Power is important to human beings as it is used for many purposes. All the sources of energy have their own drawbacks even those considered to be safe. For instance, energy sources like hydropower have their limitations although many people consider them to be safe.
However, developing nuclear alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy is more dangerous than using the fossil fuels as sources of energy. This essay will discuss the dangers of nuclear sources of energy by focusing on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster resulted from an earthquake that caused nuclear reactors to shut down. After the earthquake struck, action was taken immediately where control rods were fixed at the nuclear plant to stop the nuclear reactions. The external supply of power to the nuclear plant was disrupted by the earthquake.
Disruption of power supply was a dangerous occurrence in the nuclear power plant. During the first hour of power disruption, diesel generators reserved for emergency cases were used to supply power. However, the arrival of the tsunami filled the generators with water causing them to stop functioning. Tsunamis had occurred in different areas but the one that hit Fukushima was unexpected. The engineers responded by using the containment structure to store everything.
Failure of the diesel generators as a result of flooding forced the engineers to use reactors run by batteries. However, the batteries sustained the reactors for eight hours after which they went off causing the amount of residual heat to increase beyond the limits. At this moment, there were speculations that core meltdown was likely to take place due to increased temperatures. However, it was still not possible but the most urgent action was to look for a way of dealing with the core as heating continued (Turk & Bensel, 2011).
The process of cooling core was one of the most important processes. As a result, several cooling systems had been inserted in the reactor. The engineers did not establish the system that failed in its operation while the absence of power caused the cooling systems to lose their cooling ability. The reactors finally started releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere.
The gases did not pose health risks to the operators and the surrounding people since they were controlled. Later on, generators were moved into the plant to restore power. However, there was still a lot of water boiling which reduced the efficiency of the cooling systems. The fuel rods were heated until reactions that produced hydrogen gas occurred. The combustible nature of hydrogen when exposed to the air caused the explosion.
Chernobyl disaster was described as the worst nuclear accident in the 20th century. Many people were curious about the disaster but it was really a terrifying experience. The day the accident occurred had started well but finally it changed the lives of people who lived near the nuclear plant. It was reported that fire had broken out at the nuclear power plant. The lieutenant who went to the plant to check the situation discovered that there was debris all over the nuclear plant.
This was an indication that danger was in the offing. The level of radiation in the nuclear plant had gone up, something that prompted fire fighters to start putting off the blaze by using water only. As they continued fighting the blaze, some of them were taken to hospital after showing symptoms of sickness. The burning of the fire continued with no evidence of harmful effects to the surroundings
After the first day of the nuclear accident, people started exhibiting signs of sickness. It took eight days for the fire to be put off during which six firefighters died in the process. Investigations were conducted and it was discovered that the fire in the nuclear plant was caused by numerous errors.
One of the errors that were discovered was an operator error caused by the management. In addition, organization of the nuclear plant was responsible for some problems that were experienced. For instance, the tests at the nuclear plant were conducted by an engineer who was not experienced in dealing with reactors (World-Nuclear, 2011).
From the experiences of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, it is evident that the use of nuclear energy is risky. The risks associated with the energy are more than the rewards. This is because disasters that occur in nuclear energy plants result into deaths.
For example, the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown led to loss of many lives. These disasters were also associated with long term health problems on human beings. It is therefore important to look for alternative power sources since the risks associated with nuclear energy are more than the rewards.
References
Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2011). Contemporary environmental issues. San Diego: CA Bridgepoint Education.
Nuclear power in description is a contained nuclear fission that generates electricity and heat. Nuclear power plants provide about 6% of the worlds energy and 14% of electricity. Nuclear energy is neither green nor sustainable energy because of the life threatening aspect from its wastes and the nuclear plants themselves.
Another reason is that its only source of raw material is only available on earth. On the other hand, nuclear energy is a non-renewable energy because of the scarcity of its source fuel, uranium, which has an estimation of about 30 to 60 years before it becomes extinct (Florida State University 1).
Nuclear power pros
Nuclear power has quite a number of pros associated with its use. The first pro of nuclear energy is that it emits little pollution to the environment. A power plant that uses coal emits more radiation than nuclear powered plant. Another pro of nuclear energy is that it is reliable.
Because of the fact that nuclear plants uses little fuel, their vulnerability to natural disasters or strikes is limited. The next pro is safety that nuclear energy provides. Safety is both a pro and a con, depending on what point of view one takes. Nevertheless, even though results from a reactor can be disastrous, prevention mechanisms for it work perfectly well with it. Another pro that is associated with nuclear energy is efficiency.
In considering the different economic viewpoints, nuclear energy offers the best solution in energy provision and is more advantageous. In addition, we have portability as the next pro of nuclear energy. A high amount of nuclear energy can be contained in a very small amount of volume. Lastly, the technology that nuclear energy adopts is readily available and does not require development before use (Time for change.org 1).
Nuclear power cons
On the other hand, nuclear energy has a number of cons that are associated with its usage. First is the problem of radioactive waste, whereby nuclear energy waste from it is extremely dangerous and needs careful look-up.
The other con of nuclear energy is that of its waste storage. A good number of wastes from nuclear energy are radioactive even thousands of years later since they contain both radioactive and fissionable materials. These materials are removable through a process called reprocessing which is through clearing all the fissionable materials in the nuclear fuel.
The next con of nuclear energy is the occurrence of a meltdown. A meltdown can be the worst-case scenario that can ever occur in a nuclear energy plant because its effects are deadly. The effects of a meltdown are very huge with estimation that radioactive contamination can cover a distance of over a thousand miles in radius. The final downturn associated with nuclear energy is radiation. Radiation mostly is associated with effects such as cancer, mutation and radiation sickness (Green Energy, Inc. 1).
Impacts of nuclear energy on the society
Social
The society being an association that has people of diverse ideologies and faiths regarding the production and consumption of energy, and economic goods, to the good life and good society. Nuclear energy should serve social justice and quality of life rather than being looked upon as end in it.
Ethical
The existence of technology is purposely for serving human needs; it can destroy people and human values, deliberately or by unintended consequences. Because of this, the technological processes are guided by values that require constant public scrutiny and discussion.
Political
Nuclear energy has implications towards the political viewpoint in that a country might wish to take advantage of its nuclear weapons to gain control of others. This will deprive others of their democratic rights coexist within their territory without interference of intruders.
Legal impacts
In terms of the legal impacts of nuclear energy, there are regulations that gives rights to who or which organizations have the authority to own nuclear facilities. The legal implications also target what specific standards are set out for adequate protection and what risks are not acceptable.
Summary
From the above discussion, in comparing the pros and cons of nuclear energy, one can conclude that as much as nuclear energy has severe effects to people and environment it also has varied benefits. In my own viewpoint, I presume to counter with the cons rather than the pros. It is evident what devastating effect nuclear energy has on the environment and as much as it benefits the environment through low pollution, in case of an accident and there is a meltdown the whole environment will be wiped out.
In a moral standpoint, I believe that lives of people are more important than energy sources. In as much as we would wish to have the most reliable energy source, our lives is the most important than any other thing (Florida State University 1).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident from the mentioned pros and cons that nuclear energy is not the all-time solution to any problem. One can argue that to the extreme it is much of a problem source that a solution. In an effort to getting a good life, withstanding the ethical and moral issues, we should always strive for sustaining our lives to the best way possible. Nevertheless, many of the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nuclear power require determinate, immediate, distinct, significant actions (Falk 1).
Works Cited
Falk, Jim. Global Fission: The Battle over Nuclear Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.
Florida State University. Pros of Nuclear Power. eng.fsu.edu. FSU, n.d. Web.
Green Energy, Inc. Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. greenenergyhelpfiles.com. Green Energy, n.d. Web.
Ionizing radiations cause harm to the environment and remain a challenge to the public health. Nuclear power is beneficial but also poses a great risk to the population. In fuel plants, nuclear power is marked by radioactive materials, which could be very detrimental, in case a disaster occurs. This is because they contain ionizing radiation that could lead to genetic mutations and malignancies such as leukemia. As Iliffe (1984) ascertains, the biological impacts of nuclear disaster are dependent upon the dosage, type and time of exposure to radiation. Nuclear technology is part of our lives especially now that the world is pursuing alternative sources of fuel. Besides, nuclear medicine is equally important in diagnosing and treating diseases. However, the same nuclear has continued to impede the human civilizations as depicted by nuclear disasters such as that of Chernobyl. Nuclear technology has therefore, triggered controversial debates globally and dictate the nuclear choices to be undertaken. This paper shall give a detailed discussion of impacts of man-made disasters such as those caused by nuclear energy from a biological perspective that includes radiation, cells system and genetic mutation as well as human diseases.
Chernobyl Nuclear Power station
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine experienced a nuclear disaster that is considered as the most horrible in the worlds history. It comprised of four reactors, used for the production of electric power. A nuclear disaster ensued on 26th April, 1986 under the very influence of the reactor operators (Onishi et al., 2007). An explosion that was characterized by huge emission of radioactive materials led to atmospheric contamination not only in Ukraine but also in USSR and other parts of Europe. It started in the course of the system testing in the fourth reactor located at Prypiat. It was followed by an abrupt power output flow that resulted to the blasting of the reactor vessel. As a result, graphite moderator in the reactor was released into the atmosphere and ignited into a fire, whose radioactive content spread extensively. Several thousand cancer deaths were later implicated to the Chernobyl nuclear accident. This nuclear disaster raised eyebrows regarding safety of nuclear plants (Onishi et al., 2007).
