Nuclear Energy: casualties, the environment and our ethics

Paper by - Nishita Bajaj and Amaaya Jhunjhunwala.

Modern High School - International

78, Syed Amir Ali Ave, Beck Bagan, Ballygunge, Kolkata, West Bengal 700019

academicofficemhsi@mhsforgirls.edu.in
 Index

Introduction-
The ethical issue of nuclear energy-
Analysis and Solutions -
Conclusion-
Bibliography-
Introduction-

Energy has long been considered to be a necessary component in supplying man with his

fundamental necessities as well as in promoting and sustaining economic progress and a

high level of life. In fact, a country's well-being is frequently linked to its enormous and

ever-increasing energy needs. Nuclear power's research and application have been

passionately contested for decades. Nuclear energy is regarded as a sustainable energy

source since it emits significantly fewer greenhouse gasses and trash than conventional

energy does. Nuclear, on the other hand, high radioactivity in fuel and wastes presents

several risks to public health and the environment. Considering that the majority of nuclear

power reactors are situated in locations with a lot of people.However, global nuclear

accidents are devastating, which has sparked popular dread. The triad nuclear

disasters—Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most recently, Fukushima—have somewhat

dimmed the outlook. Uranium is utilized in nuclear energy, although it has no other

peaceful uses outside producing steam, heat, or neutrons in nuclear power reactors ,

producing electricity using turbo-generators and in the radiation form to treat cancer. Is

nuclear power really a green energy source? Describe the effects of nuclear energy

initiatives on world health What are the moral principles? What principles must be taken

into account while choosing nuclear energy? This essay addresses the moral implications of

nuclear power and makes policy suggestions to safeguard public health on a worldwide

level. That being said, acquiring knowledge about nuclear power / energy to use them as

weapons is highly unethical. For instance, Deontological ethics are ethical views that
emphasize the connection between duties and the morality of human conduct. This can be

interpreted by some as nuclear power and warheads to be completely ethical if one is

carrying out his duty of protecting their own country / nation. In light of the above

discussion, this paper will examine our understanding of the ethics regarding nuclear

technology and the moral code that all nations and individuals are to abide by.

The ethical issue of nuclear energy-

Most of the issues raised in the public discourse have long been a source of concern for the

scientists and engineers who have committed their careers to the advancement of this

technology. Some of them, however, have taken on new significance in light of public

awareness and the growing understanding that specific concerns, such as those concerning

long-lived radioactive wastes, have incorporated a new time dimension into the concern for

environmental preservation. Some specific issues have been buried for far too long. In any

case, ignoring or dismissing the magnitude of public queries and criticism will not work. The

nuclear business cannot afford to simply appeal to a very good safety record to justify its

current actions and future intentions. All conference participants bear a common obligation

to address the major issues in a much more substantial manner. While there have been

some factual errors, there is now a well-established body of knowledgeable public opinion

that believes we cannot move on with a plutonium-based fuel economy without a more

basic and entirely transparent review of the hazards involved. Certain assumptions have

already been made inside each country that already has a basic capability in nuclear

technology regarding the magnitude, availability, and general disposition of their future
nuclear development. Such assumptions are increasingly being called into question. The

days of enormous anticipation that accompanied the birth of nuclear technology have now

been replaced by the days of decision-making under uncertainty that define nuclear power

advances in many countries. Few people are politically ignorant enough to think that

nuclear technology can be abandoned; nonetheless, a new sense of reality is spreading,

and challenges to a high level of nuclear dependency must be addressed. If public trust in

the technology's future deployment is further weakened, re-establishing such trust will

likely be more difficult. A precise explanation of future risks and uncertainties would appear

to be necessary.

Nuclear energy is the only currently accessible alternative to fossil fuels and hydropower

for the delivery of bulk electric energy, and many governments are interested in its

advantages. However, its broader societal consequences have yet to be fully discovered

and investigated. Some people are afraid that this complicated technology may exacerbate

the tendency of societal centralization and urbanization, which they would prefer to

reverse. Others are concerned that it would exacerbate the economic and technical divide

between rich and poor countries. Many are also afraid that current nuclear technology

trade would harm the fight against racial and social inequality. Therefore, it is necessary to

assess how nuclear energy consumption connects to the battle for a new and more

equitable international economic system. A variety of problems have prevented developing

countries from widely utilizing nuclear energy for power generation. Many of the power

networks there are of small size and cannot accommodate huge nuclear generating units of
600 MW or more. However, in the long run, some of these nations will possess a strong

enough industrial and economic foundation to sustain nuclear power facilities and will be

large enough to require the electricity. As a result, many developing countries are

becoming increasingly interested in nuclear energy technologies. It may require a long time

— possibly 25 to 30 years — for their distribution networks to be able to support massive

nuclear units, but they must begin planning for the future now. This entails preparing

qualified workers for the maintenance, operation, and monitoring of nuclear power plant

installations. Some are seriously contemplating establishing sub-regional or regional

training centers.

