Nicole Klingler

EGEE 101H

Reflective Essay 2

14 April 2011

Society and the Nuclear Meltdown

Nuclear power currently provides approximately twenty percent of the United States’

total electricity. This energy is produced without adding any carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere or contributing to the increase in the global temperature. In today’s current

global warming crisis, one would expect society to be more enthusiastic about the prospective

opportunities to expand the use of nuclear energy throughout the world. However, many

people are skeptical and concerned about its widespread use. This apprehension may have

stemmed from the historical usage of nuclear power, which was first developed and applied

as an instrument of war during World War II through the development of the atomic bomb.

Shortly after World War II came to an end, the focus surrounding nuclear power turned to

operation as civilian power reactors. Then, “in 1946 the Manhattan Project launched the first

atomic power program to develop an early commercial power reactor design, along with its

naval and air force military reactor projects” (Duderstadt 46). In 1947, the Atomic Energy

Commission (AEC), which was created by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, took over the

Manhattan Project and upon review halted its activity due to growing concerns over

achieving economically competitive nuclear power. In recent years, France has become one

of the leading producers of nuclear power to be utilized as a primary source of electrical

power. Many other countries, including the United States, Japan and Russia, have also had

success with producing electricity using nuclear. Even with these successes, accidents

involving defective safety measures in nuclear reactors, and concerns about the health risks of
the resulting radioactive leakage may be responsible for society’s hesitant attitude toward

using nuclear power as a prime energy source.

Nuclear reactors are built with many safety mechanisms and procedures in mind to

prevent nuclear meltdowns. These include backup generators, relief valves, evacuation plans,

and containment chambers with concrete walls several inches thick. The United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also demands careful supervision of the nuclear

fission process, where certain uranium isotopes undergo the fission process in order to

produce large amounts of energy. Malfunctions in this process can cause the reactor to reach

extreme temperatures and produce an immense amount of energy. If not cooled regularly, the

core can overheat, causing instability and the reactor’s core to rupture. Because of this, a

coolant system (such as feedwater pumps) and a backup coolant system have also become

essential in reactor design. Typically, these safety measures are effective at preventing

disastrous meltdowns and states of emergency.

Therefore, many people assume that these safety features and protocols should quell

the public’s anxiety about widespread utilization of nuclear power plants. However, as seen

in several accidents involving nuclear reactors, these safety systems do not always operate as

planned and the unthinkable can happen. The accident involving the Three Mile Island Unit,

a nuclear power plant near Middletown, PA, on March 28, 1979 was a humbling example of

the possible disasters resulting from mechanical failure. A mechanical or electrical failure

resulted in the main feedwater pumps shutting down, causing a chain of events that greatly

increased the severity of the initial mishap. The shutdown of the feedwater pump prevented

the steam generators from removing heat, causing the pressure in the primary system to

increase. A pilot-operated relief valve then opened to alleviate the built up pressure;

however, that same valve failed to close as it should have when the pressure in the primary

system decreased and the signals associated with that valve neglected to indicate that there
was a problem. As a result, the coolant (water) poured out of the faulty valve, allowing the

reactor’s core to overheat (NRC, Three Mile Island). Luckily, in this incident, no one was

hurt or killed. Nevertheless, the incident terrified the public and fueled their skepticism of

nuclear power being the best solution to their energy needs. These sentiments were

heightened again seven years later a sudden surge of power, destroyed a nuclear reactor at

Chernobyl, Ukraine (formerly the USSR). The accident released massive amounts of

radioactive material into the environment (NCR, Chernobyl), creating the need for an

evacuation of all people in a thirty kilometer radius. Unlike the incident at Three Mile Island,

this meltdown claimed many lives and had everlasting effects. This event created a massive

amount of doubt among society about the pros of nuclear power outweighing the cons. This

doubt took many years to subside. With a large reprieve from major nuclear disasters, the

world seemed more eager to accept the notion of developing nuclear power into primary

source of electricity. However, in March of 2011, an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0

caused tsunamis to bombard Japan. These natural disasters caused multiple reactors of the

Fukushima Daiichi plant to meltdown. Shockingly, the tsunamis also knocked out the

reactors’ main supply of electrical power, and cooling the reactors became increasingly

difficult, allowing the radioactive contamination of the environment worsened (Shankland).

Thus, the threat of radioactive exposure rekindled the fear of the over usage of nuclear power

in Japan and many adjacent countries. In fact, radiation exposure, in most cases, appears to

be the main component of the public’s fear of the expansion of nuclear power utilization.

Radioactivity is a result of spontaneous disintegration of nuclei that emits ionizing

radiation (commonly alpha, beta, and gamma particles). Ionizing radiation has the capability

to strip electrons from atoms. This often results in a charged ion or in the breaking of

chemical bonds, which can affect the human body in terrifying ways. For instance, exposure

to radioactivity can alter the normal functioning of a person’s cells. It can cause abnormal
patterns in cell repair and prevent apoptosis (programmed cell death). An extended period of

exposure can easily cause cancer as the cells do not know when to stop “repairing” or when

to die, which quickly produces a mass of overgrown cells. Other symptoms of exposure to

radiation include: radiation sickness, hair loss, premature aging, nausea, weakness, skin

burns, diminished organ functions, and death. One of the major fears that is that children are

more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. Children undergo bodily growth at a

more rapid rate than adults. Therefore, a significantly higher percentage of their cells are

dividing at the time of exposure, and there is a greater opportunity for radiation to interfere

with the process of normal bodily growth. Similarly, fetuses are also highly sensitive to

radiation. However, the exact effects that result from the exposure of radiation during fetal

development largely depends on which body systems are developing at the time of exposure.

Radiation exposure can destroy an entire region in some cases, making the area too

perilous for human inhabitance and can often be life threatening when exposed to a high

enough dosage. The most common source of high levels of radiation is meltdowns of nuclear

reactors. This threat to humanity’s well-being appears to be the greatest factor in society’s

hesitation to wholeheartedly embrace the development of nuclear power as a major source of

electricity. Many would argue that this apprehension is entirely justifiable and agree that

while nuclear energy may not be a source of carbon dioxide, it has the potential to be even

more harmful to the environment than other energy sources that do produce the gas. It seems

largely because of the adverse health effects that can potentially stem from nuclear power that

society’s preference to develop natural, renewable resources as sources of electrical power

before the development of nuclear power be further implemented.

 Work Cited

Duderstadt, James J., and Chihiro Kikuchi. Nuclear Power: Technology on Trial. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan, 1979. Print.

"NRC: Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident." NRC: Home Page. 11 Aug. 2009.

Web. 11 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-

sheets/3mile-isle.html>.

"NRC: Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident." NRC: Home Page. 30

April 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-

collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html>.

Shankland, Stephan. "Overheating, Radiation Troubles Mount at Japan Reactors | Deep Tech

- CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20043686-264.html>.

Works Consulted

Eiser, J. Richard, Joop Van Der Pligt, and Russell Spears. Nuclear Neighbourhoods:

Community Responses to Reactor Siting. Devon: University of Exeter, 1995. Print.

Evans, Robert L. Fueling Our Future: an Introduction to Sustainable Energy. Cambridge

[u.a.: Cambridge Univ., 2007. Print.

Foreman, Harry, ed. Nuclear Power and the Public. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota, 1971.

Print.

"Health Effects | Radiation Protection | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency.

Web. 29 Mar. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/health_effects.html>.