Radiation, Radioactivity and Chemistry of Radiation
Natural sources of radiation include Radon gas, which is related to cause lung cancer. In addition, cosmic radiations emanate from the outer space and include the gamma rays, which have ions with a positive charge and consist of much energy that exceeds manmade radiations. The exposure to cosmic radiations varies with different regions of the biosphere depending on geomagnetic field, solar cycle or even altitude. Man can also make artificial radiations especially from nuclear medicine as in CT scan. According to Iliffe (1984), places with artificial radiations are aircrafts, radiography industries, uranium mines, and nuclear power plants. Radioactivity on the other hand is the spontaneous emission of particles from the nuclei due to being unstable and its ultimate disintegration. Nuclear isotopes are as a result of instability, which is followed by release of radiations that include alpha, beta and gamma rays (Lowenthal & Airey, 2001).
These are the chemistry of radiations that evaluates the interaction between radioactive elements and their application in various processes as proven by Lowenthal and Airey (2001). During decay of a radioactive material, it releases particles and in the process, its nature is altered. Protons are released from the nucleus as alpha particles and converts into other elements depending on the half-life. The elements transforms into isotopes of a different element until it attains stability (Iliffe, 1984). This process is termed as radioactive decay, which occurs in series and spontaneous, while the time taken is quantified as half-life. This is the time for half of the radioactive material to decay into a different element, whose rate is dependent upon an individual radioactive element regardless of whether its in compound or element form. Radioactive elements are referred to as ionizing radiations that can impact chemical and physical traits of the molecules they are exposed to (Lowenthal & Airey, 2001).
Cell system, how cells damage and reproduction
The cell is defined as the functional basic unit of life. Cells are vast, different and functions as units in an organism and make-up the human body. Karp (2009) asserts that cells take various forms in the vital organs of the body such as the skin, kidney and the liver, which are specific and distinctive. They have plasma membranes to safeguard them from external influences. They have a cell membrane that controls flow of products in and out of the cell. According to Karp (2009), a cell has nucleus, which has the DNA that regulates protein synthesis with the help of many organelles such as the ribosomes. The nuclear is where transcription occurs, producing messenger RNA (MRNA), which is taken into the ribosomes for translation (Karp, 2009).
According to Wolfson (1993), when there is radiation exposure on germ cell of the reproductive system, it could cause chromosomal or gene damage essential in determining heredity traits in an offspring. DNA bears the genetic information and is particularly sensitive to radiations. When it is disrupted in the reproductive organs, the changes are passed on to the offspring as mutations, which are mostly harmful to the organism and related to many deaths in the course of the organism development. Radiations are mutagenic and the mutation increases proportionally with dosage (Wolfson, 1993).
Karp (2009) argues that cells reproduce a number of times during human development and varies depending on whether they are somatic or sex cells. Somatic are body cells and are reproduced in a process called mitosis. On the other hand, sex cells comprise of sperm and ova and duplicates in a process called meiosis in the testes and ovaries. Body cells are vast and replicate through mitosis in a process of cell division, generating new cells to replace older ones, repair or for growth and development. They produce 46 chromosomes, regarded as diploid. A somatic cell subdivides twice and the products are similar to the parent cell. They continue dividing in six phase process. Conversely, Meiosis generates two daughter cells from every parent cell, giving four sex gametes that are not similar to parent cells. Gametes give haploid or 23 chromosomes and during conception, a zygote with 46 chromosomes is produced and inherited by each generation (Karp, 2009).
Process of Getting Diseases, Latency Period and Leukemia
Radiation comprises of high energy particles, containing alpha, beta and gamma rays respectively. They have high energy with ability to detach electrons from an atom in a process referred to as ionization, to cause biological harms. According to Wolfson (1993), the molecules are extremely active and when they are in a living tissue, they could experience a chemical reaction to produce harmful effects. In any case, humans consist of water molecules and when ionization occurs, the products could be hazardous to the cells. High doses might even upset the cell processes. Worse still, when complex molecules such as nucleic acids and proteins are involved, they could break and be rendered dysfunctional (Wolfson, 1993). As a result, cell vitality and enzyme processes might be lost, which could lead to cancer and genetic mutations. Ionization is dependent upon particles energy and frequency and not on intensity since low intensity radiations also ionize (Wolfson, 1993). The time taken from exposure to carcinogens up to the detection of cancer is referred to as the latency period. The malignancy may manifest several years following the exposure to ionizing radiations as depicted by the survivors of Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Usually, exposure quantity and latency, relate inversely since more dosage is related to a reduced latency while a low dose is related to an extensive latency. Generally, early detection is important and could be achieved through screening in order to control the metastasis as argued by DeVita (2008).
Leukemia for instance is a hematological neoplasm that involves the bone marrow, lymphatic system and blood cells. It is marked by an upsurge of leucocytes in the blood. From research conducted by DeVita (2008), radiation-induced leukemia has a relatively short latency for malignancy to be detected. However, this varies with the irradiation dosage and may take as early as two years, following the initial exposure. The peak incidence could occur during four to eight years following exposure (DeVita, 2008). Leukemia results from DNA mutations through stimulation of oncogenes or through the dissimulation of tumor suppressor genes. According to DeVita (2008), this interrupts the process of apoptosis and cell division. The mutation could be spontaneous or as a result of radiation exposure. The normal blood cells are substituted with abnormal ones from the bone marrow and accumulate in the blood. This causes problems with blood clotting since the platelets are destroyed. Besides, the immune system is weakened since the white blood cells cannot effectively fight diseases. Anemia could also arise due to inadequate red blood cells that could lead to dyspnea (DeVita, 2008).
Conclusion
This research study has tried to analyze the impacts of man-made disasters such as those caused by nuclear energy from a biological perspective that includes radiation, cells system and genetic mutation as well as human diseases. From the research, it is clear that it is important to monitor the radiations from far while steps to safeguard the publics health should be prioritized. Ionizing radiations cause harm to the environment and still remains a challenge to the public health. Radiation exposure is implicated with the rising cases of cancers such as leukemia. However, the latency period that occurs from the time of initial stimulation to the ultimate detection, makes it extremely difficult to determine the exact carcinogen, which could help in formulating preventive cancer strategies. Biologically, exposure to ionizing radiations from nuclear plants such as gamma, beta and alpha rays is detrimental to ones health and safety measures should be employed at whichever cost.
List of References
DeVita, V.T. (2008) DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenbergs cancer: principles & practice of oncology. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Iliffe, C. E. (1984) An Introduction To Nuclear Reactor Theory. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Karp, G. (2009) Cell and Molecular Biology: Concepts and Experiments. Danvers, MA, John Wiley and Sons.
Lowenthal, G. C. & Airey, P. L. (2001) Practical Applications Of Radioactivity And Nuclear Radiations: An Introductory Text For Engineers, Scientists, Teachers And Students. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Onishi, Y., Voitsekhovich, O.V., and Zheleznyak, M. J. (2007) Chernobyl What Have We Learned: The Successes and Failures to Mitigate Water Contamination over 20 years. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer publishing.
Wolfson, R. (1993) Nuclear Choices: A Citizens Guide to Nuclear Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Energy plays a significant role in driving the economy of countries all over the world. In the recent years, there have been concerns over the increased use of fossil fuels in many parts of the world (Schuman & Brent 2005). As such, debates and concerns have been raised regarding the adoption of other sources of energy following the need for sustainable development and energy security (Bock et al. 2004). Based on this assertion it has become important for countries to come up with other ways of generating power such as through the use of thermal plants. As far as capacity addition is concerned it is important to optimize electricity tariff as well as the assessment of cost of investing in power generation (Carlsson 2005; Stamford & Azapagic 2012).
In the context of such investments and the need to fulfill the present objective to achieve sustainable development Bock et al. (2004) pointed out that a lot of focus ought to be given on the life cycle costing according to the proposal of the United Nations Environmental agenda of life cycle management practices as well as approaches aimed at the promotion of coherence in implementing sustainable development’s environmental dimensions. This review of literature focuses on the essentiality of life cycle costing (LCC) drivers in life cycle management of nuclear power plant.
The technique of life cycle costing dates back to many years ago and it is commonly used within the energy sector (IAEA 2002). The determination of the LCC drivers in the context of a power generation plant is crucial (Carlsson 2005). This is attributable to the fact that nuclear power plants are required to long-term investment (Yao 2014). For this reason, carrying out a life cycle costing acts as a better option towards ensuring that the necessary precautions are considered at the earliest possible age of any given nuclear plant (Schuman & Brent 2005; IAEA 2002).
In addition, such an approach is important as it sets out background for any management decisions in the course of the life cycle of the nuclear plant that might have various impacts in the future. The need to carry out cost and benefits analysis of nuclear plants aligns with recent concerns that have been raised regarding the need for a healthy economy (IAEA 2002). Such concerns led to the introduction of UNEP’s global environmental authority on the promotion of sustainable development. As such, there has been a need to ensure the provision of a link between the efficient use of available resource and the need to have better ways of addressing shortages of resources (Seier & Zimmermann 2014). Based on this assertion, the process of achieving sustainability in various aspects requires the adoption of social and environmental dimensions that are considerate of the life cycle.
Just as Blanchard (2004) noted, the aspect of life cycle management focuses on the need to reduce socio-economic as well as environmental challenges that re related to any product and its entire life cycle. In the case of energy, researchers and scholars have emphasized the need for drivers of life cycle management to reduce the challenges impacted on the environment, social and economic aspects (Carlsson 2005). For this reason, the management of life cycle of energy ensures operationability of energy sustainability via consistent improvement of polices and systems. For this reason, the application of LCM in the energy sector ensures the collection, structuring and propagation of energy-related information from various tools, concepts and programs.
