danielle2

With our new unit of Global Warming, I can pretty much guarantee that eventually the topic of alternative energy resources is going to come up.  Last year, for science, the group of Luke, Adam, and I covered Nuclear Energy.  May I just start off by saying that nuclear energy is not the way to go, even if it means not relying on the Middle East and Venezuela for oil.  Now, let me explain why.

Thermal Pollution.

Ironically, we talked about this in science this year.  Or at least we did in Fah, I don't know about Tucker.  ANYWAY... In the cooling towers of a nuclear plant, water is used to cool the ____.  After the water is nice and hot, it's usually dumped back into streams, lakes, rivers, the like.  No, the water is not ‘dirty' or ‘contaminated'.  But it's still pollution.  Why?  Because that water raises the temperature in the body of water by several degrees.  No big deal, right?  Wrong.  Even only a few degrees difference makes a huge impact on plant life in the ecosystem.  Perhaps... killing off a few subspecies?  And then what?  The food chain may start with the plants, and no plants no small fish, no small fish, no big fish... What ends up happening?  Poof.  No more lil' fishies.  And that, my friends, is why it's pollution.

High Risk.

Anyway remember Chernobyl?  Well, probably not, because it was a while ago.  But there was a huge accident over in a nuclear plant over in the Soviet Union, I do believe, and it caused cancer and also birth defect.  It's easy for some chemicals to become unstable, and let's face it, we're human.  Mistakes happen.  But if it happened once, who's to say it won't happen again?  There are high risks for the people who work at nuclear power plants as well, because let's face it, they're exposed to those chemicals.  Ah dang.

Terrorist Opportunity.

I think I remember Mr. Bruns saying there was an attack suspected to occur at a nucler power plant in... Illinois? ... I think so.  So anyway,  it's giving terrorists an opportunity.  Why suicide attack an airport when you could bomb a nuclear power plant, not kill yourself, and kill nearly four times as many people as you could've at the air port?  Yeah.  Silli question.  I know.  And really, it's kind of a balanced equation.  Either depend on the Middle East for oil and have "minor" (I use that term lightly, of course) or have nuclear power plants and have huge, ghastly attacks on those that kill more people.  Mmmhmm... Not cool.

So, basically, what I'm trying to say is that there are more con's when it comes to Nuclear Energy than pro's. The United States needs a more reliable and renewable energy source, but nuclear is not the answer.  It's pretty much the only energy source no one voted for in Science last year.  And if they did vote for it, chances are they were joking around.  Or... they didn't pay attention.  May I suggest ethanol, hydropower, or windpower.  All of them are easily replaceable resources that America has plenty of. And aside from the initial cost, are very cheap (and better)  alternatives.  Thank ya!

-Danielle