Submit Letters

One Reply to “Submit Letters”

1. For Nuclear For Earth
   The Earth is heating up from our burning of fossil fuels. People are dying and getting sick from contamination in the air and water. Global warming could kill billions of animals as well as humans. As a student at The Pegasus School, I am trying to promote nuclear energy to save the Earth. People think that nuclear energy is harmful, mainly because of the nuclear waste and nuclear disasters, but the fears are overblown and nuclear energy is the only cost effective way to save our planet.
   People have fears of another Chernobyl harming them or their family. Because “1000 people died from the evacuation of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster” (Fukushima Daiichi Accident), and “33 people died in the first 3 months of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, 28 people died of Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS), and 134 people got ARS,” (World Nuclear Association) most people are scared of another nuclear disaster. People do not want to live near a nuclear power plant because they are scared it will malfunction and could harm them or their family. They are scared of a nuclear disaster harming them, even though there have been more major fossil fuel disasters compared to major nuclear disasters. People died from the evacuation of Fukushima, not the actual nuclear disaster. People are also scared of nuclear waste even though “the amount of nuclear waste is small compared other energy generation technologies and nuclear energy takes full responsibility of its waste” (Radioactive Waste Management). Also “Nuclear waste could be viewed as fuel not very hazardous compared to other industrial waste and safe methods to dispose the waste have proven to work” (Radioactive Waste Management). People are scared of nuclear waste flowing everywhere and it filling up the earth, but it is reused or buried deep underground in salt mines. It is buried in salt mines so that the nuclear waste does not run or leak into the groundwater. Nuclear waste is not as hazardous compared to other industrial waste and half of it can be reused. It is clear that people’s fears of nuclear waste or a nuclear disaster are valid, but they should be more scared of fossil fuel disasters than nuclear disasters.
   Most people’s fears of nuclear energy come from fears of nuclear radiation harming them and their family. People’s fears are unreasonable because “most of the radiation we feel is natural and no one from the public has ever been killed in a major disaster” (Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects). People’s fears come from “government and newspaper edicts which made it sound like many people are dying”(Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects). Because the government and newspapers made it sound like many people are dying, people got scared of another nuclear disaster. People are also scared of nuclear radiation leaking into the groundwater or getting into the air. Even in Fukushima, “the largest release of man-made radioactive discharge in the Pacific Ocean, 80% of the total radiation leak, the fallout in the ocean was small enough not to affect animals lower than mollusks, fish and algae” (Fukushima Daiichi Accident). We do not know the amount of radiation in the “seafloor and groundwater and we do not know the long term fate of nuclear contamination” (Fukushima Daiichi Accident). Even in the biggest leak of radiation from nuclear energy the amount of radiation leaked is not large enough to hurt humans. This shows that the fears of radiation are overstated and halting the progress of nuclear energy.
   Nuclear energy will help save the earth and is cheap to operate. According to the World Nuclear Association in an article entitled “Economics of Nuclear Energy” “There is not much money spent on fuel/uranium, but it costs money for nuclear waste disposal.” It also says that, “Nuclear power plants are expensive to build, cheap to run, and the cost to run a nuclear power plant is lower than other fossil fuel competitors.” Even though nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and take down, they are cheap to run. This shows that nuclear power can be cheaper than fossil fuels because there is little money spent on fuel. Wind and Solar energy could be solutions but “wind power is unpredictable, but would be good if there was a way to store wind power that is cost-effective” (Wind Energy Pros and Cons). Solar energy has,“a high cost for building the system, for the solar panels, and they have to pay for the batteries, wiring and installation. There is little energy produced on cloudy days and solar energy has to be used right away or stored which is expensive” (Pros and Cons of Solar Energy). This shows that solar and wind power is unreasonable to use on a mass scale because it is expensive to store and if you do not store it then then you have to use it right away. The amount of wind energy produced is dependent on the amount of wind and some places do not have a lot of wind. Nuclear power is the only reasonable alternative energy source because it is cost-effective and can produce enough energy.
   Nuclear disasters are mainly caused by a mistake or design flaw but now, in the 21st century, scientists have mostly gotten rid of the flaws. Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident, was “part of a Soviet Union design flaw, mistakes made by plant operators, and no safety culture” (World Nuclear Association). Because Chernobyl was such a big accident “it led to major changes in safety and was the only accident where people died of radiation” (World Nuclear Association). Chernobyl only happened because of lax safety and a design flaw. Chernobyl also led to more safety regulations so something like it would not happen again. Chernobyl, which will probably be the worst nuclear accident, is the only accident that people died of radiation. Chernobyl was also 33 years ago and we did not have the same technology as we do today. Because of Chernobyl, there have been many more safety regulations such as,” when building and sailing a nuclear powered ship the builders must have a rigorous attitude towards the control of radiation and protection of the environment during reactor design and testing” (World Nuclear Association). Because of “many safety features, skilled operators, maintenance activity, regulatory requirements, armed guards, and engineering to withstand earthquakes and other natural disasters, a nuclear accident at a plant is very unlikely to happen” (Nuclear Power and the Environment). Because of the many features there is a very low chance of a disaster, and nothing like Chernobyl will likely happen again because of the high maintenance and the skilled operators. Nothing like Fukushima will likely happen again because nuclear power plants are engineered to withstand earthquakes and natural disasters. It is clear that the chances of a nuclear disaster are now very low.
   The earth is dying. We are killing it. We are slowly destroying our only outpost in the vast emptiness of space, and we are dying with it. We are poisoning our earth with our burning of fossil fuels, our want for easy energy. Yet we continue with life, oblivious to the growing problem around us. If we remain inactive, many will die, plants, animals, and even humans. The death will not stop until we do. We, the people, must fix what we created. We can save our Earth, but only together.

   Works Cited
   “Economics of Nuclear Energy.” World Nuclear Association, Dec. 2018,
   http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/
   economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx. Accessed 25 Feb. 2019

   “Fossil Fuels Pros and Cons.” Alternative Energys, http://www.alternative-energies.net/fossil-fuels-pros-and-cons/. Accessed 10 Mar. 2019.
   “Fukushima Daiichi Accident” [“Fukushima Daiichi Accident”]. World Nuclear Association, Oct. 2018, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx. Accessed 12 Feb. 2019.
   “HYDROPOWER COSTS | RENEWABLE ENERGY HYDROELECTRICITY COSTS VS OTHER RENEWABLE & FOSSIL COSTS.” PlanetSave, planetsave.com/2016/03/09/hydropower-costs-renewable-energy-hydroelectricity-costs-vs-renewable-fossil-costs/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2019.
   “Nuclear Power and the Environment.” EIA, 16 Jan. 2019, http://www.eia.gov/
   energyexplained/index.php?page=nuclear_environment
   “Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects” [“World Nuclear Association”]. World Nuclear Association, June 2018, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx. Accessed 12 Feb. 2019.
   “Radioactive Waste Management” [“Radioactive Waste Management”]. World Nuclear Association, Apr. 2018, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx.
   World Nuclear Association. Apr. 2017, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019.
   “Pros and Cons of Solar Energy. GREENMATCH, 19 Dec. 2018, http://www.greenmatch.co.uk/
   blog/2014/08/5-advantages-and-5-disadvantages-of-solar-energy. “
   “Wind Energy Pros and Cons. energy informative, energyinformative.org/
   wind-energy-pros-and-cons/. “
   World Nuclear Association. Nov. 2018, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/
   non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx.

   Reply