Although technology exists to satisfy human needs, it has the potential to destroy

individuals and human ideals, whether via the intentional aim of oppressors or by

unforeseen effects. As a result, the values that underlie technical processes need ongoing

public inspection and debate.

The question of whether technology processes are genuinely achieving the desired

purposes or if they have their own momentum that surpasses human values must also be

addressed. It would be nice, if feasible, to neatly distinguish objectives and values from

methods and means, assuming that civilizations establish their aims and then employ

scientific tools to fulfill them. However, technology has an impact on ambitions. At times,

the technological techniques employed to attain one goal harm the chances of reaching

another equally vital one. Any severe separation of technology from human values

substantially simplifies the dialectics of technology-society relations. Decisions regarding

significant technological challenges, such as nuclear energy, are thus far too crucial to be

kept inside the nuclear scientific and engineering community. However, there can be no

settlement of the issues without the complete cooperation of these expert groups. The

challenge is to find new methods for many diverse groups to analyze technical progress.

Fortunately, some exciting new instances of innovative conversation involving technical

experts, governments, and the public as part of a responsible decision-making process are

developing in many nations.

Consequences and Effects-

Impact on environment : There are benefits and drawbacks to this aspect. On one hand,

nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, produces significantly less wastes than

conventional energy, and doesn't release any greenhouse gasses. Nuclear energy, a

sustainable alternative to wind and solar energies, appears to be a viable choice to replace

fossil fuel energy in light of rising energy demand and declining fossil fuel supply.

Contrarily, nuclear energy is not environmentally friendly since it includes the mining,

refinement, and disposal of radioactive raw materials and waste. The generation of

radioactive wastes such as spent / used reactor fuel, uranium mill tailings, and other

radioactive wastes are a significant environmental hazard associated with nuclear energy.

For millions of years, these substances may continue to be radioactive and hazardous to

human health. In order to safeguard public health and the environment, radioactive wastes
are subject to strict rules that control their treatment, transportation, storage, and disposal.

These restrictions however have not contributed to restricting the use of these substances

as nuclear explosions for non-military objectives are known as peaceful nuclear explosions

(PNEs), which include- excavation for the construction of canals and harbors, electricity

supply, to propel spacecraft, and a manner of wide-area fracking. All the above are

proposed applications for such explosions by various countries around the globe making

the threat of nuclear energy all the more imminent. Though this is a very thin and

ambiguous line that is drawn to separate the ethical and unethical in this case.

Nuclear mishaps are disastrous : A single nuclear bomb has the potential to kill hundreds

of thousands of people, with long-term and catastrophic humanitarian and environmental

effects. Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel,

and North Korea are believed to have around 13,000 nuclear weapons, the majority of

which are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the nuclear weapon used in

Hiroshima. Thirty-one more states are also involved in the issue. Large quantities of

radioactive gas and particles were spilled into the atmosphere after the Chernobyl tragedy

in 1986, spreading throughout Europe. Long-term effects included extended low dose

radiation (I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137, etc.) over a sizable population in Europe, which

elevated chances for cancer and other diseases in addition to causing mortality and

mutations in people, animals, and plants (Hatch et al., 2005). The long-term health impact

of the study's findings varied. The Fukushima tragedy has led to cascading crises with

consequences on global public health, the environment, food safety, and emotional
ramifications, similar to the Chernobyl disaster. The impact on world health has yet to be

fully understood.

Radiation exposure : Although radiation is present in the environment, the background

level is so low that it poses no health risks. In fact, it's possible that the mutative agent is

what results in the emergence of previously unknown plant and insect species. By

subjecting plants to radiation, the effect is produced on an expedited scale in labs. This

method, known as radiation-induced mutation breeding, creates new plant cultivars with

more advantageous desired traits.Concerns about public exposure to radiation have been

raised in the wake of the Fukushima-Japan accidents in 2011, particularly when it is said

that the level is many times higher than the background level. Another problem that

plagued the sector was this one, albeit perhaps they contributed to it by setting the bar too

low. The exposure limit established for non-radiation employees is several times higher

than some of the medical treatments that we must undergo since they involve x-rays and

other nuclear-related operations.

