1. USSR vs. US
a. After the fall of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, the world entered into a competition for supremacy between the last two remaining world powers; the Soviets of the U.S.S.R. and the Americans of America. In their race for supremacy, the two powers created, tested, and improved the most destructive weapon of all time, the nuclear bomb. Between 1946 and 2010, the two nations tested over 1,850 bombs. The competition drove each to continue testing across the world from the depths of the oceans to the open skys. These test were banned in 1963 and all test were banned in 1996.
b. Article
After budget cuts from the 2000s and the dropping of the water levels in the aquifer, scientist are having trouble monitoring the radioactive …show more content…
Like all energy production methods, nuclear energy has its advantages and disadvantages. The current most persuasive pro would be that nuclear energy is a well developed, ready to go energy production. Unlike other green energy, it is what economist called “market ready”. Another pro would be that is emits virtually no carbon emissions. The cons would be the unpredictability and dangerous nature of nuclear power. Many of the elements used have half-lives that last millions if not billions of years. These radioactive waste products must be stored somewhere potentially infiltrating ecosystems. In contrast, fossil fuels provide a relatively cheap, easily available, and are very stable sources, that is they are much safer then nuclear. However, they emit massive amounts of greenhouse gasses when they are burned, drilled, and transported, pollution is harder to contain, and much more. The processes that are involved in bringing the minerals and fossil fuels to market are similar. They both are devastating to the environment, both are having to dig deeper to find their product making it more expensive, dangerous, and impactful on the environment, and much more. If I had to choose between the two evils, I would chose nuclear only because its byproducts are easier to contain and maintain. Although it would be very expensive and would require constant diligence and oversight, I believe that well regulated nuclear energy would be much less destructive then fossil fuels. Not only that, the possibility for technological advancements within the field of producing nuclear energy, such as the prospect for fusion, provide promising sources of cleaner
a. After the fall of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, the world entered into a competition for supremacy between the last two remaining world powers; the Soviets of the U.S.S.R. and the Americans of America. In their race for supremacy, the two powers created, tested, and improved the most destructive weapon of all time, the nuclear bomb. Between 1946 and 2010, the two nations tested over 1,850 bombs. The competition drove each to continue testing across the world from the depths of the oceans to the open skys. These test were banned in 1963 and all test were banned in 1996.
b. Article
After budget cuts from the 2000s and the dropping of the water levels in the aquifer, scientist are having trouble monitoring the radioactive …show more content…
Like all energy production methods, nuclear energy has its advantages and disadvantages. The current most persuasive pro would be that nuclear energy is a well developed, ready to go energy production. Unlike other green energy, it is what economist called “market ready”. Another pro would be that is emits virtually no carbon emissions. The cons would be the unpredictability and dangerous nature of nuclear power. Many of the elements used have half-lives that last millions if not billions of years. These radioactive waste products must be stored somewhere potentially infiltrating ecosystems. In contrast, fossil fuels provide a relatively cheap, easily available, and are very stable sources, that is they are much safer then nuclear. However, they emit massive amounts of greenhouse gasses when they are burned, drilled, and transported, pollution is harder to contain, and much more. The processes that are involved in bringing the minerals and fossil fuels to market are similar. They both are devastating to the environment, both are having to dig deeper to find their product making it more expensive, dangerous, and impactful on the environment, and much more. If I had to choose between the two evils, I would chose nuclear only because its byproducts are easier to contain and maintain. Although it would be very expensive and would require constant diligence and oversight, I believe that well regulated nuclear energy would be much less destructive then fossil fuels. Not only that, the possibility for technological advancements within the field of producing nuclear energy, such as the prospect for fusion, provide promising sources of cleaner