In spite of the increased emphasis on life cycle costing, recent studies have showed that majority of nuclear plants were developed without the consideration of life cycle stages (Taylor 2011). However, a review of the benefits of life cycle costing in the life cycle management of nuclear power plant shows that there are economic, environmental and social advantages associated with such practices (Seier & Zimmermann 2014). For example, through determination of the life cycle of a nuclear power plant, it makes it possible to design the plant taking into consideration the efficiency of the plant’s decommissioning process (Taylor 2011). In addition, the management of life cycle stages of any given nuclear plant allows efficiency in decision making as far as operational safety is concerned (Wallbridge, Banford & Azapagic 2012). The rationale for the adoption of the LCC technique in the life cycle management of nuclear plant is that there is always the need to ensure that organizational assets’ stewardship is balanced in the long term.
The process of life cycle costing provides the background on which the nuclear plant is based thereby ensuring robust conceptual design such that all aspects of the plant like costs of final decommissioning and handling of wastes are factored in (Chattopadhyay 2004; IAEA 2002). In addition, carrying out of life cycle costing ensures that there the cost of the nuclear does not outweigh the expected benefits and income (Stamford & Azapagic 2012). As well, such analysis ensures that there are effective ways of managing any by-products from the nuclear planta and associated wastes with regard to the need to ensure sustainability of the entire project in terms of social, economic and environmental perspectives (Seier & Zimmermann 2014). For this reason, it is important to consider all financial provisions in terms of costs used projected for handling associated waste as well as decommissioning is concerned. Such consideration should also factor any possible strategies required to ensure sustainability of the nuclear plant both in the short and long run (Taylor 2011; Wallbridge, Banford & Azapagic 2012). Such assertion is informed by the fact that decommissioning is likely to occur over several years.
Evidently, the review of literature above is aligned to the principles of Blanchard (2004), in that determination of the drivers of life cycle costing in the life cycle management of any asset is an essential step as it lays out the right strategies for effective decision making. Therefore, effective life cycle management of nuclear power plants ensures the sustainability of the plant in that it provides the background information on factors that need to be considered for a long-term nuclear power plant.
Annotated bibliography
IAEA, V 2002, ‘Safe and Effective Nuclear Power Plant Life Cycle Management Towards Decommissioning,’ IAEA-TECDOC, vol. 2, no.1, pp.11-189.
The article Safe and Effective Nuclear Power Plant Life Cycle Management Towards Decommissioning aims to provide insights on life cycle management of nuclear power plant with a specific focus on the promotion of the need to carry out long-term cost and benefit analysis of nuclear plants. As such, the article offers an in-depth discussion on the need for effective management of the life cycle of a nuclear power plant (IAEA 2002). According to the scope of this article, the achievement of economic development in country is depended on adequate as well as reliable supply of energy. In spite of this, the provision of safe energy is a challenge in many parts of the world.
In the context of life cycle management of nuclear power plant the article indicates that there is a need for safe operations if economic performance within a society is to be achieved. For this reason, the article indicates that there is a need for effective management of nuclear plant with a lot of consideration given on the life cycle stages of the plant. Such an approach ensures that decommission aspects as well as any associated costs and benefits of the nuclear plant are taken into consideration for the purpose of ensuring socio-economic success of the plant to the society (IAEA 2002). Life cycle management of nuclear plant to this article is important in that it lays out background for strategic decisions.
The process of life cycle costing provides information that ensures the sustainability of the concerned nuclear power plant. For example, the article Safe and Effective Nuclear Power Plant Life Cycle Management Towards Decommissioning indicates that consequence strategic decisions ought to be taken into consideration as they determine the feasibility of any project. Such decisions are important since they have potential impact in the present as well as in the future. Secondly, according to the article, consequence strategic decisions are important in the life cycle management of nuclear plant since they act as reference points to any actions taken presently and in the future thereby ensuring that there are set strategies to avoid the occurrence of financial penalties in the future.
Life cycle management of nuclear plant is an important element in that it ensures the making of decisions that are grounded on facts, are considerate of the interests of shareholders, and take into consideration both risks an opportunities as well as factor in the long term impact on the project with respect to social, economic, and environmental perspectives (IAEA 2002).
According to Blanchard (2004), effective life cycle management should take consideration of business management decisions, ageing management, safety management as well as economic factors that are associated with eth life cycle of the nuclear plant. Such consideration is important since it ensures that the necessary performance level of the nuclear plant is achieved, optimization of components and systems, operation, as well as the maintenance of the required structures with the aim of achieving sustainability (IAEA 2002). Therefore, this article shows that there LCC drivers needed to be determined to ensure that all the necessary standards and codes are met in the process of designing and constructing a nuclear power plant. Such an approach ensures sustainability of the plant by focusing on extended life span and the generation of optimum electricity while putting into consideration economic, social and environment aspects.
Discussion
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis takes into consideration various aspects of the life cycle of any given product with the main focus on the quantification of the wholesome cost of owning a given product right from the research and development of the product, its construction, operational and maintenance aspects as well as disposal strategies (IAEA 2002). However, the analysis of the life cycle of any given products focuses on sustainable development and thus considers social, environmental and economic aspects of the particular product.
The reviewed article above aligns to the principles set out by Blanchard in that it focuses on ensuring that cost effectiveness. In addition, IAEA (2002) noted that safety management is a very important aspect of any product’s life cycle. In the light of Blanchard (2004), the achievement of socio-economic and environmental objectives, requires a lot of emphasis on the aims of any product ought to be based on uncompromising in safety in terms of operations. Therefore, the improvement of safety performance is achieved laying out effective plans, control strategies as well as ensuring that there are supervision measures in place for the purpose of enhancing the safety of all project’s related activities (Wallbridge, Banford & Azapagic 2012). For this reason, ensuring safe behaviors and attitudes is important in fostering as well as supporting a robust safety culture.
In the case of nuclear power plant, safety management is an integral aspect that should be exercised at all times. For this reason, to enhance safety performance of any project, careful consideration ought to be given. In addition, consistent assessment of the project should be carried out to offer a platform to examine how effective various approaches of the given project are in terms of safety management. The periodic assessments can either be external or internal. Nevertheless, the outcomes of such assessments form the basis for improvement of safety management as well as the identification of any corrective actions that ought to be taken to achieve long-term objectives of any given project. For this reason, safety management approaches should be adopted in in the life cycle management of a nuclear power plant for the purpose of maintaining the required level of safety within the plant while ensuring consideration of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the plant.
According to a study carried out by Wallbridge, Banford and Azapagic (2012), the management of any asset and the integration of life cycle costing models is a comprehensive process. In relation to the life cycle cost of any asset Soni, Singh and Banwet (2016) asserted that there is a need for definition of system requirements as well as TPMs, development of a cost-breakdown structure developed, identification of input data requirements as well as evaluation of alternatives that are feasible with respect to the given asset.
Therefore, the safety management life cycle aspect is important in life cycle cost analysis in that it ensures that all the necessary structures and systems are put in place and that they match the required standards including allowance for ageing effects (Soni, Singh & Banwet 2016). Evidently, safety management provides background through which the life cycle of any given asset is monitored and tracked from the early stages of development to disposition. For improve operations, assets need to be managed according to social, economic and environmental perspectives. Effective management of assets and the consideration of all safety precautions both in the present and future ensure sustainability of any given project. Often, such an approach is aimed at reduction of associated costs as well as increment of the productivity of nay given assets and product over its life.
Recommendations
Asset management comprises of comprehensive processes aimed at achieving high degree of efficiency and to achieve high returns from a given asset over its life (Schuman & Brent 2005). Based on this assertion, any asset management activities should follow various decisions in their design, implementation and control. For this reason, it is important to determine the life cycle cost drivers of asset management in the life cycle analysis.
To address the cost drivers in the life-cycle analysis a lot of consideration ought to be on field actions which include plan of actions, accomplishment of planned projects, ensuring effective control of all activities aimed at safety improvement and quality asset management, as well as making sure that the necessary information systems are in place. Often, such consideration should focus on achieving corporate value, human objective as well as the environmental objective (Stamford & Azapagic 2012). However, such objectives cannot be achieved without well-laid out asset management goals, as the absence of such goals would lead to possible increase in associated costs and emergence of unplanned expenses that might have adverse effects on the asset’s social, economic and environmental aspects. As such, goals should be formulated that take into consideration any perceived cost drivers based on the life-cycle analysis.
In addition, an aligned asset management framework is required with respect to the life cycle’s sequence of the concerned asset as such an approach factors in all the social, economic and environmental needs associated with the asset’s operations (IAEA 2002). Often, any form of decentralized arrangement in the process of managing assets results to inconsistencies in terms of the functionality of goals. To avoid such cases and address cost drivers in the life-cycle analysis, all decision areas of the asset management ought to be aligned optimally. However, it is more likely that the management of an entire asset could be faced by numerous challenges due to isolation of costs at different stages of the asset’s life cycle. In spite of this, such a challenge can be overcome through the implantation of technology that takes consideration of approved budget’s boundary, time frame as well as any required technical specifications.
On the other hand, cost drivers associated with the operations and maintenance phase such as the product distribution costs can be addressed through risk-based maintenance, reliability centered maintenance, as well as through total productive maintenance. However, in order to ensure enhanced and sustainable physical assets’ value, a paradigm shift ought to be considered that exceeds the cost principles of maintenance. Moreover, carrying out the life cycle cost analysis ensures that all subsystems are integrated to ensure minimum total costs of any given investment (IAEA 2002). Such objective can be achieved through ensuring that all the involved tasks are defined, conditions and factors specified, and outputs set for the purpose of ensuring performances can be compared.
