Entering the twenty-first century, six billion people inhabit the earth. A
number that is expected to double in a hundred and twenty years, yet only 4% of
that world population lives in the Untied States. Even though the Untied States
is only 4% of the population of the world, it still uses 25% of the world’s
resources. This statistic is most important with the argument of food
consumption, with so many countries starving, but it also means that the United
States uses 25% of the world’s energy resources. Coal and oil are a major
energy provider around the world, particularly in the US. (See figure 1) Many
countries without these abundances have turned to nuclear energy, due to its
supreme effectiveness. Nuclear energy produces more energy per unit weight than
coal and oil, releases no pollutants into the atmosphere and is less cancer
causing than the burning of coal and oil. Yet nuclear power has been attacked in
the US since the day that it was instituted as being a non-safe and
environmentally non-friendly form of energy. Right now the United States does
not have to worry about running out of fossil fuels for a long time, even though
they generate 51.7% of the US’s power, and power almost all forms of modern
transportation. But what happens down the road, when all of the natural
resources are gone? In many countries, such as France, nuclear power is accepted
and welcome. Why is this not the same way in the US? The media and all forms of
entertainment have misconstrued the facts of nuclear energy. Most people are
sacred of nuclear power, the word unsafe is synonymous with nuclear power in
this country, but time has shown that there is so reason for this feeling.
Americans do not hold the facts on this issue. They have the unwarranted fears
of a mass and free speaking culture. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and
effective. The voice that is heard among the people is that nuclear energy is
unsafe to the environment. There should be no debate about the environmental
concerns of nuclear power. If there is anything that makes nuclear power
unpractical it is government spending. Never the less nuclear power is the
cleanest form of power for a rapidly increasing world population. Nuclear
reactors produce electricity by the fission of uranium, not the burning of
fossil fuels, not emitting sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate soot, or
greenhouse gases. In countries around the world nuclear energy is the largest
source of emission-free electrical generation. Making one million kilowatt-hours
of electricity in a natural gas power plant produces 550 tons of carbon dioxide.
Producing the same amount in an oil-fired plant makes 850 tons of carbon dioxide
and 1,110 in a coal plant. But making one million kilowatt hours of electricity
in a nuclear plant creates no carbon dioxide. Not only does nuclear energy not
emit any pollutants, it is causing the average of pollutants that are let into
air to decline. Since 1973, the generation of electricity by US power plants has
resulted in two billion fewer tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. (See
figure 2) Nuclear energy has accounted for 90% of all carbon emission reductions
achieved by the electric utility industry. And the fact still remains that I
gram plutonium has the same energy potential as 1 ton of oil. Another major
concern for the environment is what to do with the waste of a nuclear plant. It
is in this area that causes people feel that nuclear power is unsafe for the
environment. The fact is that the waste is radioactive for thousands of years,
and if not disposed of properly could destroy the environment. In some
countries, such as France, the waste from the nuclear plants is recycled making
a lower amount of unusable waste. This is not done in the US, but should always
be an option. The waste is stored in huge drums impermeable to any type of
disaster. As a result, the nuclear energy industry is the only industry
established since the industrial revolution that has managed and accounted for
all of its waste, preventing adverse impacts on the environment. Yet what
worries people is that the waste is radioactive. At a close range a person would
only receive 3 millarems of radiation from one of the tanks, when the average
person receives 350 millarems of radiation each year from everything around
them. Even when the plant on Three Mile Island had a disaster in 1979, (the
worst is US history) the average person that resided in that area received 2 to
10 millarems. This would also mean that nuclear power is not the cancer causing
threat that the majority of the population thinks that it is. The burning of
coal is more cancerous then nuclear power, and coal burning releases more
radiation then nuclear power. Not only is nuclear power more nature friendly,
but more human friendly. The United States needs a non-polluting form of energy
that can supply the mass of people, and they have it. Nuclear power is not an
enemy and should be considered for use in the future. The abundance of coal
could be exported to other countries that don’t have the money to run on
nuclear power. This could be in turn used to finance nuclear power. France runs
on 76% nuclear power and there it is seen as the safe, environmentally friendly
practice that it is. However to be as efficient as France, the US must recycle
their waste products to be used in the plants, helping to decrease the fear of
nuclear waste. With the facts on paper, in black and white, nuclear power is the
logical choice with the environment as the concern. The only thing that is let
into the air out of a nuclear plant in steam, and that water is not contaminated
in any way. Human beings are the only species that take and gather more then
they need. No other species on the planet uses up all of the resources it can
find. Animals live in a symbiotic relationship with the planet. Animals do not
willingly pollute earth; man knows that he is contaminating the planet by
burning fossil fuels for energy. Nuclear power is much more environmentally
friendly. When all the waste is accounted for, which it has been since the
moment of institution, the nuclear industry lets no pollutants into the earth.
With concern for the health of the environment, nuclear power is the answer.

Bibliography
http://www.nea.fr/ Keyword search: Environment http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/1D/01D42000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1,
Nuclear Energy. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html,
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY. Oct.17, 1995 United States.
Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on
Energy and the Environment. Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Powerplant,
Washington : U.S. G.P.O., 1979-1980. E Stephan L. Mintz, and Arnold Perlmutter.
Environment and nuclear energy / edited by Behram N. Kursunoglu, New York London
: Plenum Press, c1998. United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Environment. Environmental Development Plan: Special Nuclear
Materials Production. Washington, Dept. of Energy, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Environment; Springfield.