What is nuclear energy and how it is obtained


Concerns about nuclear powers

The use of nuclear power is controversialinstallations in the United States. The study
because of the problem of storing radioactiveshowed no increase in the incidence of
waste for indefinite periods, the potentialchildhood leukemia mortality in the study of
for possibly severe radioactive contaminationsurrounding counties after start-up of the
by accident or sabotage, and the possibilitynuclear facilities. The NCI study, the
that its use in some countries could lead tobroadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed
the proliferation of nuclear weapons.900,000 cancer deaths in counties near
Proponents believe that these risks are smallnuclear  facilities.
and can be further reduced by the technology
in the new reactors. They further claim thatHowever, in Britain there are elevated
the safety record is already good whenchildhood leukemia levels near some
compared to other fossil-fuel plants, that itindustrial facilities, particularly near
releases much less radioactive waste thanSellafield, where children living locally are
coal power, and that nuclear power is aten times more likely to contract the cancer.
sustainable energy source. Critics, includingThe reasons for these increases, or clusters,
most major environmental groups, claimare unclear, but one study of those near
nuclear power is an uneconomic andSellafield has ruled out any contribution
potentially dangerous energy source with afrom  nuclear  sources.
limited fuel supply, especially compared to
renewable energy, and dispute whether theApart from anything else, the levels of
costs and risks can be reduced through newradiation at these sites are orders of
technology.magnitude too low to account for the excess
incidences reported. One explanation is
Accidentsviruses or other infectious agents being
introduced into a local community by the mass
A nuclear accident is generally considered tomovement of migrant workers. Likewise, small
involve the release of radioactive materialstudies have found an increased incidence of
from the vessel and piping containing it.childhood leukemia near some nuclear power
Examples of nuclear accidents include theplants has also been found in Germany and
Chernobyl disaster, the Three Mile IslandFrance . Nonetheless, the results of larger
accident, the Windscale fire, and the Mayakmulti-site studies in these countries
accident.invalidate the hypothesis of an increased
risk of leukemia related to nuclear
The Chernobyl disaster was a major accidentdischarge. The methodology and very small
in 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plantsamples in the studies finding an increased
in the Ukrainian SSR (now the Ukraine),incidence has been criticized. . Also, one
consisting of an explosion at the plant andstudy focusing on Leukemia clusters in
subsequent radioactive contamination of largeindustrial towns in England indicated a link
portions of land in Europe. It is regarded asto high-capacity electricity lines suggesting
the worst accident ever in the history ofthat the production or distribution of the
nuclear power. A number of workers wereelectricity, rather than the nuclear
fatally irradiated, and the potential deathreaction,  may  be  a  factor.
toll among civilians is still debated.
Operator error and plant design were cited asNuclear  proliferation
a  cause  for  the  meltdown.
Nuclear proliferation is the spread of
The 1979 Three Mile Island accident was thenuclear weapons and related technology to
worst civilian nuclear accident outside thenations not recognized "Nuclear Weapon
Soviet Union. However, the reactor vessel andStates" by the Nuclear Nonproliferation
containment building were not breached, evenTreaty. Opponents of civilian nuclear power
though the reactor had suffered a partialpoint out that nuclear technology may be
core meltdown, so that very little radiationdual-use technology, and some of the
(well below natural background radiationmaterials and knowledge used in a civilian
levels) was released into thenuclear program may be used to develop
environment.[29] There were no immediatenuclear  weapons.
fatalities or injuries, and there is
projected to be one additional cancer in theThe military and civil purposes for nuclear
population as a result of the accidentenergy are intertwined in most countries with
(again,  some  groups  debate  this).nuclear capabilities. Original impetus for
development of nuclear power came from the
Design changes are being pursued to lessenmilitary nuclear programs, including the
the risks of fission reactors; in particular,early designs of power reactors that were
passively safe plants (such as the ESBWR) aredeveloped for nuclear submarines. In many
available to be built and inherently safecountries nuclear and civilian nuclear
designs are being pursued. Fusion reactorsprograms are linked, at least by common
which may come to exist in the futureresearch projects and through agencies such
theoretically  have  very  little  risk.as the US DOE and French CEA. In the U.S.,
for example, the first goal of the Department
The World Nuclear Association argues thatof Energy is "to advance the national,
most major forms of energy production causeeconomic, and energy security of the United
deaths. In their comparison, deaths per TWyStates; to promote scientific and
of electricity produced are 885 fortechnological innovation in support of that
hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas,mission; and to ensure the environmental
and 8 for nuclear. Air pollution from fossilcleanup of the national nuclear weapons
fuels is argued to cause tens of thousands ofcomplex."[43]
additional deaths each year in the US alone.
However, wind power was not included in thisTo prevent weapons proliferation, safeguards
study, and is reputed to have caused noon nuclear technology were published in the
deaths  at  all.Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
monitored since 1968 by the International
Vulnerability  of  plants  to  attackAtomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nations signing
the treaty are required to report to the IAEA
Nuclear power plants are generally (althoughwhat nuclear materials they hold and their
not always) considered "hard" targets. In thelocation. They agree to accept visits by IAEA
US, plants are surrounded by a double row ofauditors and inspectors to verify
tall fences which are electronicallyindependently their material reports and
monitored. The plant grounds are patrolled byphysically inspect the nuclear materials
a sizeable force of armed guards.[citationconcerned to confirm physical inventories of
needed] The NRC's "Design Basis Threat"them in exchange for access to nuclear
criteria for plants is a secret, and so whatmaterials and equipment on the global market.
