Nuclear Power as a Solution for Global Warming Crisis

Introduction

Have you ever worried about dying from nuclear energy? Nuclear power is when nuclear energy is used to generate heat or electricity. Nuclear energy has been an extremely controversial topic, particularly regarding if and when it should be used. The government has been making drastic decisions about its utilization. There have been many debates on how nuclear energy can be used to combat global warming, as well as how it should be deployed to address this critical issue. The use of nuclear energy by the government is a bad idea because it will have a major negative impact on health and finances.

Nuclear Power as a Solution for the Global Warming Crisis

Nuclear energy should not be used because of the negative impacts on physical health. For example, according to Robock (2015), “the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents has been drastically underestimated. Nuclear reactors are built, operated, and regulated by humans, and humans make mistakes. Accidents can happen not just from meltdowns but from earthquakes, tsunamis, and aircraft accidents” (Robock, 2015). This quote highlights how human error can lead to accidents, inadvertently harming themselves or others. Working on nuclear energy is physically hazardous, and in the event of a natural disaster, everyone would be at high risk. Furthermore, Bolt (2020) states, “he expressed concerns about all the waste produced in nuclear power plants: ‘you will have low and medium level radioactive waste from the metals that are near the reaction chamber now sometimes those waste put into poor communities. And we don't have a concern with high-level radioactive waste storage, which is still an issue and they're still not a good solution’” (Bolt, 2020). This quote indicates how professionals sometimes place radioactive waste in poor communities, which can jeopardize their health without their consent, or even dispose of it in oceans where it affects marine life.

Financial Implications of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy should not be used by the government to solve issues because it will have a significant financial impact. Robock (2015) notes, “nuclear power is extremely expensive. It could not even exist in the US without huge government subsidies, including insurance against accidents” (Robock, 2015). This shows how costly nuclear energy is and the financial burden it places on the government. Additionally, Magill (2019) presents another viewpoint from Jessica Azulay of the Alliance for a Green Economy, who is concerned about the finances of nuclear energy, which is more expensive than traditional energy sources. She argues that helping people to “change their light bulbs, change their efficient refrigerators, weatherize their homes… will give people a lower energy bill in a more affordable home” (Magill, 2019). This expert opinion suggests alternative ways the government can save money rather than investing in costly nuclear energy.

The Debate on Mental vs. Physical Health

On the other hand, some argue that nuclear power should be used because it impacts mental health more than physical health. Bolt (2020) cites the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which states, “there's no discernible increase in the incidence of radiation-related health effects expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants. The most important health effect is mental and social well-being and stress, which is exacerbated by radiation and its effects” (Bolt, 2020). This suggests that mental health is crucial, as people are often taught to fear nuclear energy. However, Mackenzie (2011) argues in “The Nuclear Accidents Damage Human Health” that “radiation exposure above a certain threshold, usually only received by workers and emergency teams, causes acute radiation syndrome with hours of exposure. Depending on the dose of radiation this ranges from skin rashes, and diarrhea, to coma and death” (Mackenzie, 2011). This quote contradicts the notion that mental health is more critical, emphasizing that physical health can be severely affected by radiation exposure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, using nuclear energy to fight global warming is a bad idea because it will have a major negative impact on health and finances. Nuclear energy is extremely controversial, with experts presenting diverse viewpoints. This controversy extends not only among the public but within government circles as well.

References

Bolt, C. (2020). Should nuclear power be part of New York's clean energy mix, as the state fights climate change? Syracuse.com. Retrieved from [URL]

Magill, B. (2019). Nuclear power needs to double to curb global warming. Inside Climate News. Retrieved from [URL]

Mackenzie, D. (2011). The nuclear accidents damage human health. New Scientist. Retrieved from [URL]

Robock, A. (2015). Nuclear energy is not a solution for global warming. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from [URL]