The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

The readings for this week, start off with assessing the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear reactors from the viewpoints of two scientists. Edward Teller asks the government to look at the safety of the reactors and wants an advisory committee to be formed in order to regulate and oversee the nuclear reactors. On the contrary, Weinberg sees nuclear reactors as advantageous to society, and believes that they are as risky as any other scientific invention. Throughout history, society has always looked at nuclear power plants as a huge hazard to the environment and safety of society. This article enlightened me that the risk of a power plant being blown up or having a meltdown is as common as anything else that were to happen on the earth ( a hurricane, earthquake, getting hit by a car etc.). People automatically think that nuclear reactors will illicit radioactive particles that can kill them, which is true, but the amount of radioactivity that it takes to cause cancer is more then is given off by the reactors. People don't really think in perspective of how dangerous something really is and is the danger has a realistic effect on their life. Essentially, anyone can get cancer from the sun, standing in front of the microwave etc. I think that society has been brainwashed by science. We see scientists as authority figures, and society doesn't seem to question authority, thus everything they see if true. When one really analyzes the benefits of the nuclear reactors, especially the breeders, one will see it will be more efficient at a cheaper cost.

I don't think that Teller was discounting nuclear reactors all together, but he wanted the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to regulate the reactors. He recognizes the fact that in the past, explosions haven't been very detrimental to society. He stipulates the fact that the one thing that people are most worried about is the possibility of the reactor to explode. Although these fears are eminent, an explosion will only affect the people in the immediate surrounding areas. The thing that he is most worried about is the nuclear poison from the reactors. He acknowledges the fact that although the possibility of an accident is small, we can't be naive, and if an accident were to happen it would be disastrous to the community. Weinberg looks at this same point from a different perspective and believes that although accidents are inevitable, their is a small probability they would happen, and it wouldn't have as great an effect on the community as we think. Unless the community is built right on top of the plant, one doesn't notice the effects until way after the explosion. Teller also realizes that the construction of reactors are inevitable, and so are accidents thus, no legislation will be able to stop accidents or mitigate the effects. Teller has a realistic view to the creation of reactors, although we can't stop them, the government can aid in making them safer. He also notices that they are a good thing for the advancement of science. Lastly, Teller believes that a less expensive source of fissionable materials needs to be found, which Weinberg has the solution to this problem via breeders. Teller states that the lower the cost of atomic weapons, the more we can produce which is advantageous for our military.

Weinberg is an advocate for the breeders because they will produce more energy in an efficient manner both scientifically and economically. The breeder creates more fissile material then it destroys and " a breeder extracts so much more energy from a gram of uranium than does a burner, we can afford to pay very much more for that gram of uranium if we burn it in a breeder than if we burn it in a burner" (Weinberg 9). Inevitably, he is arguing that we should expend all of our resources to build breeders, but with the changing government there is a halt in creating breeders ( ie. Carter's energy policy and the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which will just be an image). Similar to Teller, people are afraid of the nuclear waste, the potential meltdowns and other accidents, and economical aspects of breeders. Weinberg argues that in the long run we will be successful if we use breeders and we shouldn't worry about the effects. He is a strong advocate for breeders. It we put the right people in charge of overseeing breeders and reactors then their should be little to worry about. Society is so afraid of nuclear technology, and what we need is for scientists to precisely depict how nuclear technology can benefit society, so that it will assuage apprehensions against such projects.

The effects of Chernobyl were shocking, and that made people hesitant of bringing nuclear power to the United States. Chernobyl was a freak accident that could happen anywhere, and although we don't want it on our turf, we should not discount the positive effects that nuclear energy has for society. Teller and Weinberg give two different accounts of their views of nuclear energy, as Teller doesn't necessarily not like it, but would feel better if there were safeguards. Whereas, Weinberg is a strong advocate for nuclear energy and believes it has many promising effects. Where do you stand?