James Scott contends that “Engineers, planners, and other professionals who are committed to applying science and mastering nature tend to reduce a complex, multivariable problem to an abstract, quantifiable simplification. In other words, the resort to technological fixes.” (Hughes 166) In the case of energy, nuclear power has become a technological fix. It is a fix until a better answer comes along. Nuclear power is a business not a science. There is more concern on how much money is being made then how to improve it. This is one of the many cons that comes along with nuclear technology. The impact nuclear technology is leaving is not a good one. Radioactive waste, and pollution are a few tangible impacts. Greedy corporations and health concerns are some unapparent ones. Even with its negative impact, nuclear technology is the most practical energy resource this world has. Although there are expensive startup costs, nuclear power is less expensive in the long run. “Nuclear power is proven to be more economical and cost effective than coal, gas, wind, or solar resources.” (Georgia Power) Nuclear energy provides the most bang for your buck. Until a better option comes along nuclear energy is what this world has to rely on for its main source of …show more content…
Humans can let it be a destructive force, or they can perfect it and make new better technologies from it. Nuclear technology may be just a temporary fix, but it has helped create movements. The movement towards cleaner energy sources is now greater than ever. The nuclear industry is rapidly declining with no signs of coming back. Soon renewable energies will be the new way of life. Nuclear technology has left an impact on this earth that will be lasting. Hopefully, people can look back on the disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl and learn from their mistakes. The effects of Fukushima can still be felt today as construction on the site is still occurring in order to stop the continually leaking radiation. The cite of Chernobyl is