Nuclear weapons are the only instruments ever devised that have the capability of

annihilating all complex life forms on Earth in a very short period of time. A nuclear war

involving 1,000 nuclear bombs, which is around 5% of the overall global stockpile, would

likely leave the earth uninhabitable. According to a recent study by the International

Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, a regional nuclear war with about 100

Hiroshima-sized weapons would drastically affect the world climate and agricultural

productivity, putting more than a billion people at danger of hunger. Although it would not
lead to the extinction of the human species, it would be the end of contemporary

civilization as we know it. A limited nuclear war's smoke and dust would induce a rapid

reduction in global temperatures and rainfall by preventing up to 10% of sunlight from

reaching the Earth's surface. A rapid global cooling will reduce growing seasons,

endangering agriculture throughout the planet. Food price increases would make food

inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people. Even a 10% decrease in

food consumption would result in famine for people who are already chronically

malnourished. Infectious illness outbreaks and strife over few resources would be

commonplace. If the world's nuclear arsenal was utilized, 150 million tonnes of smoke

would be spewed into the stratosphere, resulting in a 45 percent drop in global rainfall and

an average surface temperature of -7 to -8°C. In comparison, the worldwide average

cooling during the previous ice age, which lasted more than 18,000 years ago, was -5°C. A

nuclear war would deplete the ozone layer for an extended period of time, wreaking havoc

on human and animal health. Significant increases in UV light would result in a spike in skin

cancer rates, crop damage, and the annihilation of marine life.

Analysis and Solutions -

In the recent past nations and scientists have raised many concerns regarding the

production of nuclear weapons. These concerns have been addressed at international

peace conferences, at the end of which treaties regarding the restriction of nuclear

warheads have also been signed. To look back at them:

 1. 1996: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

In January 1994, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) launched serious discussions on a

comprehensive nuclear-test-ban pact through an Ad Hoc Committee formed for that

purpose. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was signed by 185

nations in 1996. To enter into effect, the CTBT must be signed and ratified by 44 particular

nuclear technology possessor nations, eight of which have yet to do so: China, Egypt, India,

Iran, Israel, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan, and the United States.

2. 2017: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has a detailed list of

restrictions on engaging in nuclear weapon activities. These commitments include

pledges not to develop, test, manufacture, acquire, hold, stockpile, use, or threaten

to use nuclear weapons. The Treaty also forbids the placement of nuclear weapons

on national territory, as well as the supply of aid to any State engaged in forbidden

acts. States parties would be required to prevent and prohibit any unlawful activity

under the TPNW carried out by people or on territory under their authority or

control. The Treaty also obliges States parties to provide adequate assistance to

individuals affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons, as well as to take

necessary and appropriate measures of environmental remediation in areas under

its jurisdiction or control contaminated as a result of activities related to the testing

or use of nuclear weapons. The Treaty was adopted by the United Nations

Conference on 7 July 2017 and opened for signing by the Secretary-General of the
 United Nations on 20 September 2017. On the eve of the United Nations' 75th

anniversary commemoration at the annual General Assembly on September 20,

2020, an open letter coordinated by the Geneva-based group International

Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was released, with 56 former heads of

state and defense ministers urging their current leaders to join the Treaty, which is

only six ratifications short of the 50 required to take effect. The letter further

underlined the heightened dangers of nuclear weapons usage. Honduras became

the 50th Member State to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

on October 24, 2020, and it went into force on January 22, 2021. The pact now has

86 signatories and 56 states as parties.

3. 26 September: International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons is observed on

September 26 by the United Nations. This Day is a chance for the international

community to reaffirm its commitment to global nuclear disarmament as a priority,

as well as to educate the public - and their leaders - about the true advantages of

removing such weapons, as well as the social and economic consequences of

maintaining them. It also addresses one of humanity's most difficult challenges:

establishing the peace and security of a nuclear-free planet.

4. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

 The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), located in Geneva,

is a coalition of non-governmental groups from 100 countries that promotes

adherence to the implementation of the United Nations nuclear weapon prohibition

treaty. This historic worldwide accord was signed on July 7, 2017 in New York. In

2017, ICAN was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

5. Other Disarmament Meetings

Furthermore, Geneva occasionally hosts other meetings related to disarmament

and non-proliferation instruments, such as sessions of the Advisory Board on

Disarmament Matters and sessions of the Preparatory Committee of the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences, expert panels, and seminars.

Nuclear power regulators and industry should adhere to ethical standards and principles

while making choices in order to maximize benefits and reduce harm in order to resolve

the ethical challenges. Due to their differing beliefs and guiding principles, varied facts and

knowledge about nuclear energy, and various perspectives on the decisions' outcomes,

many stakeholders may hold disparate attitudes about nuclear energy. Utilitarianism is a

prevalent idea that emphasizes the greatest possible well-being for the greatest number of

individuals in the Western world. The main issues are whether the nuclear energy

programme maximizes the well-being of the majority of people and whether there are any

other solutions that might achieve the same result if the utilitarian viewpoint is applied to it.