From the foregoing, it is evident that the determination of life cycle costing drives in life cycle management of any asset is crucial. This is based on the fact that LCC provides a structured assessment which focuses on all the important elements of maintenance functions and utilities functions to provide the necessary help in asset management. As such, life cycle costing analysis identifies opportunities and areas requiring attention for the purpose of improving the profitability and performance of any given asset. Basically, LCC focuses on the identification of problem areas and their quantification as opportunities, provision of suitable strategies towards realization of identified opportunities, provision of an action plan, detailed evaluation of benefits and costs, definition of associated benefits, and the establishment of a reference ground to measure future progress. Based on this approach, it suffices that life cycle costing allows maximum plant life management by addressing cost drivers.
References
Blanchard, B 2004, System engineering management, John Wiley & Sons.
Bock, H, Burgis, R, Eiler, J, Hashemian, H, Kim, K, Kononenko, A, Manners, S, Thoma, K and Yamamoto, T 2004, Management of life cycle and ageing at nuclear power plants: Improved I&C maintenance. Report prepared within the framework of the Technical Working Group on Nuclear Power Plant Control and Instrumentation. IAEA-TECDOC-1402.
Carlsson, M 2005, ‘Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 13, no. 3, pp.253-263.
Chattopadhyay, D 2004, ‘Life-Cycle Maintenance Management of Generating Units in a Competitive Environment’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.1181-1189.
IAEA 2002, ‘Safe and Effective Nuclear Power Plant Life Cycle Management Towards Decommissioning’, IAEA-TECDOC, vol. 2, no.1, pp.11-189.
Schuman, C and Brent, A 2005, ‘Asset life cycle management: towards improving physical asset performance in the process industry’, Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mnagemnt, vol. 25, no. 6, pp.566-579.
Seier, M and Zimmermann, T 2014, ‘Environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear power plants: methodical challenges, case study, and implications’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 19, no. 12, pp.1919-1932.
Soni, V, Singh, S and Banwet, D 2016, ‘Sustainable coal consumption and energy production in India using life cycle costing and real options analysis’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 6, no.1, pp.26-37.
Stamford, L and Azapagic, A 2012, ‘Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK’, International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 36, vol. 14, pp.1263-1290.
Taylor, W 2011, ‘The use of life cycle costing in acquiring physical assets’, Long Range Planning, vol.14, no. 6, pp.32-43.
Wallbridge, S, Banford, A and Azapagic, A 2012, ‘Life cycle environmental impacts of decommissioning Magnox nuclear power plants in the UK’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, no. 5, pp.990-1008.
Yao, J 2014, ‘A Multi-Objective (Energy, Economic and Environmental Performance) Life Cycle Analysis for Better Building Design’, Sustainability, vol. 6, 2, pp.602-614.
Exposure to radioactive materials is a significant health and safety risk, as it can be dangerous to the life and health of individuals. Accidents on nuclear power plants are rare but devastating in their effects, which makes nuclear power plant a workplace with a critical risk to health and safety. The present report will seek to outline the risk and develop a comprehensive strategy for managing the safety or workers at operating nuclear power plants.
Background
Nuclear power plants use uranium or plutonium to produce energy. Each nuclear power plant has nuclear reactors, where nuclear fission takes place (Christodouleas et al., 2013). The energy released during nuclear fission is then used to heat water in order to produce steam, which spins turbines, generating electricity (Christodouleas et al., 2013). Nuclear power is a popular source of energy, as uranium and plutonium produce a lot more energy than the same amount of oil. Nuclear power plants are located all over the world, and nuclear power is growing in popularity due to the depletion of other resources (Siegrist & Visschers, 2013). Therefore, ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants is critical to protecting employees, the environment, and people living in nearby regions.
People at Risk
Nuclear plants employ a variety of workers, and each of them may be at risk in case of an accident. According to Morrow, Koves, and Barnes (2014), the United States has over 60 operating power plants that employ thousands of workers. Nuclear power plants also employ a wide variety of employees, and most of the work on-site. Reactor operators, scientists, mechanics, operators of heavy equipment, electricians, engineers, and managers are all involved in nuclear plant operations. Therefore, the number of people who are at risk while working on a nuclear power plant is rather high, and thus severe safety and risk management measures are required in order to protect a large and diverse workforce.
Risk Identification and Evaluation
Nuclear power plants use either uranium or plutonium to generate electricity. When undergoing nuclear fission, both materials release radioactive products, which can be damaging to health and safety if the precautionary mechanisms fail. For instance, during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, the meltdown affected the core of the nuclear reactor, causing the release of radioactive isotopes (Christodouleas et al., 2013).
A similar accident occurred in Chernobyl, where the overheating of the nuclear reactor caused an explosion, releasing radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Both events, as well as other nuclear power plant accidents, caused damage to the life and health of people. In addition, operating nuclear power plants can generate routine discharges of radionuclides, which also contribute to adverse health effects (United Nations, 2017).
Exposure to radioactive materials produces various effects on humans, depending on the concentration and time of exposure. The present review will focus on radiation exposure resulting from various accidents rather than casual exposure. Nuclear power plant accidents can result in high levels of exposure. The two most common health effects of high radiation exposure are acute radiation syndrome and radiation-induced cancer, both of which can be fatal (Wheatley, Sovacool, & Sornette, 2016).
In addition to radiation exposure, nuclear power plant accidents can cause deaths by fire or explosion. For instance, the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant caused “at least 573 immediate deaths from the evacuation, along with hundreds of future deaths related to cancer anticipated to occur” (Wheatley et al., 2016, p. 96). Thus, incidents that occur on nuclear power plants are critical and pose a significant risk to the life and health of workers.
Significance of Risk
Another critical aspect of identifying and evaluating the risk is estimating its significance. While the life and health risks of nuclear power plant accidents are evident, high-scale accidents, such as the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown or the Chernobyl explosions, are quite rare. In addition, after the 2011 disaster in Japan, there have been multiple efforts to improve the safety and stability of nuclear reactors, minimising the risk of future disasters.
For instance, according to Locatelli, Mancini, and Todeschini (2013), new nuclear reactors are designed in a way that prevents the escape of radioactive materials and cools down the core of the reactor to prevent explosions during unusual events. Nevertheless, studies show that the safety measures applied to some nuclear power plants are still inadequate, thus creating a significant risk of accidents. For instance, Lipscy, Kushida, and Incerti (2013) showed that there is considerable variation in the degree to which power plants all over the world are protected from accidents. Wheatley et al. (2016), on the other hand, estimate that there is a high chance that a high-level nuclear accident occurs every few decades.
In addition to major accidents, there are safety risks associated with the improper operation of nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors. For instance, nuclear power plants generate high amounts of radioactive waste, which is dangerous to the life and health of individuals (Perko, 2014). Improper handling of radioactive waste can also lead to radiation exposure, thus being another principal health and safety risk for employees working at nuclear power plants.
Overall, the risk to the life and health of employees of nuclear power plants is significant. Apart from engineered safety measures, including cooling systems and adequate protection of nuclear reactor cores, it is essential to use an appropriate risk management strategy to avoid damage to the life and health of employees. A comprehensive strategy for risk management should include adequate employee training and control measures to prevent mistakes during operations, as well as emergency management plans to reduce damage in case of an accident.
Risk Management Strategy
Ideally, a risk management strategy should improve the overall safety of the workplace, as well as minimise the risks identified in the previous part of the report. A mixture of direct and indirect controls would be required to achieve health and safety goals.
Direct controls related to the prevention of accidents and misuse leading to leakage of radioactive materials should include regular risk assessments, detailed procedures for all operations, as well as training for all employees who work with radioactive materials, nuclear reactors, or radioactive waste. Indirect controls, on the other hand, help to facilitate risk management by improving the overall safety climate of the organisation. In the case of a nuclear power plant, indirect controls would include incident investigation, emergency preparedness, and the development of a safety culture.
Direct Controls
The first direct control required to promote the safety of workers in a nuclear power plant is the risk assessment. Regular risk assessments are generally recommended for all types of facilities where there is a risk to the life or health of employees. However, when it comes to nuclear power plants, they are critical to ensuring safety. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2016) recommends performing regular, comprehensive risk assessments to identify shortcomings in safety that could lead to leakage of radioactive materials or nuclear reactor malfunctions. The responsibility to carry out regular risk assessments lies with the organisation operating the plant.
Regular self-assessments can help to identify gaps in safety and performance that could affect the risk of incidents, leading to fatalities or damage to health. The key elements of the risk assessment process include developing suitable performance indicators, reviewing all systems and operations that pose a risk, identifying shortcomings, and developing a plan for improvement. In particular, the IAEA (2014) notes that a review of systems and operations of a nuclear power plant should involve an assessment of “personnel performance; attitudes to safety; response to infringements of safety; and violations of operational limits and conditions, operating procedures, regulations and licence conditions” (p. 15). Regular risk assessments can have a direct effect on the probability of an adverse event, thus promoting the safety of employees.
Another essential component of a risk management strategy is to avoid the misuse of machinery, equipment, or materials that pose a risk. For instance, any violation of safety rules during the processing or handling of radioactive waste can result in leakage, whereas the incorrect operation of a nuclear reactor could cause damage to some of its systems, leading to an accident. Thus, developing specific, step-by-step procedures for all operations contributing to risk is an essential direct control in minimising the risk of adverse events.
