the nearby land completely uninhabitable for hundreds if not thousands of years afterwards (Gundersen, 1999). Individuals who failed to evacuate in time might suffer radiation exposure.

Reactors in the United States are protected in concrete containment buildings that are far less susceptible to breaching, even in a meltdown, than the Soviet reactor in Chernobyl whose roof blew off when superheated steam in the pressure vessel housing the nuclear core exploded. In the exceptionally unlikely scenario of a similar explosion and breach of a concrete containment building of a U.S. reactor, the danger to local communities would increase, by virtue of the release of vaporized radioactive particles into the atmosphere, which then fall back to earth. While this increases the risk to the local communities, (and extends the risk beyond the borders of a meltdown without a breach), it does not change the fundamental nature of the risk.