Many nations and international organizations are in favor of nuclear energy, arguing that it

should be developed to replace fossil fuels since it is clean, sustainable, and typically safe.
They argue that because accidents are rare occurrences, people shouldn't stop utilizing

nuclear energy. They argue that the public's response to the negative effects of nuclear

accidents was excessive. Governments frequently promise the public that nuclear power is

clean and secure as a result. They underline how much nuclear technology safety has

advanced over the previous few decades. These nations point out that the troublesome

Fukushima nuclear reactors had equipment from the 1970s, which raised safety issues

even before the tragedy.The nuclear energy program's cleanliness is a point of contention

for those who oppose it, including groups like Greenpeace and IPPNW. Nuclear reactors

create nuclear waste through the mining of radioactive ore, processing it into nuclear fuels,

and transporting both the fuels and waste to various areas, while not emitting any

greenhouse gasses. Nuclear waste might continue to be radioactive for millennia. There

isn't a lasting remedy for garbage disposal right now. Tens of millions of people might be

impacted in the event of a serious nuclear disaster. As technology and natural catastrophes

are more closely connected, their combined consequences will have wide-ranging and

complicated implications that might lead to crises throughout the world.If something is not

done right away, the world community won't be ready. According to the authors, the

potential harm is so great that it surpasses any advantages. Creating nuclear projects

appears immoral before such problems are resolved. Therefore, the nuclear sector must

continue to increase nuclear safety, reduce its negative effects on the environment and

human health, and adopt a stricter approach to both new and current nuclear power

programmes. The following modifications are suggested based on the ethical principles of

utilitarianism, nonmaleficence, beneficence, fairness, disclosure, and autonomy:

1) enhance nuclear technology's safety standards to reduce harm to the environment and

to human health by enacting stricter safety inspections and review procedures and by

decommissioning outdated reactors and those that fail to solve safety issues.

2) strictly enforce safety standards to achieve complete compliance, close down any plants

with known safety problems, and hold accountable those in charge.

3) require the public to be given early, accurate, understandable, and reliable information

in order to lessen the effects of radiation crises and preserve public confidence.

4) strengthen international collaboration between governments, non-governmental

organizations, and business in the areas of guidelines and regulations, law enforcement,

radiation monitoring, and follow-up on populations that may be impacted.

5) After nuclear accidents, combine medical treatment and psychosocial assistance for

high-risk populations to lessen the psychological harm to the general public.

In terms of the roles and duties of various stakeholders, nuclear power regulators, i.e.,

governments and international organizations, should carry out exhaustive and methodical

analyses on the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear programmes, tighten safety laws and

regulations, and hold offenders and other responsible parties accountable. Government

and business should be transparent about the information and alert the public to any

hazards. Healthcare experts are crucial in educating the public about radiation hazards and

easing their fears by advising them on how to react to various degrees of radiation

exposure.
Conclusion-

These evaluations lead to the conclusion that decisions governing the use of nuclear energy

in the future must now be made in this larger context and that the supply pattern for

nuclear energy needs to be rethought in light of the overall demand for energy and the

significant supply disparities that currently exist. In order to see the availability of energy

resources for all people as a crucial component of the battle for a more equitable and

sustainable society, there is a need for a fresh emphasis on the ethical component in this

context. Given the variety of ways that other resources are used, using nuclear energy is a

moral decision. However, in order for it to be used effectively, it must be created and used

in a way that is as responsible as possible, replete with all the required infrastructure to

avoid unfortunate situations and to lessen the effects of any mishaps. In conclusion, a

smart humanity will combine aspiration with modesty. Indeed, the challenges presently

confronting nuclear scientists may make them acutely aware of the spiritual truth that, as

in the past, we must "work out our salvation in dread and trembling."

(Word count: 3528 words)

Bibliography-
● IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2011: Special Issue on Science and Ethics in

Engineering Md. Rashid

● R. Price and J.R.Blaise, Nuclear fuel resources: enough to last?, NEA News 2002,

No.20.2, 2002.

● https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=ojhe

● https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable

● https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull19-6/19

604794857.pdf

● https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/top-15-nuclear-generating-countries

● https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/nuclear-disarmam

ent-and-ecological-impacts-of-nuclear-weapons/

● https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219165/

● https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm

● https://www.icanw.org/climate_disruption_and_famine

● https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/tectodevms/pages/2429/attachments/origi

nal/1571314463/nuclear-famine-ippnw-0412.pdf?1571314463

● https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=ojhe#:~:text=The

%20ethical%20issues%20of%20nuclear%20energy%20focus%20on%20the%20comp

arison,great%20effect%20on%20global%20health.
● https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull19-6/19

604794857.pdf

● https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/in-search-of-good-energy-policy/ethics-

of-nuclear-energy-its-past-present-and-future1/5347D5C76D783D5632DB93FD6BEE

FC54

● https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20412474