As noted by the IAEA (2016), the procedures for each operation concerning the nuclear reactor, waste disposal, and other related activities should be clearly identified and readily accessible for the staff. The key elements in this process are the review of appropriate standards for operations, development of procedures, approval of procedures by a regulatory body or a safety engineer, and distribution of procedures to the staff. In addition, the procedures should be regularly reviewed and updated, if necessary (IAEA, 2016). Finally, the employees’ compliance with the procedures should be monitored and corrected, as required.
Employee safety training is also a critical part of efforts aimed at minimising the possibility of adverse events. The IAEA (2016) stipulates the importance of ensuring that all employees involved in operating potentially dangerous processes possess the necessary qualifications and receive appropriate training. Safety training can help in increasing employees’ compliance with required safety procedures, thus having a direct effect on risk management in the chosen settings.
Moreover, safety training can have an indirect effect on risk management by improving safety climate throughout the organisation (Jafari et al., 2014). The key elements of safety training include identifying employees’ safety training needs, developing a comprehensive training plan, providing the training course, and assessing employees’ knowledge to ensure success. Similarly to previous direct controls, safety training requires regular review and adjustment. For instance, in case of any changes to procedures or operations, employees should receive further training to improve their understanding of the new processes.
Indirect Controls
Incident investigation is an essential part of safety management, as it assists in identifying safety gaps and correcting them to ensure the improved security of operations. Wachter and Yorio (2014) outline incident investigation as part of a comprehensive system of safety management, which was proven to reduce workplace accident rates. An appropriate system for incident investigation also requires an incident reporting scheme in place.
Once an incident is reported, the management should analyse the event to determine the underlying causes of it, such as equipment failure, lack of compliance with the procedure, inadequate training, and others. This process contributes to enhancing the overall safety climate in the organisation. However, it also adds to risk assessment and procedure development, which are among the direct controls outlined in the previous section. Gaining insight into the causes of various safety incidents can help the management to identify gaps in processes that pose a risk to health and safety and to correct the processes accordingly.
Emergency preparedness is a significant part of risk management in workplaces that are at risk of major accidents, including emergency plans. Emergency preparedness consists of various processes aimed at reducing possible damage in case of an accident. For a nuclear power plant, emergency preparedness efforts should include an evaluation of systems’ vulnerability to natural disasters and other external events (IAEA, 2017).
The incident on the Fukushima Daiichi power plant showed that natural disasters increase the risk of nuclear reactor malfunction. In addition, there are various other risks to nuclear power plants, such as floods, explosions, tornadoes, and terror attacks (IAEA, 2017). Determining vulnerabilities of systems to external conditions can assist in developing an accident management plan, thus enhancing emergency preparedness. In addition to this process, detailed procedures for various types of emergencies should be developed and made available to the staff. Emergency procedures can also be included in safety training to improve employees’ knowledge and confidence in responding to accidents.
Finally, managers can use emergency preparedness exercises to ensure that employees have the skills and knowledge to respond adequately in case of a crisis. In particular, it would be useful to assess the staff’s knowledge of evacuation procedures, as it can assist in saving lives in an accident. Bernardes, Rebelo, Vilar, Noriega, and Borges (2015) state that it is essential to identify behaviours that can obstruct smooth evacuation in an emergency, such as collecting personal belongings or waiting for instructions. Once such behaviours are defined, the management should provide additional training to correct them or adjust the emergency plans to account for behaviours that cannot be eliminated.
The process of emergency preparedness is connected to direct controls, such as safety training, risk assessment, and procedure development. By including emergency management in safety efforts, organisations can prepare their staff for unexpected situations and reduce the adverse consequences of accidents, thus promoting safety.
Lastly, creating and promoting a safety culture is important in ensuring the success of all other risk management efforts. Positive safety culture was proven to reduce workplace injuries and accidents, as well as in enhancing compliance with safety policies (Amirah, Asma, Muda, & Amin, 2013; Boughaba, Hassane, & Roukia, 2014). Therefore, safety culture is an important indirect control in the case of nuclear power plant accidents.
Safety culture can be improved using active team leadership and enhanced communication (Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Tomás, Peiró, & Schöbel, 2013). In addition, managers can use employee involvement strategies and performance incentives to improve safety culture (Boughaba et al., 2014). Creating a safety culture would contribute to direct risk controls by strengthening the workers’ motivation to achieve high safety performance and their understanding of safety practices, thus reducing the risk of accidents and minimising their consequences.
Overall, the direct and indirect controls described in the present section work together to generate a safer environment for workers of nuclear power plants. Continuous efforts in risk management can assist in decreasing the probability of accidents, thus reducing risks to the life and health of workers.
Barriers to Risk Management Strategy
Despite multiple precautionary measures, accidents in the workplace can happen, causing damage to the health of employees and residents of the nearby areas. The accounts of past accidents can be used to outline some of the common issues that act as barriers to risk management strategies and lead to safety gaps. As identified by Panckhurts, Bell, and Henry (2012) in the Royal Commission’s report on the Pike River Coal Mine tragedy in New Zealand, the underlying causes of large-scale accidents include unsafe processes, inadequate oversight, weak legal framework, and lack of emergency management plans.
All of these issues are also applicable to the case of nuclear power plants and thus contribute to the risk of adverse events. For example, poor evacuation preparedness is a significant factor that can affect the outcome of a nuclear power plant accident, increasing the damage caused by it. Lack of oversight, on the other hand, can also contribute to the risk of accidents by reducing the effectiveness of safety measures.
Other possible barriers and negative factors include lack of training or knowledge, inadequate procedures, poor working conditions, and impaired communication (Turoff, Hiltz, Bañuls, & Van Den Eeden, 2013). Some of these factors arise due to systemic failures or the lack of management’s contribution to safety processes. Others, however, occur due to decisions made by individual employees. Managing barriers to risk management strategy implementation can assist the management of nuclear power plants in improving safety and preventing accidents.
Addressing Barriers to Risk Management Strategy
Each of the barriers identified as part of the previous section can be addressed using a comprehensive approach to safety management. First of all, it is important to ensure the management’s commitment to safety, as it is strongly linked with safety outcomes (Mooren, Grzebieta, Williamson, Olivier, and Friswell, 2014). Given the significance of risks associated with nuclear power plant operations, the management should prioritise the safety of employees and operations at all times.
For instance, the management should be consistent in applying the present risk management framework to all operations that pose a risk of an accident. Also, the management should offer appropriate safety guidance and training for workers, even if it affects the plant’s productivity. Improving management commitment can assist in overcoming systemic barriers to risk management, as well as to decrease risk behaviours of employees and promote safe decision-making.
Another possible solution to some of the issues identified in the previous section is enhancing oversight. Poor health and safety oversight can cause problems at various stages of operations, from training to emergency decision-making. Specifically, enhanced oversight can help to prevent human errors. As sown by Manchi, Gowda, and Hanspal (2013), unsafe acts can be classified as errors or violations, and adequate oversight can help to prevent both types of unsafe acts.
For example, if a nuclear power plant operator repeatedly fails to comply with procedures, oversight can help to take correctional actions and ensure that the violation does not occur again, thus reducing the risk of an accident. To decrease the possibility of human error, oversight should include the supervision of all workers involved in critical operations. A supervisor can identify errors and report violations, as well as offer immediate help with an operational activity to prevent an adverse event. Additionally, organisations operating nuclear power plants should establish a system of health and safety oversight and hire employees to review all the safety initiatives within the organisation before implementing them.
Enhancing the overall safety climate is another strategy that can be helpful in overcoming the barriers to successful risk management. The term “safety climate” refers to the perception of safety goals, practices, and priorities within the organisation (Carayon et al., 2015). Safety climate leads to higher safety performance and contributes to organisational culture, thus improving employees’ attitudes while increasing workplace safety (Bosak, Coetsee, & Cullinane, 2013; Barbaranelli, Petitta, & Probst, 2015).
In order to build a healthy safety climate in the organisation, it is essential for the management to demonstrate appropriate values and provide suitable safety systems for workers. In this context, showing appropriate values should be understood as an emphasis on employee well-being throughout the organisation (Colley, Lincolne, & Neal, 2013). An example of appropriate values would be a comprehensive benefits package for employees and adequate insurance coverage. The management’s attitudes toward employee well-being reflect the company’s priorities and affect employees’ perceptions of safety practices within the organisation. Thus, it is vital for management to ensure that appropriate values are demonstrated in all aspects of human resource management.
In addition, the organisation should ensure adequate safety training of employees and provide mechanisms for risk reporting. While safety training can improve compliance with safety procedures, risk reporting can help the managers to identify and address any safety gaps that might affect the power plant’s functioning. For instance, if a worker reports an issue with radioactive waste security, the management will have a chance to implement additional safety measures to reduce the risk of accidents. Besides, the management should review and update safety procedures regularly and provide adequate safety information to all employees. Regular preparedness activities can also contribute to the safety climate of the organisation while also adding to the successful emergency response.
Lastly, the management’s cooperation with regulatory bodies can assist in overcoming some of the systemic barriers to safety. The use of nuclear materials for power generation is subject to strict control from the government and international organisations. Excessive regulatory oversight can be viewed as a burden, as it might interrupt standard work processes and affect the performance of a power plant.
Nevertheless, using the guidance and experience from control agencies can help in improving the safety of nuclear power plants. For example, many international agencies governing the use of atomic materials issue specific standards of safety that can be applied to nuclear power plants. Using guidance and experience or regulatory bodies and cooperating with them on safety issues can assist nuclear power plants in becoming safer for workers and strengthen their protection against accidents.
