What Are The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Fission

Scientists have discovered countless energy sources, from fossil fuel combustion to nuclear fission and fusion, each of which have seemed to pose a different problem. Whether the problematic effect seems to be cost or carbon dioxide emission, renewable and nonrenewable resources have both seemed to come with a fair set of cons with their pros. Extensive research on the topic has shown that there seems to be no flawless source of energy extraction, however there certainly are sources that are relatively worse than others. This being said, nuclear energy, from the fusion and fission of radioactive elements, is one of the worst sources of energy because of its immense waste, danger to the general public, and large expenses. Residual waste from nuclear energy is an inevitable side-effect of fission. Each radioactive isotope has a half life, which is the specific amount of time that it takes an isotope to decay to half of its original mass. This means that while technically each isotope will exponentially decay, the time it
takes for some isotopes to decay to an insignificant mass is enormous. According to the Nuclear Energy Association, In an extreme example, uranium-238, a common isotope in uranium ore, has a half life of about 2.5 billion years. Because radioactive isotopes cannot be left unexposed for the health and safety of organisms, they must be held in tight storage, either dumped below sea level or wasting valued land. In addition, this inadequate method of storage poses a long term threat because it is unclear where society will be in the thousands of years that the waste will take to decay; leaving tanks of radioactive material around for future generations to take care of will prolong an issue by providing a temporary solution. Since nuclear energy is powered by the separation of tightly bonded neutrons and protons, harmful alpha, beta, and gamma rays are an immanent problem. Although these rays can be blocked by layers of construction material, the mining process for the elements poses danger for miners, and the reactor sites pose danger to the region as a whole. Uranium mining has been a proven source of medical problems associated with other known forms of radiation, such as cancer of the bones, blood, and various organs. While it is still technically correct for nuclear energy advocates to claim that no one has died directly from the fission, it is widely known that potentially terminal illnesses have derived from the processes associated with the nuclear reactions. In addition, nuclear reactant sites serve as potentially dangerous sites for foreign attack, as the imperfect world we live in today always seems to include fears of violence and terrorism. In addition to the immediate problems caused by nuclear energy, the large cost of the resource completely negates its value.
The isotopes used to provide the nuclear energy are nonrenewable, just like oil and coal. As stated by the Natural Resource Defense Council, a nonrenewable source is defined as a source that is consumed at a faster rate than it is produced. This means that eventually, with the increased dependence on any nonrenewable resource, the abundance of the isotopes will decrease, which in the simplest economic terms means that the cost of the elements will increase exponentially. In addition, the creation of nuclear reactant sites and containment sites requires immense amounts of infrastructural planning, which is another economic strain. High subsidies for the construction and operation of the reaction sites are only then furthered by the land loan guarantees that are needed to preserve the radioactive material (Shredoff,
2009) Nuclear energy is, without a doubt, not worth it. The money and effort spent on continuing this waste-producing, dangerous, and costly resource would be better spent on a renewable source, such as wind, solar, or hydropower. Because the cons of nuclear energy largely outweigh the benefits, nuclear energy is not an efficient and reliable resource.
Works Cited
Hazardous and Radioactive Waste. (2008). In K. M. Evans, Information Plus Reference Series. The Environment (2008 ed.). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3011860108&source=Bookmark&u=spar84794&jsid=d1bfc7a2d6be6a1533bb7d5f05c50859
Schneider, M., Hazemann, J., & Froggatt, A. (2013). The Steady Decline of the Nuclear Industry Demonstrates That Nuclear Power Is Not a Viable Alternative Energy Source. In L. M. Zott & H. Schier (Eds.), Opposing Viewpoints. Nuclear Power. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Executive Summary and Conclusions, www.WorldNuclearReport.org, Vol. 4, 2012) Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010843224&source=Bookmark&u=spar84794&jsid=6b98882d879b1b4a169e061a5e82ee22

Shredoff, N. (2009, February 23). Retrieved December 15, 2014, from http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/