bleah, persuasive speach.. shrug
In our society, nuclear energy has become one of the most criticized
forms of energy by the environmentalists. Thus, a look at nuclear energy
and the environment and its impact on economic growth.
Lewis Munford, an analyst, once wrote, 'Too much energy is as fatal as
too little, hence the regulation of energy input and output not its
unlimited expansion, is in fact one of the main laws of life.' This is
true when dealing with nuclear power. Because our societies structure and
processes both depend upon energy, man is searching for the most efficient
and cheapest form of energy that can be used on a long term basis. And
because we equate power with growth, the more energy that a country uses, -
the greater their expected economic growth. The problem is that energy is
considered to have two facets or parts: it is a major source of man-made
repercussions as well as being the basis of life support systems.
Therefore, we are between two sections in which one is the section of
'resource availability and waste', and the other 'the continuity of life
support systems pertinent to survival.'
Thus, the environmentalists believe that nuclear energy should not be
used for various reasons. First of all, the waste product, i.e. plutonium,
is extremely radioactive, which may cause the people who are working or
living in or around the area of storage or use, to acquire leukemia and
other cancers. They also show how billions of dollars are spent yearly on
safety devices for a single reactor, and this still doesn't ensure the
impossibility of a 'melt down.' Two examples were then given of Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island, in 1979, when thousands of people were killed and
incapacitated. Finally, the environmentalists claim...