size attacking force the plants are able to
protect against is unknown. However, to ScramSeveral states did not sign the treaty and
a plant takes less than 5 seconds whilewere able to use international nuclear
unimpeded restart takes hours, severelytechnology (often procured for civilian
hampering a terrorist force in a goal topurposes) to develop nuclear weapons (India,
release  radioactivity.Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa). Of those
who have signed the treaty and received
Attack from the air is a more problematicshipments of nuclear paraphernalia, many
concern. The most important barrier againststates have either claimed to, or been
the release of radioactivity in the event ofaccused of, attempting to use supposedly
an aircraft strike is the containmentcivilian nuclear power plants for developing
building and its missile shield. The NRC'sweapons. Certain types of reactors may be
Chairman has said "Nuclear power plants aremore conducive to producing nuclear weapons
inherently robust structures that our studiesmaterials than others, such as possible
show provide adequate protection in afuture fast breeder reactors, and a number of
hypothetical attack by an airplane. The NRCinternational disputes over proliferation
has also taken actions that require nuclearhave centered on the specific model of
power plant operators to be able to managereactor being contracted for in a country
large fires or explosions - no matter whatsuspected  of  nuclear  weapon  ambitions.
has  caused  them."
There is concern in some countries over North
In addition, supporters point to largeKorea and Iran operating research reactors
studies carried out by NRC and other agenciesand fuel enrichment plants, since those
that tested the robustness of both reactorcountries refuse adequate IAEA oversight and
and waste fuel storage, and found that theyare believed to be trying to develop nuclear
should be able to sustain a terrorist attackweapons. North Korea admits that it is
comparable to the September 11 terroristdeveloping nuclear weapons, while the Iranian
attacks in the USA. Spent fuel is usuallygovernment vehemently denies the claims
housed inside the plant's "protected zone" oragainst  Iran.
a spent nuclear fuel shipping cask; stealing
it for use in a "dirty bomb" is extremelySome proponents of nuclear power agree that
difficult. Exposure to the intense radiationthe risk of nuclear proliferation may be a
would almost certainly quickly incapacitatereason to prevent nondemocratic developing
or  kill any terrorists who attempt to do so.nations from gaining any nuclear technology
but argue that this is no reason for
Nuclear power plants are designed todemocratic developed nations to abandon their
withstand threats deemed credible at the timenuclear power plants, especially in the light
of licensing. However, as weapons evolve itof the democratic peace theory, which argues
cannot be said unequivocably that within thethat democracies refrain from war against
60 year life of a plant it will not becomeeach other. There is, however, always the
vulnerable. Safety against airplanes becamerisk that information of new technologies
an issue only after the September 11 attacks.will be stolen and made public (e.g. on the
There is no knowing what other methods willInternet), making it ever easier for any
be thought of over the next few hundreds orcountry to build its own nuclear facilities.
even thousands of years. The airplane itselfHowever, all power sources and technology can
is only one century old. Also, storage sitesbe used to produce and use weapons. The
may be well protected now, but if thatweapons of mass destruction used in chemical
remains the case will strongly depend onwarfare and biological warfare are not
political developments which are impossibledependent on nuclear power. Humans could
to  predict.still make war even if all technology was
forbidden.
Other forms of energy production are also
vulnerable to attack, such as hydroelectricProponents also note that nuclear power, like
dams  and  LNG  tankers.some other power sources, provides steady
energy at a consistent price without
Use  of  waste  byproduct  as  a  weaponcompeting for energy resources from other
countries, something that may contribute to
Opponents of nuclear power express concernswars.[citation  needed]
that nuclear waste is not well protected, and
that it can be possible be used as aConcerns  about  floating  nuclear  plants
terrorist weapon, as a dirty bomb, quoting a
1999 Russian incident where workers wereRussia has begun building the world’s
caught trying to sell 5 grams of radioactivefirst floating nuclear power plant. The
material on the open market, or the incident£100 million vessel, the Lomonosov, is the
in 1993 where Russian workers were caughtfirst of seven plants that Moscow says will
selling 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium.bring vital energy resources to remote
The UN has since called upon world leaders toRussian  regions.
improve security in order to prevent
radioactive material falling into the handsEnvironmental groups and nuclear experts are
of terrorists. Proponents of nuclear powerconcerned that floating nuclear plants will
argue, however, that a dirty bomb is not abe more vulnerable to accidents and terrorism
very effective weapon and would causethan land-based stations. They point to a
relatively few casualties, although thehistory of naval and nuclear accidents in
psychological  impact  would  be  high.Russia and the former Soviet Union, including
the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Russia does
Health effect on population near nuclearhave 50 years of experience operating a fleet
plantsof nuclear powered icebreakers that are also
used for scientific and arctic tourism
Most of the human exposure to radiation comesexpeditions.
from natural background radiation. Most of
the remaining exposure comes from medicalThe Russians have commented that a nuclear
procedures. Several large studies in the US,reactor that sinks, such as the similar
Canada, and Europe have found no evidence ofreactor involved in the Kursk explosion, can
any increase in cancer mortality among peoplebe raised and probably put back into
living near nuclear facilities. For example,operation.[citation  needed]
in 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
of the National Institutes of HealthAt this time it is not known what, if any,
announced that a large-scale study, whichcontainment structure or associated missile
evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer,shield will be built on the ship. The
found no increased incidence of cancerRussians believe that an airliner striking
mortality for people living near 62 nuclearthe ship would not destroy the reactor.



1 A B 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80