Nuclear: The Outcast

    In making a decision, it is important to learn the facts and not let one’s opinion be swayed by popular perception. The decision of whether to use nuclear power is one such decision that is unfortunately defined by popular opinion and not data. Presently, many people think of nuclear power as a terrible danger, with the common image being that of a reactor, highly volatile, and prone to melting down and causing a nuclear winter that will leave Earth a wasteland. These negative ideas of nuclear power are derived from two main sources: the Cold War and reactor failures. Nuclear power is either seen as a threat to world peace in nuclear bombs or a power that is beyond the ability of man to control. In reality, nuclear power continues to be a viable choice for power generation; there are many benefits, including economic ones. This article does not argue that it is the superior mode of electricity generation, but explores how past incidents can influence our present ability to make decisions.
    The Cold War is a primary cause of the present negative image of nuclear power. In those days, research on nuclear power was mainly focused on how it could be used as a weapon and electricity generation was a secondary goal. Due to this, research was limited and nuclear power made little progress. Yet, the use of nuclear power does not necessarily mean that a nation with a power plant has the power of a nuclear bomb within its borders. There are means to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and power plants are able to aid in recycling nuclear warheads as the material can be converted into fuel. When a nation has access to the materials needed to make bombs or electricity, it will find that fueling power plants is more beneficial. For example, France generates about 70% of its electricity through nuclear power and has some of the lowest electricity costs in the EU (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx). The focus on the dangers of nuclear weapons and not the benefit of nuclear power has economic consequences. This shows just one way how a preoccupation with one aspect of a technology can impede discussion on other aspects.

    The other source of the negative image of nuclear power is any disaster at a power plant, most notably Chernobyl. When an incident occurs at a power plant, it is viewed as a major health hazard, even more so than other types of power. People are quick to talk about the danger of radiation, yet ignore efforts to clean the area. In fact, evidence seems to prove that these incidents are not frequent nor dangerous. Chernobyl is the deadliest with 46 deaths directly caused by the reactor failure. In contrast, the collapse of the Banqiao dam directly caused about 26,000 deaths and another 145,000 due to a famine (engineeringclicks.com). Despite this, hydroelectric energy generation is looked upon with favor and nuclear is still thought of as deadly. Even coal, though widely accepted, emits a lot of pollution which harms the health of people around those plants. It is easy to claim that nuclear power is a deadly source of power and all others are safe. This claim harms the ability of areas to enact the solutions that best fit their conditions.
    The point of what has been said above is not to disparage the use of any means of electricity generation, but to show that people should not let emotions or past incidents direct efforts to implement policies.

Joseph Burns

Class of 2024