Waste Management : The Problem With Nuclear Waste

Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.

Native people have been around the Americas since before the Europeans came. Then the natives land began to shrink. Now in today’s society they have the lowest population amongst groups. Most native people use the land for growing goods like fruits and vegetables to tobacco. With the possibility of nuclear waste site in Yucca Mountains, it could threaten the fertility of their land. Environmental racism is the inequality in the form of racism linked with environmental factors and practices that cause disproportionate distress on minority communities (Knowledge Encyclopedia). The Yucca mountain project is environmental racism to the surrounding natives. To get across my point, the following paragraphs will talk about the history of the project, what the article was about, which tribes it would affect, why it is environmental racism and why the previous paragraphs prove my opinion.

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

For years, the State of Nevada has found the Yucca Mountain project unacceptable because of the obvious logical and scientific issues that make the site itself unsafe. Additional support for their argument is that other than being far from the nuclear waste, the repository cannot really separate itself and its dangers from the environment and humans. Even though Nevada started with just being upset about the state having the political finger pointed at them to hold the whole nation’s nuclear waste but now their argument is stronger (Adams, 2010). Not only is Yucca Mountains’ size not big enough for the entire countries nuclear waste, but geologic factors could make the waste

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

Along with the health risks that a nuclear waste site causes, there are also frequent earth quakes in the area that has been proposed and it is flood land. This poses a threat to not only the people in the area but the surrounding environment too. The radioactive waste would contaminate the water and the ground if there was a flood or earth quake and because Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years none of us will be alive when the area is no longer

Today, a considerable amount of energy is provided by nuclear energy. The technology is well organized and developing every passing day and as a result the cost of operation is falling. Using radioactive resources to produce energy generates waste. Waste that contains radioactive materials is called nuclear waste. The secure and environmentally-friendly disposal of nuclear waste is a crucial aspect of nuclear power programs. [1]

The following year, after environmental impact assessments were conducted by DOE, the list was narrowed to five potential locations (Richton Dome, Mississippi; Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Deaf Smith County, Texas; Davis Canyon, Utah; and, Hanford, Washington).5 Finally, in 1986, DOE narrowed the field to three sites: Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Hanford, Washington. The fact that each of these locations had a prior involvement with nuclear technology probably contributed to their selection since DOE likely concluded that any opposition to establishing a radioactive waste repository would be muted.6 The site selection process in the East was even more difficult. As Michael Kraft, Professor of Environmental Studies, points out:

The word “Nuclear” instills fear in the general American public’s mind. The simple utter of said word brings memories of huge mushrooms clouds and destruction, or the thought of communism and 50 years of an uncertain, yet terrifying Cold War. Whatever it may be the fact of the matter is that Americans are extremely afraid of anything that has the word Nuclear in it. In the article “Nuclear Waste” published in 2008 by physics professor, and winner of the MacArthur Fellowship award, Richard Muller claims that storing nuclear waste under the Nevada Yucca Mountains can prove to be a safe and efficient way to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Muller supports his argument by first providing the reader with the anti-nuke

I say nuclear waste should be stored in Texas rather than being stored in Washington because Texas is a very large state. Texas is a flat land where it’s surface is very flat and stable. It should be a good place to store nuclear waste because there is a low possibility of any earthquakes that can affect the nuclear waste. There is a low risk of any flooding near Texas. There aren’t many people. Texas can also handle up to 100 earthquakes so there isn’t a high risk that the volcanoes can damage any nuclear waste.

　　　　On contrast, opponents hold different conceptions, they do not regard nuclear energy as a green and clean source of energy. According to Ross(2007), a news director for the National Urban League, fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive and harmful gases to atmosphere, and it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. As a matter of fact, the essential raw material for nuclear nuclear power is uranium, which is a dangerous radioactive element. Opponents also claims that uranium tailing which is byproduct of the procession of getting energy are being inappropriately disposed, which make the situation even worse. On the other hand, after the tragedies of nuclear energy in Chernobyl, three mile island and other district, some people have become more and more impregnable to believe the nuclear energy is dangerous. Dr.

Some scientists mind people that the South Australia Outback is the best, the safest, the most geologically and environmentally stable place on the planet to store the nuclear waste. (Valente,2016) However, as we know, Nuclear Waste is generally mixture of solids, liquids and gases which are produced during the generation of nuclear energy during fission, mining of uranium, nuclear research and weapons production. It is radioactive and that is the primary cause of the negative effects on human health and bodies. When humans are exposed to moderate radiation for a long time, it can lead to permanent problems and even lead to death. Nuclear waste radiation can damage or kill cells of people. Cancer is the primary health effect from radiation

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?