He gives facts to back it up. “The underground tunnels at Yucca Mountain are designed to hold 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste.” (Muller 255) It is obvious that Muller just wants people to see how insignificant the debate of nuclear waste is. He talks about greater problems as I stated about Colorado but to be more in depth about that situation Muller says “water that runs through, around, and over this radioactive rock is the source of the Colorado River, which is used for drinking water in much of the West, including Los Angeles and San Diego.” (Muller 257) There are prominent problems that need to be assisted and taken care of. Spending so much time and money on nuclear waste is just squandering
...t problem of nuclear power and it is probably the most well-managed waste in the history of the United States. This essay is not attempting to present nuclear as the perfect answer to the increased demand for power. Nuclear is not perfect, however, of the options available it comes the closest.
Orrick, Dave. March 3, 2002. Nuclear Waste plan: Good or bad for the suburbs? Chicago Daily Herald.
One needs to pay attention to the fact that the problems are possible not only in case of nuclear accidents. It is about the issue of the disposal nuclear waste. Increasing the amount of nuclear waste and reducing the size of the territories for their burial will make the United States face a vexed problem, because currently the elaboration of nuclear waste is not possible. The U.S. government should first promote the research aimed to find alternative ways to deal with energy shortages. Based on the fact that, despite its advantages, nuclear power might lead to catastrophic consequences of not local, but a global scale, it is necessary to seek for the solutions that will ensure minimal harm to human health and the natural balance of ecosystems.
Another issue was the route that trucks carrying the radioactive material would go through to get to Energy Fuel Resource’s White Mesa Mill at Blanding, Utah, the only operating uranium mill in the United States. Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter, explains that in addition to mat...
In addition to the potential dangers of accidents in generating stations, nuclear waste is a continuing problem that is growing exponentially. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for about 600 years and disposing these wastes or storing them is an immense problem. Everyone wants the energy generated by power plants, but no one wants to take responsibility for the waste. Thus far, it is stored deep in the earth, but these storage areas are potentially dangerous and will eventually run out. Some have suggested sending the waste into space, but no one is sure of the repercussions.
Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear power opponents is the constant reliving of the few nuclear mishaps that occurred decades ago, at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. No doubt, past accidents have happened worldwide and are important reminders to not play around with nuclear material, but technology has improved as well, a fact opponents fail to consider. Many of these organizations feel that other sources should be used to supply America’s energy needs. These types of statements tag many opponents to nuclear energy as misinformed, out of touch with scientific facts, or just closed minded to the whole concept of nuclear power. On the other hand, the proponents of nuclear energy like President Bush see it as cheap, and environmentally friendly. As a result, President Bush passed the Comprehensive Energy Bill in 2005 that would increase production of all types of energy, including nuclear, by giving subsidies and tax breaks to nuclear power producers. Keeping safe America’s capabilities for generating electric power by way of nuclear e...
The United States government is known to give its citizens great advise with much care and concern. With this being known, many people come to the conclusion that United States citizens can faith in the government when it comes to making crucial decisions. Terry Tempest Williams is not one of these people. In “The Clan of the One-Breasted Women”, Williams gives her views on the government conducting nuclear tests in Utah. In contrast, in “America’s Energy Plan in Action: Bearing Witness,” an article Williams contributed to Orion magazine and OrionOnline, Williams speaks on issues containing actions of the government drilling for oil and natural gases. This is also conducted in Utah. Both of these articles share a common topic and tone. These two pieces both focus around major concerns for the Earth and how the government will is helping to destroy it for things like nuclear testing and drilling for oil and gases.
The final major source of energy on which the U.S. currently depends is nuclear power, and many (including the author of a Time magazine article in the April 29, 1991 issue) see it as a viable alternative, provided solutions are found to a few “minor” difficulties. Once the facts are known, though, it becomes clear that nuclear power (both fission and fusion) is not the answer to our current U. S. energy dilemma, primarily because it presents great risks and creates tremendous pollution hazards, and, further, because it also will continue to support the status quo of huge multi-national corporations dominating e...
...ing nuclear waste is a new and unsound technology, but still a solution to the problems of excessive waste. Where in the future, new technologies may allow for the waste to be completely recycled and reused in the reactors to create more energy. With both positives and negatives of nuclear energy, the real question that remains is “if not nuclear, then what else?” (Rutgers’s Felder)