Nuclear Fission Persuasive Essay

When a neutron is absorbed by isotope of X-- given that X is some given element-- another isotope of X is created. Though sometimes these newly-created isotopes of X are very unstable. They may be so unstable, in fact, that they only exist briefly before splitting into two separate and distinct chemicals. Radioactive photons, massive energy, and neutrons are shot out in the surrounding area. As long as more Isotopes of X still exist in the area, this can, in turn, create a grand chain reaction that can theoretically last forever. The process I am speaking of is better known as Nuclear Fission, and currently about 10.9 percent of the world’s energy owes itself to Nuclear Fission. So this is great, right? In theory, this atomic exchange is quite productive: we give little to get a lot. However, it seems that the cost is much more high than originally anticipated. Actually, I think that the use of nuclear energy is immortal. My argument, which is purely deontological, is based on the following facts and premises:
First, a consequence of nuclear fission is the byproduct of nuclear waste. Some types of commonly used chemicals produce nuclear …show more content…
The issue it that the given argument only stands if one accepts the argument. Essentially, one may say that my argument is not acceptable to every, but I am, rather, simply catering to an audience that already accepts my point to view. To counter this claim, take into consideration the John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle.” This idea states that people are naturally born relatively free. If person one were to take freedom away from person two via harm (amputation, negligence, et cetera), then person two would not have natural born freedom. They would, rather, have a freedom which has been limited by another. This goes against the will of nature, given by the first premise. Therefore, stunting the freedom of another, dubbed as “Harm,” is typically