All in all, there are a few issues that can affect the results of risk management efforts in nuclear power plants. However, the management can avoid these issues by being committed to employee safety, enhancing the oversight of operations, creating a safety climate, and cooperating with regulatory bodies.
References
Amirah, N. A., Asma, W. I., Muda, M. S., & Amin, W. A. A. W. M. (2013). Safety culture in combating occupational safety and health problems in the Malaysian manufacturing sectors. Asian Social Science, 9(3), 182-191.
Barbaranelli, C., Petitta, L., & Probst, T. M. (2015). Does safety climate predict safety performance in Italy and the USA? Cross-cultural validation of a theoretical model of safety climate. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 77(1), 35-44.
Bernardes, S. M. F., Rebelo, F., Vilar, E., Noriega, P., & Borges, T. (2015). Methodological approaches for use virtual reality to develop emergency evacuation simulations for training, in emergency situations. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 6313-6320.
Bosak, J., Coetsee, W. J., & Cullinane, S. J. (2013). Safety climate dimensions as predictors for risk behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 55(1), 256-264.
Boughaba, A., Hassane, C., & Roukia, O. (2014). Safety culture assessment in petrochemical industry: A comparative study of two Algerian plants. Safety and Health at Work, 5(2), 60-65.
Carayon, P., Hancock, P., Leveson, N., Noy, I., Sznelwar, L., & Van Hootegem, G. (2015). Advancing a sociotechnical systems approach to workplace safety–Developing the conceptual framework. Ergonomics, 58(4), 548-564.
Christodouleas, J. P., Forrest, R. D., Ainsley, C. G., Tochner, Z., Hahn, S. M., & Glatstein, E. (2013). Short-term and long-term health risk of nuclear power plant accidents. In L. W. Brady & T. Yaeger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Radiation Oncology (pp. 782-789). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Colley, S. K., Lincolne, J., & Neal, A. (2013). An examination of the relationship amongst profiles of perceived organizational values, safety climate and safety outcomes. Safety Science, 51(1), 69-76.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2017). Assessment of vulnerabilities of operating nuclear power plants to extreme external events. Vienna, Austria: IAEA.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2016). Safety of nuclear power plants: Commissioning and operation. Vienna, Austria: IAEA.
Jafari, M., Gharari, M., Ghafari, M., Omidi, L., Kalantari, S., & Asadolah-Fardi, G. (2014). The influence of safety training on safety climate factors in a construction site. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene, 6(2), 81-87.
Lipscy, P. Y., Kushida, K. E., & Incerti, T. (2013). The Fukushima disaster and Japan’s nuclear plant vulnerability in comparative perspective. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(12), 6082-6088.
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., & Todeschini, N. (2013). Generation IV nuclear reactors: Current status and future prospects. Energy Policy, 61, 1503-1520.
Manchi, G. B., Gowda, S., & Hanspal, J. S. (2013). Study on cognitive approach to human error and its application to reduce the accidents at workplace. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 2(6), 236-242.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F. J., Tomás, I., Peiró, J. M., & Schöbel, M. (2013). Empowering team leadership and safety performance in nuclear power plants: A multilevel approach. Safety Science, 51(1), 293-301.
Mooren, L., Grzebieta, R., Williamson, A., Olivier, J., & Friswell, R. (2014). Safety management for heavy vehicle transport: A review of the literature. Safety Science, 62(1), 79-89.
Morrow, S. L., Koves, G. K., & Barnes, V. E. (2014). Exploring the relationship between safety culture and safety performance in US nuclear power operations. Safety Science, 69(1), 37-47.
Panckhurst, G., Bell, S., & Henry, D. (2012). Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine tragedy. Wellington, New Zealand: Royal Commission.
Perko, T. (2014). Radiation risk perception: A discrepancy between the experts and the general population. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 133(1), 86-91.
Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112-119.
Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Bañuls, V. A., & Van Den Eede, G. (2013). Multiple perspectives on planning for emergencies: An introduction to the special issue on planning and foresight for emergency preparedness and management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9), 1647-1656.
United Nations. (2017). Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly. New York, NY: United Nations.
Wachter, J. K., & Yorio, P. L. (2014). A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 68(1), 117-130.
Wheatley, S., Sovacool, B. K., & Sornette, D. (2016). Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Research & Social Science, 15(1), 96-100.
Nuclear power is often developed from the fission of nuclear elements to generate heat (Howtopowertheworld, 2010, p. 1). Over the years, developed countries have been at the forefront in the development of this source of energy, with current world statistics estimating that, there are about 31 countries which generate nuclear power.
Though nuclear power generation is slowly gaining prominence in the world, especially since the world is seeking more sources of green energy, nuclear energy is a unique source of energy because it bears unique characteristics which distinguish it from other sources of energy. For instance, nuclear energy has been identified to be a dangerous source of energy, especially if an accident happens (Howtopowertheworld, 2010, p. 1). This is the reason why several countries are opposed to its use.
For instance, developed countries such as Australia and Austria are firmly opposed to the development of nuclear energy (Breeze, 2005). The year 2011 saw the worst nuclear disaster in recent time, with radiation fears ripe, at Japan’s Fukushima plant, when the country was hit by a tsunami and earthquake, which affected the nuclear plant. In light of these concerns, several countries are slowly reviewing their nuclear power generation strategies.
This study points out that, developed countries, which have been at the forefront in the generation of nuclear energy, should stop doing so, because the disadvantages of nuclear power generation greatly outweigh their advantages. This fact is supported by research studies suggesting that: nuclear energy has the potential of being used for terrorism; nuclear energy produces dangerous radioactive waste and nuclear energy is highly costly, and in case of a nuclear disaster, the consequences may be very severe.
Radioactivity
Radioactivity is the major concern associated with nuclear power generation. In fact, in the recent Fukushima nuclear power generation disaster, residents were advised to vacate surrounding regions (around the nuclear power plant) to reduce the chances of being affected by radioactivity. The danger of radioactivity is severe because it may take tens of thousands of years to reduce radioactive rays to safe levels (Howtopowertheworld, 2010, p. 1).
This fact means that, if a nuclear disaster ever happens, generations of human lives may live with its consequences and this will obviously have an adverse impact on humanity. The effects on humanity can therefore not be underestimated because studies have shown that, nuclear power radioactivity may have severe effects on the human’s reproductive system, and it also has the potential of causing burns, diarrhea, vomiting and other severe health effects.
This is part of the problem associated with nuclear power generation because with radioactivity, it may be very difficult to detect radioactive waves, even after several years (Furry Elephant, 2011). Though radioactive waves produced from nuclear power generation may not be directly absorbed through the human skin, it is highly likely that, human beings may ingest certain radioactive nucleus, in items such as foods, which are contaminated with the substance.
The manner in which radioactivity affects people are numerous and this is why most countries banned the important of food from Japan when it experienced its nuclear disaster. When these radioactive elements are ingested into the human system, it becomes very difficult to control them, let alone get rid of them, because they can possibly affect the human DNA, due to their high ability to ionize.
This may therefore cause cancer, among other detrimental health effects, which also have the ability of causing death. Considering radioactivity has a high potential of affecting all aspects of life, it beats sense, tolerating activities which may possibly lead to the occurrence of such a disaster. If such a disaster strikes, humanity will possibly not be the same and from this understanding, it does not make sense for developed nations to expose humanity to such sort of fatal effects.
Potential Terrorist Applications
The immense power nuclear power generation has; makes it a prime tool of terrorism. Nuclear power generation can be used to create nuclear bombs, which are very lethal and can be used to wage terror on a given nation. For instance, there is enough evidence advanced by scientists to suggest that, nuclear power can be used to flatten an entire city, killing millions of people at a go (TMIA, 2011).
Recent times have seen the US claim that, several countries across the globe, such as Iran and Iraq are making nuclear bombs, which may have an effect on world peace. Whether these allegations are true or not is not the subject of this study, but the situation exposes how nuclear power can be used to cause a lot of unrest, and possibly destabilize world peace.
However, recent studies expose a more devastating threat to a country’s peace after it was affirmed that, an attack on a nuclear power plant by terrorists, is also another strategy to wage a nuclear war against a nation (TMIA, 2011). Obviously, the truth behind this assertion stems from the fact that, an attack on a nuclear power plant would amount to an emission of radioactive rays which would affect a nation’s population.
This terrorist strategy is easier than assembling a nuclear bomb or having to deliver a nuclear bomb to a terrorist target. Moreover, this kind of attack is very deadly and its effects on human lives are unimaginable. From this analysis therefore, we see that, if developed nations continue producing nuclear energy and building more nuclear plants, they increase their vulnerability as a target of terrorism, and obviously exposing their citizens to the adverse effects of nuclear power generation.
High Cost of Building Nuclear Facilities and the Small Possibility of Accidents
The cost of building new nuclear power plants to generate electricity, or provide alternative sources of energy is staggering and out of reach for many countries.
With a poorly performing world economy and with increased debt burdens for some major world economies such as America, it makes no sense for developed nations to continue developing nuclear power – channeling a lot of resources to such projects, while other sectors of the socioeconomic aspects of the economy such as health, education and such like factors remain underfunded.
In the US, it is estimated that, the cost of power, generated from nuclear plants is triple that of the normal rates paid for electricity made from other alternative sources of energy such as hydroelectricity (Yanak, 2009, p. 1). It is further estimated that, the cost of paying for nuclear energy is ten times the cost of efficiency derived from such an energy cost.
