Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Emily Breneman
UWRT
Connie Douglas
22 March 2017
In a world surrounded by social media and the constant criticism of the public eye,
environmental affairs face heavily opinionated review from a variety of organizations and
associations. One of these such arguments revolves around the greatly discussed alternative
energy nuclear. With a dark past and an unclear future, many critics and scholars have taken to
reviewing nuclear energies current state of affairs and where it may lead America in years to
come. With so many opposing voices however, it is clear that the political economy has had quite
Beginning in the summer of 1945, the power of nuclear energy penetrated the public eye
and began tarnishing the technologies record. Nuclear energy was used to fuel an atomic bomb
and later end a war. Today however, twenty percent of the United States power is distributed by
nuclear means (Scientific American.) Instead of being used as a source of negativity nuclear
technology was refined with peaceful intentions in mind and nuclear fission was born in 1951
(World Nuclear Association). In the process of nuclear fission, uranium molecules are submerged
in water which induces fission and produces heat. This heat is turned into pressurized steam
which turns a turbine powering generator and energy is created. While this creates a great deal
more energy than the traditional coal and hydroelectricity, radioactive waste and radiation are
Breneman 2
also created (Rich and Warhol). The creation of radiation and waste material is where and why
As stated by Leo Burnett, Good advertising does not just circulate information. It
penetrates the public mind with desires and belief. This methodology is particularly popular
amongst environmentalist who wish the public to discredit nuclear energy. You would think that
an environmentalist should support an energy that does not produce greenhouse gases, yet this is
not always the case. The public and environmentalist who spread their argument against nuclear
energy all mention the same major key points, as they are quite large and understandably
Beginning in 1957, nuclear plants began to accrue a lengthy list of disasters ranging from
transportation incidents to equipment failure and even human error. These all exposed potential
health and safety risks to local populations (Rich and Warhol). The United States first scare
occurred on March 28, 1979, when the Three Mile Island reactor had a partial meltdown.
Although no adverse reactions occurred, this left a mark on the nations public. Next came
Chernobyl. On April 26, 1986, in Ukraine, radiation was sent high into the atmosphere following
a test run and Chernobyl did not have hard containment walls like most reactors. Fukushima too
suffered damage at the hands of an earthquake and tsunami. These are all major disasters,
potential or otherwise, that the public has witnessed and they are all used as examples by
environmentalist and the public to voice their opinion on nuclear energy. This argument is
particularly strong as well. Following Fukushima's disaster, public support for nuclear energy
The potential for health and safety risks is also a key point used to argue why nuclear
energy should not be present in our future. Possible radiation poisoning and cancer from
Breneman 3
meltdowns to local and even not-so-local areas is an obvious risk. However disposal of
radioactive waste also leaves the potential for health concerns and the public is certainly not keen
on having waste stored relatively close to them (Rich and Warhol). In 1987, Congress designated
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to be nuclear wastes permanent repository. Public outcry and strong
statements of opposition terminated the project during Obamas presidency although Obama was
a strong advocate of nuclear energy (Nordhaus). Safety concerns also became evident and
became a strong center for opposition against nuclear energy following the terrorist attacks on
September 1st, 2001. Nuclear facilities could be potential targets for terrorist attacks and cause
Another voice present within the argument pertaining to nuclear energy belongs to those
of corporations and environmentalist as well. These individuals believe nuclear energy is our
future and the propagation of nuclear facilities is necessary. A majority of this viewpoints
arguments centers directly around counter arguing environmentalist and the public that is
opposed to nuclear energy. While it is clear that nuclear energy certainly benefits our health and
climate, public worries regarding safety ultimately trump any other discussions.
The largest argument corporations particularly have therefore regard nuclear facilities
safety regulations and overall improvement. Although these facilities have amazing safety
records the fact that a few major catastrophes have occurred obscures this knowledge.
Corporations want the public to understand how safe facilities can truly be once more strict
regulations are enforced and advanced technologies are applied. Recently proposed designs used
Gen III+ models which are substantially safer compared to todays reactors which have been in
alternate energy compared to solar energy and wind energy and its lack of acceptance puts clean
energy at risk as well as our environment. Nuclear energy provides for more than sixty percent of
the nations zero-emissions energy although it only accounts for twenty percent of our overall
energy generation. In 2016, ten nuclear facilities (or a tenth of the nations units) closed
prematurely due to lack of public acceptance and funding. For scale, ten units represents sixty-
nine million megawatt-hours of zero-emission generation which is three times the amount of
energy generated by solar panels built in the United States over the past fifteen years. These
shutdowns have costs for the environment as CO emissions will increase dramatically (Barron).
The third major voice present in this argument are researchers, usually environmental
writers, that seek to educate the nation on the pros and cons of nuclear energy and how the
United States stands today regarding this technology. Researchers chose to not stand on either
side of the argument and inform rather than debate. Therefore this voice is the embodiment of the
public, the corporations and the environmentalist, whether they support nuclear energy or not.
The researchers too pose the question regarding whether nuclear energy will be present
in our future. Nuclear energies presence in our future is determined on a number of factors and
great amounts of information. The most notable feature within the work accumulated,
specifically those unbiased, is that the writers tend to focus on arguments made by critics and
the public. While this may not be specifically stated, a large portion of the writing includes
critics say or the public followed by a statement directly addressing their statements. This is
because the public, and critics who influence the public, dominate the argument on nuclear
energy. The researchers focus on correcting allegations made by these voices or confirming their
validity. They seek to educate and expand the voices knowledge (Clemmit).
Breneman 5
With environmental awareness rising and nuclear energy on the decline, the future of this
technology is uncertain. Nuclear energy is a particularly strong energy generator and other
alternative sources cannot compare by quantitative means. Yet the potential health and safety
concerns have forced nuclear energy under the eye of the public and the strong and unwavering
opinion from the public has made it difficult for those advocating nuclear energy to increase
public popularity. In Americas current state, the public has a great deal of power over political
affairs which nuclear energy has become. Environmentalist and corporations will continue to
fight for either side of the war on nuclear while researchers will seek to properly educate
America on the technology. The political economy of nuclear energy has certainly impacted this
Works Cited
librarylink.uncc.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pwh&AN=117834522&site=pov-live.
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Nuclear Power." CQ Researcher 10 June 2011: 505-28. Web. 7 Feb. 2017.
Dupea, Robert, and David C. Morley. "Counterpoint: Nuclear Power Is Not Worth The Risk."
Points Of View: Nuclear Power (2016): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web.
20 Feb. 2017.
Editors, The. "Coming Clean about Nuclear Power." Scientific American. Scientific American,
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coming-clean-about-nuclear-power/>.
Nordhaus, Robert, et al. "Nuclear Power at the Crossroads." Environmental Forum, vol. 30, no.
url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pwh&AN=86189603&site=pov-live.
Nuclear Power in the World Today. Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association, World
Rich, Alex K., and Tom Warhol. "Nuclear Power: An Overview." Points Of View: Nuclear Power