The Nuclear Option good or not for humans In this article, Will Ripley, Junko Ogura and James Griffiths discuss the Fukushima: Five years after Japan 's worst nuclear disaster with three parts. As we know on March 11, 2011, an earthquake and tsunami of unprecedented led to major problems at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Operating reactors shut down automatically, with control rods inserting into the reactor cores. A 14meter high tsunami triggered by the earthquake disabled all AC power to Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Power Plant, and carried off fuel tanks for emergency diesel generators. Water injection failed in the emergency core cooling system of Units 1, 2, and 3. Since the normal cooling system was inoperable, a pressure
…show more content…
But no more viewpoint of this article what want to say. So this is not a completion article. I think if it definitely explained The Nuclear Option well or not for humans in the end, it is a perfect article. The article needed one more subject in the end. In general, it suggests important discussion points for the international community on military intervention and the impact of nuclear leak on the displacement of populations. Of course some environmentalists are indeed coming around to nuclear energy. That 's because the nuclear fission process produces virtually no greenhouse gas emissions—unlike the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Nuclear power can provide a reliable, steady stream of electricity that 's not dependent on a shining sun or blowing winds, giving it an advantage—in some people 's minds —over its renewable competitors. But in addition, nuclear fission differs from the burning of fossil fuel in that it produces neither sulfur dioxide nor nitrogen oxides, the pollutants that cause acid rain. In recent years, a number of leaks of radioactive water have stoked environmentalist ire, though local residents were not exposed to dangerous doses of radiation. Meanwhile, nuclear proliferation risks remain a prohibitive concern for many experts—even those who believe that nuclear energy can play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So in my opinion we need to have a long-term plan for nuclear waste. If we do not have it, we should not use of nuclear energy
But no more viewpoint of this article what want to say. So this is not a completion article. I think if it definitely explained The Nuclear Option well or not for humans in the end, it is a perfect article. The article needed one more subject in the end. In general, it suggests important discussion points for the international community on military intervention and the impact of nuclear leak on the displacement of populations. Of course some environmentalists are indeed coming around to nuclear energy. That 's because the nuclear fission process produces virtually no greenhouse gas emissions—unlike the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Nuclear power can provide a reliable, steady stream of electricity that 's not dependent on a shining sun or blowing winds, giving it an advantage—in some people 's minds —over its renewable competitors. But in addition, nuclear fission differs from the burning of fossil fuel in that it produces neither sulfur dioxide nor nitrogen oxides, the pollutants that cause acid rain. In recent years, a number of leaks of radioactive water have stoked environmentalist ire, though local residents were not exposed to dangerous doses of radiation. Meanwhile, nuclear proliferation risks remain a prohibitive concern for many experts—even those who believe that nuclear energy can play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So in my opinion we need to have a long-term plan for nuclear waste. If we do not have it, we should not use of nuclear energy