Chernobyl and Fukushima: Two of the biggest nuclear disasters in history. When thinking about nuclear safety, the issue of a potential meltdown will always follow nuclear energy. A nuclear meltdown occurs when the nuclear reactor is unable to be cooled down and hot melted radioactive fuel can spill and be released outside the plant. The main opposition against nuclear energy lies in the danger of a meltdown. Admittedly, these disasters have caused devastating damage. In an article about the Chernobyl disaster, Encyclopedia Britannica notes, “Millions of acres of forest and farmland were contaminated… Many livestock were born deformed, and among humans several thousand radiation-induced illnesses and cancer deaths were expected in the long term.”
…show more content…
If anything, these reactors of the future will certainly be able to stand up to the dangers of nuclear power plants in a society that runs on nuclear power. Bolstering the safety of nuclear plants is the utmost concern of those who oppose nuclear power. One the danger of a nuclear meltdown is addressed, then nuclear energy seems to be an option to power the future. Yet regardless of the safer design, opponents may say that nuclear energy can and and still has most likely killed a lot of people from radiation and displacement during the nuclear disasters in the past. Contrary to this point, Conca reveals that “Nuclear has the lowest death print, even with the worst-case Chernobyl numbers and Fukushima projections… The reason the U.S. death toll is so low for nuclear is our strong Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).” The statistic given in the article shows that has only 90 deaths per trillion kilowatt hour (deaths/trillionkWhr) for nuclear globally, and 0.1 deaths/trillionkWhr in the United States (Conca). The numbers show that nuclear is actually in fact the safest form of energy there is. The only reason for the nuclear uneasiness is because of a few famous
If anything, these reactors of the future will certainly be able to stand up to the dangers of nuclear power plants in a society that runs on nuclear power. Bolstering the safety of nuclear plants is the utmost concern of those who oppose nuclear power. One the danger of a nuclear meltdown is addressed, then nuclear energy seems to be an option to power the future. Yet regardless of the safer design, opponents may say that nuclear energy can and and still has most likely killed a lot of people from radiation and displacement during the nuclear disasters in the past. Contrary to this point, Conca reveals that “Nuclear has the lowest death print, even with the worst-case Chernobyl numbers and Fukushima projections… The reason the U.S. death toll is so low for nuclear is our strong Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).” The statistic given in the article shows that has only 90 deaths per trillion kilowatt hour (deaths/trillionkWhr) for nuclear globally, and 0.1 deaths/trillionkWhr in the United States (Conca). The numbers show that nuclear is actually in fact the safest form of energy there is. The only reason for the nuclear uneasiness is because of a few famous