It is time for the U.S. to reconsider its opinion of Nuclear Power

No new nuclear power plants have been licensed andmeltdown at Three Mile Island was caused by residual
built in the United States sense 1979 in large part dueheat and this is a large part of the reason it was not
to the scare caused by the partial meltdown thatmore of a major incident from a safety or
year of a reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.environmental standpoint. Sense that time we have
However, things have changed quite a bit since 1979,completely overhauled our safety controls for nuclear
particularly from a safety and environmentalplants to make them even stronger. In the event
standpoint. It is time that United States politicians andthat something should go wrong today these safety
citizens alike re-examine their thoughts on Nuclearcontrols would be able to prevent meltdown and
energy.contain any radioactive waste within the power plant.
First off let’s address several American hang upsThereby keeping the public and the environment
regarding Nuclear Energy. First off there is the verycompletely safe.
important issue of public safety, this is and should beAnother major safety concern that has held up the
a huge concern for the United States however itdevelopment of nuclear power in this country
chooses to move forward in meeting growing energyrevolves around what to do with the fuel rods after
demand. In the 52 year history of Nuclear powerthey are used. Many people feel that this nuclear
plants in the United States, Three Mile Island is thewaste will cause untold harm to the environment and,
only accident on record. From an industrial standpointwere we to expand our use of nuclear production,
this is a very good safety record, one not met byoverwhelm any kind of storage facility. Currently a
many of today’s leading industries. However,majority of the spent fuel rods in America get stored
there is concern that even one nuclear accident couldin sealed cylindrical containers made from steel
have such damaging effects on the population andreinforced concrete. Inside these larger containers
environment that it is not worth the risk. Particularlyeach fuel rod is individually housed within its own
in the wake of the accident at Chernobyl in Russiametal container. The amount of waste created is not
there is legitimate concern about the damage thatthat large, one square mile could house the entire
could be caused by even one nuclear disaster.amount of nuclear waste that will be produced by
However, Chernobyl is a unique example of what canthe United States for the next 482 years at current
go wrong at a nuclear power plant that is notlevels of production. Stored in this manner fuel rods
properly built or maintained.  All nuclear plants in thehave never been known to decay or cause any kind
United States are built inside huge concrete and steelof harm, they simply sit as inanimate objects.
buildings designed to keep any nuclear waste createdIn addition to this, technology is currently available
in a potential meltdown in and natural forces andthat allows what are currently considered spent fuel
terrorists out. This alone would have helped preventrods to be reprocessed and re-used to create more
much of the damage caused by the Chernobylpower. After rods are recycled the then truly spent
disaster by limiting the amount of toxic material thatfuel rods are much less radioactive and far less
actually made it off the grounds of the power plantharmful, returning to the same level of radioactivity
and into the environment. Further the reactor andas uranium in the ground within 400 years. Thus the
safety controls at Chernobyl were different in designcase for nuclear waste causing harm to the
and function from those used in the United States.environment or being a nuisance really isn’t very
The United States has never used the type ofstrong, in truth most of the current nuclear waste is
reactor used at Chernobyl because it is well knowsimply fuel waiting to be reprocessed.
that they are inherently volatile. The safety systemsWe wound up where we are today in our thinking
that were in place at Chernobyl did not even meetabout nuclear power because we haven’t really
western safety standards at the time; much lessreconsidered it as a viable option sense the
today’s safety standards. Finally, in addition to all1980’s. At that time there was much less good
of these differences, on the night of the disaster,data and evidence available to support global warming
the safety controls at the plant had been completelyand coal was an abundant resource here in the
shut off and the plant was being run in anUnited States. The potential harm and lack of
experimental mode that increased the danger ofunderstanding about nuclear energy made it seem
meltdown for the already volatile reactor. Thus, whilemuch more threatening than simply relying on our
Chernobyl serves as a grim reminder of what can goown natural resource of coal to provide our power.
wrong, there are many factors that set the USHowever, with global temperature on the rise and
nuclear power plants apart from the one atrapidly increasing effects of global warming, as well as
Chernobyl and will prevent anything like Chernobylan increased understanding of nuclear technologies, it
ever happening here.is time that we transition to nuclear. In the long run
Turning back to the US nuclear power industry it isnuclear generation will not be the end all solution for
important to note that even in 1979 at Three Mileour power generation needs but it will be a low
Island the safety mechanisms in place were smartemissions way of bridging the gap between now and
enough to shut down the reactor well before it wentwhen truly renewable energy sources are found. It is
into meltdown, thereby stopping nuclear chaintime that America reconsiders its opinion of nuclear
reactions and limiting the damage. The partialpower.