Analytical Exposition

The Danger of Nuclear power

There are three separate sources of hazard in the process of supplying energy by nuclear
power. The radioactive material must travel from its place of manufacture at the power
station. Although the power stations themselves are solidly built, the containers used for the
transport of the materials are not. There are normally only two methods of transport available,
namely road or rail. Unfortunately, both of these involve close contact with the general
public, since the routes are sure to pass near, or even thought, heavily populated areas.

Next, there is the problem of waste. All nuclear power stations produce wastes that in most
cases will remain radioactive for thousands of years. It is impossible to make these wastes
non radioactive, and so they must be stored in one of the inconvenient ways that scientist
have invented. For example they may be buried under the ground, or dropped into abandoned
mines, or sunk in the sea. However, these methods do not solve the problem, since an
earthquake could easily crack the containers open.

Finally, there is the problem of accidental exposure due to a leak or an explosion at the power
station. As with the other two hazards, this is not every likely, so it does not provide a serious
objection to the nuclear program. Nevertheless, it can happen.

Separately, these there types of risks are not a great cause for concern. On the whole though,
the probability of disaster is still high.
O & C:
Not only do we not need nuclear power, we can not afford it. The waste is indispensable and
will take huge amounts of money to manage the waste for hundreds of years. Nobody wants
it in anyone's backyard. As unforeseen as events can be with Earth quakes, terrorist attacks or
other disasters nuclear and it's waste is simply too dangerous to mess with. This is not even to
mention the danger of transporting it. With huge government subsidies the nuclear industry
has been a huge instruction. Why would we take such irresponsible and irrational risks when
wind, solar, geothermal and tidal energy are now cheaper? It simply costs too much and is
simply too dangerous. Anyone who still supports it is either ignorant or has an agenda.
Su & So:
increase renewable energy targets at the same time improve the quality of laws and
regulations which have become a hindrance to investment in renewable energy. Therefore, it
is better to use a renewable energy source that is safe, clean and much cheaper. Most
importantly, the source in the world. and do not need to use materials that are at risk of harm
to society such as nuclear power
Ada tiga sumber terpisah bahaya dalam proses penyediaan energi dengan tenaga
nuklir. Bahan radioaktif harus melakukan perjalanan dari tempat pembuatanya di
pembangkit listrik. Meskipun pembangkit listrik sendiri kuat, wadah yang digunakan
untuk pengangkutan bahan yang tidak kuat. Ada biasanya hanya dua metode
transportasi yang tersedia, yaitu jalan atau rel. Sayangnya, kedua hal ini melibatkan
kontak dekat dengan masyarakat umum, karena rute yakin untuk lewat dekat, atau
bahkan berpikir, daerah padat penduduk. Selanjutnya, ada masalah limbah. Semua
stasiun tenaga nuklir menghasilkan limbah yang dalam banyak kasus akan tetap
radioaktif selama ribuan tahun. Tidak mungkin untuk membuat limbah tersebut tidak
radioaktif, dan sehingga mereka harus disimpan dalam salah satu cara yang
nyaman ilmuwan telah diciptakan. Misalnya mereka mungkin terkubur di bawah
tanah, atau jatuh ke tambang ditinggalkan, atau tenggelam di laut. Namun, metode
ini tidak memecahkan masalah, karena gempa bumi dapat dengan mudah retak
wadah terbuka.

Akhirnya, ada masalah paparan disengaja karena kebocoran atau ledakan di

pembangkit listrik. Seperti dengan dua bahaya lain sebelumnya, hal ini tidak
berkemungkinan terjadi, sehingga tidak memberikan penolakan serius terhadap
program nuklir. Namun demikian, hal ini bisa terjadi.

Secara terpisah, ini jenis ada risiko bukan memprihatinkan. Secara keseluruhan
meskipun, kemungkinan bencana masih tinggi.