Nuclear Energy is Safe.
Yes it is.
Side Score: 24
|
 |
No it isn't.
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
Think about all the nuclear reactors that exist and have existed since nuclear power became an energy source. It's used a lot in Europe, and it is used in almost every developed nation in the world. Not only that, but it's also the power source on most modern naval vessels which can be exposed to extreme combat conditions. Why is it that the opponents of nuclear energy can usually only come up with one or two incidents where something went wrong? I will make no argument against the severity if it's repercussions, if on some rare occasion, something does go wrong, but compared to almost any other energy source, it's had a lot less problems. Side: Yes it is.
2
points
There are several forms of nuclear reactor technology that are quite safe. Take the pebble bed reactor design. It is constructed so that the uranium atoms will, at higher than normal operating temperatures, absorb fewer neutrons, meaning fewer nuclear reactions, and thus, unattended, the reactor temperature will cease rising at approximately 1600 degrees centigrade. Side: Yes it is.
1
point
I really don't see why people are afraid of nuclear energy. All of the few nuclear "disasters" which have occurred are no where near the level of damage to the environment or level of expense which has occurred in other industries, for example the gulf of Mexico incident, or the combine numerous oil spills, etc etc... More people die due to things people are not afraid much more often and in much higher volumes. Comparatively, nuclear energy is extraordinarily safe. Its just the cold war left its mark, and now "nuclear" means a giant mushroom cloud coming your way. Side: Yes it is.
1
point
-5
points
being found dead in the bath tub or being killed in a car wreck are greater than any effect of nuclear energy. Sure, being found dead in a bath tub, or dying from a car wreck results in death. However being in a nuclear plant when there's a leak also results in death. Meaning they would have the same result and hence be equally dangerous. By your logic I could say "walking on a tight rope 7 stories high is safe because once someone died on a sidewalk." The point isn't whether nuclear is safe when everything goes right. Everything is safe when everything goes right. The point is the extent of the danger when something does go wrong - which history has shown since the invention of nuclear something always eventually does. In that case nuclear is extraordinarily dangerous. More so than bathtubs and cars combined I'd say. Side: No it isn't.
|
Two words: Chernobyl and Fukushima. Sure they are safe under normal operating conditions, but when disaster strikes there is much more danger at a nuclear plant than a coal fired one or a solar farm. They also have the problem of spent plutonium fuel rods combined with relaxed environmental regulations in the name of the economy. Side: No it isn't.
I agree that nuclear energy can be dangerous. However, the number of deaths from coal mines severely outnumbers those from nuclear power. the number of deaths from coal mines alone total up to nearly 20,000: compared to the roughly 4400 deaths from nuclear meltdowns. Yes, nuclear meltdowns might have more deaths per occurrence, but the occurrence is so much lower that, in effect, nuclear power is safer than coal. Solar powers would be preferable, except that the technology available today could not reasonably provide solar power for all of the world's energy demand. it would cost 242.2 trillion dollars to match the global energy demand http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/ Side: It can be
good point bringing up the coal mines, however. Coal is a much more popular energy source than nuclear. Coal mining has been going on for a long time and on a much larger scale than nuclear energy has provided so far. I don't know how to calculate it but I would bet per Joule of energy produced, or whatever unit of energy you want to use, there are more deaths related to nuclear than coal. Also nuclear doesn't kill people immediately and the radioactive fallout from potential disasters can be moved from away from an accident site by rain clouds and will poison the land for thousands of years. And when an accident does happen in nuclear, although it is rare, the consequences are far greater. When the farmers near the Chernobyl plant asked the leading nuclear scientists there when they could safely go back to farming their family's fields they were told "20 thousand years" Side: No it isn't.
1
point
Chernobyl was the result of low quality Soviet engineering, and Fukushima was rated for an 8.2 magnitude earthquake. Ensuring that nuclear power plants are located in safer areas in the future, and by utilizing different methods such as those used in pebble bed reactors, the risks associated with nuclear energy, while already minuscule, will be reduced further in the future. Side: Yes it is.
that has no relevance on the debate, it's whether or not nuclear energy is safe, I'm showing how it isn't. The fact that was live in a dangerous world has no bearing on nuclear energy being safe or not, now whether or not nuclear energy is actually a threat to most people's safety is a different debate. Side: Yes it is.
1
point
When you have such a high risk associated with radioactive material, no it's not safe. Especially sincew you consider all the other possible forms of energy that are available and compare them: nuclear power probably comes in at the bottom of the list. For one, it produces a highly radioactive "waste" that is extremely harmful to both all life on earth AND the environment. Side: No it isn't.
|
