McKee 1
Nuclear Fission
Since its discovery, nuclear fission has detonated an explosion of opportunities.
The opportunity to end a world war was made a reality with the help of nuclear fission.
Consequently, the ability to destroy the entire planet is also a result of nuclear fission.
Apart from bombs, nuclear fission provides the opportunity to generate electricity for
entire cities. While, at the same time, nuclear fission can create enough radioactive waste
to kill entire cities. It seems that for every positive result of nuclear fission, there is an
equally humbling negative effect from nuclear fission. Therefore, it is important to step
outside the world of influence of manipulation and focus on the basics.
Fundamentally, nuclear fission occurs when an atom’s nucleus (usually uranium)
is split in half. When this nucleus is split it releases a large amount of energy in the form
of warmth and radiation. Gamma rays are emitted as well as two or more neutrons. The
neutrons gain the power to split more nuclei and this process starts a chain reaction. This
chain reaction creates a release of nuclear energy (www.nuclearfiles.org). If uncontrolled,
this nuclear energy can cause destruction, but when controlled, this very same nuclear
energy can be used as a source of energy. In the past, nuclear fission has been used to
make bombs, and the threat of those bombs still remains today. On the other hand,
nuclear fission is utilized in a controlled environment for creating power. This power
provides electricity for cities, ships, and submarines.
Currently, 16 percent of the world’s electricity is a result of nuclear fission. With
a total of 440 nuclear power plants, 31 countries look towards nuclear power as a source
of consumable energy (www.world-nuclear.org).
McKee 2
Leading these countries in nuclear power usage is France. Over 80 percent of France’s
electricity comes from nuclear power (www.world-nuclear.org). In comparison, the
United States relies on nuclear power for about 20 percent of its total electricity
(www.osti.gov). France’s production of nuclear energy is a result of France’s goal to be
less reliant on outside energy sources, such as gas (www.osti.gov). By building its own
nuclear power plants, France is able to produce a considerable amount of power, and the
need for imported foreign energy decreases. Thus, by capitalizing on nuclear power,
France has become a more independent nation.
Many Americans would like to see the United States take France’s lead and start
building more nuclear power plants. As it stands, the majority of the United State’s power
comes from coal or natural gas (hydro-electricity and wind power are used on regional
levels). One argument is that coal and natural gas create more emissions than a nuclear
power plant. Therefore, many people believe that nuclear energy is a cleaner and more
environmentally friendly source of energy. Also, the abundance of potential nuclear
energy is much greater than that of coal or natural gas. Uranium, the building block for
nuclear fission, is 500 times more abundant than gold. Therefore, the resources for
creating nuclear energy are more readily available than the average fossil fuel. As it
stands, to provide electricity for an average American city, it would take 160,000 tons of
coal; 250,000 cubic meters of gas; or a mere 9 tons of uranium converted into nuclear
energy (www.world-nuclear.org). With this information in mind, nuclear power in not
only thought to be cleaner, it is also more readily available and fewer raw materials are
needed to produce nuclear energy. If only given this information, one may conclude that
nuclear power, as a result of nuclear fission, is a viable source of energy.
McKee 3
Nonetheless, nuclear fission does have a strong force of opposition. The
resistance to nuclear power is based around two main arguments. The first of these
arguments is that accidents in production and storage have the potential to release
harmful radiation. The process of nuclear fission creates waste with high levels of
radiation. This radiation can be harmful for humans and the environment. This
radioactive waste must be stored and quarantined until it has decayed to a radiation level
that is safe. After 40-50 years less than one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remains
and after about 1,000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed (www.uic.com).
Therefore, long-term storage solutions must be practiced if nuclear waste is to be
produced. Supporters of nuclear power will argue that storage solutions are already
available and continually improved.
However, there have been times when radioactive nuclear waste is released
unexpectedly. Accidents have been known to occur in nuclear power plants and the
consequences can be devastating. The most well-known nuclear power plant accident
occurred in Chernobyl, Russia (Ukraine) in 1986. It is reported that an unauthorized
experiment caused a massive explosion within a nuclear power plant, causing radioactive
waste to be released. Initially, 31 people died and 4,000 square meters of land around
Chernobyl was pronounced uninhabitable. A study conducted by the World Health
Organization found that 4,000 people within their lifetime had died as a result of
exposure to the radioactive waste in and around Chernobyl (www.wikipedia.org).
Proponents of nuclear fission argue that strict government standards will minimize such
accidents from occurring in the future.
McKee 4
A second argument brought forth by opponents of nuclear fission is based around
the school of thought that nuclear power is a gateway to nuclear weapons. In fact, the use
of nuclear weapons preceded the use of nuclear energy and it can be argued that nuclear
energy is simply a bi-product of nuclear weapons. To date, the only nuclear weapons
used in war occurred during World War II before the use of nuclear power. However, the
limited use of nuclear weapons does not dismiss the concern and danger of a state
achieving nuclear weapon status. The United Nations’ Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
recognizes the correlation between the production of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Supporters of nuclear energy believe that such treaties have curbed the production of
nuclear weapons while allowing the advancement of nuclear energy. In 1960 it was
estimated that by the turn of the century 30-35 countries would reach nuclear weapon
status, but currently in the year 2006 only eight countries are known to have nuclear
weapons (www.world-nuclear.com). This observation shows that a significant number of
nuclear power producing countries have chosen not to use their nuclear resources to
create weapons. Yet, the argument still remains that if a country has nuclear power, that
same country still has the option to manufacture nuclear weapons. Treaties are only as
effective when they are not broken. The current situation in Iran and North Korea is a
perfect example of the ever-looming risks nuclear power poses. Both countries have
defied treaties and are progressively working toward creating nuclear power. The global
community views these countries as a threat and believes that nuclear power will lead to
nuclear weapons (www.time.com). Only time will tell whether or not these countries’
development of nuclear power will result in the production and, perhaps, use of nuclear
weapons.
McKee 5
There are two sides to every argument and nuclear fission is definitely not an
exception. The consequences of nuclear fission can be viewed as negative of positive. As
the world moves forward it will have to decide, on the political and environmental stage,
whether or not nuclear fission is a viable source for energy.
McKee 6
Works Cited
Nuclear Files. 17 Feb. 2006 <http://nuclearfiles.org>.
Office of Science and Technical Information. 17 Feb. 2006 <http://www.osti.gov>.
Time Magazine. 12 Mar. 2006. 17 Feb. 2006 <http://www.time.com >.
Wikipedia. 17 Feb. 2006 <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/nuclear_fission>.
World Nuclear. 17 Feb. 2006 <http://www.world-nuclear.org>.