The high rates to be paid for nuclear energy obviously emanates from the high costs associated with nuclear power generation, and investors or governments need to pass this cost down to the consumers to recover such high costs. This kind of scenario only exposes citizens in developed nations to high costs of energy.
When compared to other alternative energy production methods, nuclear energy stands out as the most expensive energy source ever invented by mankind. The production of nuclear energy therefore not only stands as a matter of critical economic importance, but also a matter of ethical concern, considering a diversion of immense financial resources to energy production, amounts to a deprivation of other socioeconomic duties which governments in developed countries ought to provide.
Conclusion
Nuclear power generation in developed countries, though a good idea at face value, is marred with a lot of controversy regarding its safety and impact on human lives.
Though its immense financial costs can be shouldered by several governments in developed countries, it should be understood that, there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis to quantify the cost and possible benefits that come from nuclear power generation. With several more important duties that governments have to perform, it is not ethical to divert a lot of state resources to produce nuclear energy, at the expense of other state priorities.
Regardless of these concerns, nuclear energy has been turned to a political issue, with countries trading accusations and counter-accusations regarding the production of nuclear weapons, because it is known that, nuclear energy can be used to promote acts of terrorism, thereby destabilizing world peace.
The effect of a nuclear terror act is enormous and unimaginable. Radioactivity is also another reason why developed countries should stop producing nuclear energy since they expose their citizens to the risks of radioactivity if a nuclear accident happens.
Collectively, the elements identified in this study expose sever negative effects of nuclear power generation and from the entire analysis, it is impossible for any government to exist if such calamities ever happen to their citizens. To protect citizens from such adverse effects, it is important for developed countries to stop nuclear power generation.
References
Breeze, P. (2005). Power Generation Technologies. New York: Newnes.
Furry Elephant. (2011). Why Study Radioactivity? Web.
Howtopowertheworld. (2010). Disadvantages of Nuclear Power. Web.
Living with Chernobyl-the future of nuclear power as its name suggests is a documentary exploring the effects of the April 26th 1986 Chernobyl power plant disaster. An explosion in number four reactor at the plant resulted in the greatest nuclear accident killing many instantly coupled with many others that died later with time.
In the same year predictions on the effects of the radioactive fallout (radioactive particles that settle to the ground after a nuclear explosion) were made. The predictions underscored the health effects to those exposed to the radiation emitted after the explosion.
In the documentary, journalist Cliff Orloff and Olga Shalygin made the journey to the affected zone with the aim of establishing the truth of the predictions made. They take the audience through the interviews and personal accounts of people who were affected by the accident.
Further, in an effort to unravel the myths and misconceptions and state the facts, they go through a report compiled by the Chernobyl forum (experts assembled by the United Nation) that incorporates 20 years of historical records. There is a mention of the high rate of thyroid cancer in the population though the documentary does not go to the extent of giving figures on the fatalities.
Apart from focusing on the accident itself and the consequences of the radioactive fallout, this documentary also explores the advantages of nuclear power as a green source of energy. It also explores the effects that the Chernobyl disaster had on the nuclear policy in the United States.
It examines the effects in the light of modern day concerted efforts made to ensure government policies enable countries to cut down on carbon emission to reduce global warming. Global warming has led to the weakening of the environmental movement against nuclear energy. This is illustrated by the exodus of environmental leaders who are turning from rejecting nuclear power to firmly endorsing it.
Nuclear energy is a large-scale source of energy, which is carbon free, a big advantage of nuclear power that has not escaped the minds of the makers of this documentary. The documentary therefore advocates for nuclear energy as a way of dealing with global warming.
I think that the documentary does not really focus on the effects of nuclear power especially from the Chernobyl accident. By leaving out solid figures like how many people were infected with thyroid cancer, it plays down the long term effects of the disaster. It fails to give enough information on the accident and dwells on the advantages that nuclear power has over conventional means, which greatly contribute to global warming.
I do give credit to those who prepared the film for presenting the issue of nuclear power use, which is a touchy subject. However, I do not agree with the view that nuclear energy should be embraced as a source of energy. Its dangers are obvious and the effect of such disasters cover vast areas and last for a long period.
Given the nuclear disasters including the recent one in Japan which shows how unprepared we are for such disasters (by the way it is being handled) and the use of nuclear energy in making of bomb-agents of destruction; it is imperative to implement policies that would regulate taping and usage of nuclear energy in place of conventional energy sources. Nonetheless, the documentary is worth watching for anyone interested in going green through nuclear energy.
The two passages under analysis are different in form and content as they are based on two opposing perspectives regarding nuclear power. In one passage, former Vice President Dick Cheney tries to promote the construction of new nuclear power plants. In the other passage, editorial writer Marianne Means opposes Cheney trying to persuade people that nuclear power is unsafe and no new plants are necessary. One of the major differences is associated with the emotional load of the passages. Cheney uses data to support his claims and attempts to display the benefits of these facilities. Means is more emotional as she evokes fears and uncertainty in her readers related to the past negative experience of accidents. Importantly the use of pathos is a potent rhetorical tool that encompasses the use of literary devices and a focus on people’s emotions rather than reasoning (Nicotra, 2018). At that, the writer also provides some data utilized by the former vice president and some information to show the negative side of power plants. The comparison of these figures also creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.
It is noteworthy that both authors use overt statements of meaning to make their point clear and close to the point. Another apparent similarity is the omission of important facts by both authors. Cheney does not provide clear data linked to the waste, although the official mentions that some wastes will become an issue to be solved. Means downsizes the benefits of the construction of new power plants to make people focus on the wastes and potential hazards. Thus, it is possible to note that the two authors have opposing views, but they also use some similar tools to persuade their audience.
Reference
Nicotra, J. (2018). Becoming rhetorical: Analyzing and composing in a multimedia world with APA 7e updates. Cengage Learning.
The debate on nuclear power has taken different directions due to the disagreements it has created among governments. Today, most regimes have justified their possession of nuclear weapons on basis of self defense or what may be termed as “protection of national security against aggression”.
There are many reasons why different nations have remained vocal on the need to be allowed to operate nuclear power plants. On the other side of the debate, there are those countries that believe other nations should not be in possession of nuclear weapons because they pose major security threats in the world. This has been associated with terrorism or crimes of aggression where some powerful nations want to violate rights of others through creating tensions.
The reader will agree that whatever position on nuclear power what matters is the objective or end goal. In ethics, it would refer to ideologies under utilitarianism and deontological moral conception. Thus, should possession of nuclear weapons be based on the desired end as to justify the means? Or is possession of nuclear weapons a malum in se (bad in itself). This will be discussed in due course of the study.
Main Analysis
In this section, the researcher will present two reasons why a country’s nuclear power may be justified and one reason why it cannot be supported.
In the past, a government official from North Korea expressed to the UN General Assembly that the country possessed nuclear weapons as a mechanism to self-defense (Tibori 90). Therefore, he blamed Washington (The United States) for quoting the non-proliferation and terrorism act only to interfere with sovereign states.
In addition, the Foreign Minister, then Choe Su Hon, stated that a country’s possession of nuclear power for the sake of self defense (Lackey 54) was in tandem with its efforts towards peace and security (Staff Writers United Nations AFP 1).
Indeed, nuclear weapons may potentially cause great destruction and protracted illness but there is no any particular treaty that deems their use as opposed to the law. The law prohibits use of nuclear weapons if such turns out to be a means of war. The International Criminal Court declined to state that nuclear weapons violate customary international law in every circumstance.
As indicated earlier, nuclear power has been condemned due to the fact that it is destructive. Firstly, explosions of nuclear weapons create blast effects, preliminary nuclear radiation, thermal radiation, radioactive fallout and electromagnetic pulse (Sheldon 183).
The other danger is that, upon detonation of nuclear weapons, the explosion spreads to the air where in turn it produces a fireball that travels at a speed equal to that of light (Louka 66). This leads to a hurricane kind of wind which is followed by a heat wave. This, at large, creates more hazards to the environment and even causes death to communities around. In the same vein, the health hazards may create fatal injuries such as burns and thermal radiation (Sheldon 185).
Conclusion
The study has demonstrated the opposing sides in as far as nuclear power is concerned. It is acceptable to purport that nuclear power may be used if such is meant to promote peace and security; on the other hand, there lacks a specific law that prohibits possession of nuclear power. On the contrary, nuclear power, especially due to explosions may create damages to the eco-system and even complicate health of human beings.
Works Cited
Lackey, Douglas. Moral Principles and Nuclear Weapons. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 1984. Print.
Louka, Elli. Nuclear Weapons, Justice and the Law. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2011. Print.
Sheldon, Jill. “Nuclear Weapons and the Laws of War: Does Customary International Law Prohibit the use of Nuclear Weapons in all Circumstances?” Fordham International Law Journal, 20. 1 (1996): 181-262. Print.
The developmental milestone of the discovery of nuclear fission in the early 30’s paved way to the advent of nuclear power as a source of energy. Nuclear power is a clean (environmentally friendly) source of energy derived from uranium – a non-renewable mineral source. The global rate of energy consumption is on a direct proportional rise as the population and therefore, a similar increment in energy production is required.
This population will require the energy to power factories and homes, provide water and transport and facilitate infrastructure for health, education and nutrition. (Openshaw, 1986) Traditional energy sources i.e. fossil fuels and coal do not have the collective capacity to match this demand without causing significant environmental damage at a high cost and suffer rapid depletion.
Nuclear energy is quite reliable, produces less waste, efficient, less expensive and does not add to the climate change by green- house gas production. However, amidst the myriad of advantages attributed to nuclear energy, it also has significant negative attributes. As much as it does not produce significant waste, this waste has to be kept enclosed for long to allow the radioactivity to subside.
It is not such an easy task to keep it away from natural disasters such as earthquakes or floods, as the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster depicts. (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2008) In addition to this, a lot of finances have to be spent on safety of nuclear energy. In line with my career as a power engineer, nuclear power would have a significant impact on my life, career and future in the following key areas:
Influence on Environment
There has been a rise in the global concern over the climate change attributed to several factors with excessive green house gas production being a considerable contributor. The recent environmental changes such as drop in sea ice, progressive increase in sea level and the rise in global temperatures with intense heat waves can be attributed to climate change. (Nigel, 1984). Fossil fuels and coal are major contributors of these gases and hence nuclear energy emerges as the appropriate substitute for clean energy production.
In fact, nuclear power has been shown to have net environmental benefits as it has no wastes in the form of gas, rather its contribution to the environment is the energy that it produces. (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2008) Catastrophic changes in climate can be a real and imminent danger and thus measures should be taken to focus on ‘clean’ forms of energy production.
Scenario #1
Risks and opportunities
Imagine a production company would like to venture into using nuclear power to run their engines. The local community has concerns that the adverse effects that this new venture would expose them to, far surpass the positive attributes of the venture. They seek a court order to stop the company from pursuing the new venture and hence making the company not able to achieve their most efficient output.
As it turns out the community relied on misguided information as to the effects of nuclear power. The company did not also carry out a risk assessment as to its overall environmental effect and carry out general community education.
Risks
Likelihood
Impact
Level of Risk
1. Leakage of radioactive emissions.
3
4
12
2. Nuclear accident leading to an explosion.
2
5
10
Opportunities
Likelihood
Impact
Level of Risk
1. New job opportunities.
3
3
9
2. Reduced production cost.
2
5
10
3. Increased output by the company.
4
5
20
4. Reduced environmental levels of green-house gases.
The positive and negative attributes of nuclear energy should be made public to create awareness on its use and resources directed towards its use.
Influence on the economy
Global economy: Energy is at the core of global economic development as it is indispensable in relation to the various contributors of economic growth. The price of conventional sources of energy such as crude oil determines the global economic situation especially the cost of living, food and transport.
Renewable energy, if available, would have caused a significant economic over-haul for the better, but since this dream is still far-fetched, reliable and efficient non-renewable energy source is the only substitute. With an ever growing population, the fossil resources are decreasing at an alarming rate.
Economic development is faces the task of not only alleviating human misery but also creating conditions necessary to match the growing population. (Guyer, 1998) Nuclear energy emerges as the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ as it compensates for the deficits in using the conventional energy sources.
The International Energy Agency and the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) conclude: “our world cannot meet its expanding energy need cleanly- without a sharp expansion of nuclear energy”. However, a nuclear disaster has adverse economic effects of global magnitude as is evidenced by the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster. Important determinants such as health risks involved and nuclear explosions can cause significant damage derailing the economy of a country.
Scenario #2
Risks and opportunities
Assume an insurance company is under pressure from its industrial customers using nuclear energy to include a policy covering nuclear accidents. The company is very skeptical about the venture as they cannot quantify the economic effect that a nuclear disaster would cause.
This makes them lose current and potential clients to the companies that are willing to take up the challenge. It becomes evident that the company’s hesitance was due to the misconception that is available concerning nuclear power, and hence they could not formulate adequate premiums to cover the policy.
Chronic medical conditions such as cancer have over the years troubled researchers for the quest for a permanent cure. Nuclear energy has come across as a new approach in medical research with radiation being used to treat disease and provide information on the functionality of an individual’s organs. (Nuclear Energy Agency 2008).
Currently, most of the diagnostic techniques use radioisotopes to facilitate imaging of various physiological processes. Conventional diagnostic techniques like x-ray are not as effective as nuclear energy in the concurrent imaging of bones and tissues. (Foreman, 1970).
Radionuclide therapy is one of the techniques that has been applied in cancer treatment and thus aiding medical research achieve significant development. Nuclear energy has transformed medical research as it has improved the characterization, visualization and quantification of cellular and sub cellular levels of biological processes. (Nigel, 1984)
Scenario #3
Risks and opportunities
A cancer patient has exhausted all her options in treatment of her disease. A medical research firm has come up with a new diagnostic and therapeutic approach for the cancer using nuclear energy. The research firm is in search for volunteers to assist them conduct feasibility as to the success rate of the new therapy.
The cancer patient is considering enrolling as a volunteer but has reservations about what the new therapy will predispose her to. The probability of her getting better hangs on the line due to ignorance, and thus a likely treatment option will not be given the opportunity to be put to use.
Risks
Likelihood
Impact
Level of Risk
1. Significant exposure to radioactive rays causing health problems.
A country’s rating as a force to reckon with is determined by its military strength. It is what defines a country as a superpower and hence the levels of authority. Many countries have directed tremendous amounts of resources towards improving their military might. The use of nuclear power in military defense has been a source of conflict for several years as it is an avenue for disaster.
This is based on events in history such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that ended the 2nd world war with significant effects on humanity. (Morris, 2007) The mandate to use nuclear power for military defense is under a few ‘entrusted’ states which form the superpower states. As much as the above sentiments are true, nuclear power can be used in a positive way by the military. It can be used to:
Provide a permanent and clean source of energy especially in times of natural disasters and terrorist attacks which require military effort.
Propel various transport modes like ships and submarines. (Openshaw, 1986).
Improve the cost effectiveness of the military
Reduce the dependence on fuel resources and thus reduce environmental release of green-house gases.
Therefore, instead of focusing on the negative attributes of nuclear use by the military such as war heads and war equipment to gain political control, we should focus on improving the military using nuclear energy to better their output.
Scenario #4
Risks and opportunities
Assume a country is facing a potential natural disaster like earthquakes or floods and its resources cannot match the expected damage. The military’s capacity to salvage the situation is not extensive, and the most viable option is to use nuclear power.
They are, however, incapable of doing so without consent from the countries overseeing the same. Their fate is thus at the mercy of another state. This would not be the case if they took proper measures to monitor the use of nuclear power without posing restrictions.
Response Plan for high-priority risks/opportunities associated with key areas mentioned above:
New job opportunities: In line with my profession as a power engineer, nuclear energy would provide new job opportunities for those specialized in the field. However, it would also lead to the loss of employment for those operators of the traditional sources of energy.
Leakage of radioactive emissions: One of the greatest challenges facing the general acceptance of nuclear energy is leakage of radioactive material to the environment. The fear is that it would cause profound health risks. As a power engineer, my main concern will be to institute stringent regulations governing the handling of waste from nuclear power plants.
Nuclear accidents: This is a justified concern as there is an inherent risk of explosions as a result of failure to contain the energy from nuclear power. As an engineer, I would carry out a probability assessment as to the likely causes of a disaster happening. I would also work with nuclear plant owners to institute protective measures against a nuclear disaster.
Misuse for political gain: It is important that the use of nuclear power remains limited to civil and economic gain. To do this, I would ensure that, as an engineer, the output from nuclear plants in the country is directed towards positive output and not personal gain.
Financial impact: The use of nuclear energy would have significant financial implication depending on how it is put to use. As a professional, I would see to it that they carry adequate public education on the positive effects of nuclear energy such as reduced production costs and the environmental impact. This would ensure that it is used for economic gain.
Health risk: Since it is possible for new nuclear dependent therapies to cause harm I would ensure they take the proper regulatory precautions before the therapies are put to use.
Discovery of new forms of treatment: There is a high probability that the advances in medical research will have to incorporate nuclear research in developing new forms of treatment. To ensure that these new research methods would not cause further harm to humanity, I would incorporate oversight measures to regulate these research methods.
Loss of business: To shield the likely users of nuclear energy the likely losses they would encounter if they ventured into it, I would carry out a widespread forum for creating public awareness about the positives and negatives of nuclear energy.
Summary report
Nuclear energy has emerged as a new, efficient, reliable and clean substitute source of energy from the traditional fossil fuels. It has thus attained the title of being a mega-trend. However, there seems to be a lot of misconception on its effects and side-effects. The effects it has on several human aspects such as environmental issues, global economy, medical research and military defense are wide and varied.
Major risks associated include nuclear accidents, environmental effect of radioactive emissions, misuse for political gain, financial implication and health risks. Priorities for action to counter the following include the creation of awareness as to its benefits and effects, instituting protective measures to counter these risks and stringent policies to govern its use.
The next five years will definitely see a shift in the use of traditional forms of energy into the use of nuclear energy due to the growing awareness of its benefits and the mounting pressure to reduce effects of global warming. A good example is the U.S. army which has incorporated its use in its future plans and other countries are gradually taking this new trend up.
The importance of nuclear energy could not be clearer than James Lovelock’s, World leader in the popularization of environmental issues, statement that “There is no more sensible alternative than Nuclear Energy if we really want to sustain our civilization”. (Foreman, 1970).
List of References
Foreman, H 1970, Nuclear power and the public, University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota.
Guyer, H 1998, Industrial processes and waste stream management, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Morris, N 2007, Nuclear Power, Black Rabbit Books, California.
Nigel, E & Hope, C 1984, Nuclear power: futures, costs and benefits, CUP Archive, California.
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 2008, Nuclear Energy Outlook , OECD Publishing, New York.
Openshaw, S 1986, Nuclear power: siting and safety, Taylor & Francis, Canada. Page of