Want this question answered?
6. Working in nuclear plants, mining, chemist, sandblasting, glass manufacturing
The main disadvantage of fusion is that no scientists have been able to contain a fusion reaction long enough for there to be a net energy gain, but nuclear fission is already producing 11% of the worlds energy needs.The atomic bomb.
We do have nuclear energy now, about 20 percent of total electricity in the US. It can only be used to generate electricity, so it does not cause any change in the way we use energy resources, other than using somewhat less fossil fuels.
Yes. But the risks can be managed, and we have nuclear power stations that testify to that. Certainly there have been accidents that speak to the dangers. People died of radiation sickness in some accidents. But there are a number of operating nuclear plants around the world that are critical right now and generating heat to make electricity. The cost-benefit ratio appears to be something that governments and (the majority of) society are willing to accept in allowing these plants to go online and operate.
The same way you implement ALARA in every industry: Identify the risks, gauge their relative danger, figure out how much it would cost to reduce the risk, calculate if it is fiscally efficient to perform the reduction.
One thing is that it would not produce the very active radioactive fission products that nuclear fission reactors produce. However as there is no practical experience yet it is difficult to be sure if there are dangers and risks not fully evaluated yet.
The risks associated with fission reactors have been greatly exaggerated, with funding from other interests in the energy industry. Even if the risks were to be as great as suggested by the coal industry, they are only risks. The damage to forests, and people's lungs, from acid rain is an established certainty. So is the immensely greater damage already being caused by global warming.
risks and benefits of nuclear power
NUCLEAR DEBATE 1)Proponents of nuclear energy assert that nuclear power is a compact, reliable sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security. Proponents highlight that nuclear energy's operational safety record is already very good when compared to other major power plant technologies. They claim that the risks of waste and other environmental impacts are small compared to other sources of electricity and can be further reduced by improved technology in new reactors. 2)Mainly to produce electricity. Also to produce radio-isotopes for medical and industrial use 3)The two "basic types" of nuclear energy are based on fission and fussion. Fission is basically atom splitting. Fusion is the forcing together of nuclei and causing them to fuse, to stick together, and to form a new nucleus. In both nuclear reactions, a lot of heat is generated. The reactions can be set up to occur "really fast" and release energy all at one. This the idea behind the nuclear weapons. There is another idea. Because the primary useful energy released in nuclear reactions is heat, that heat can be captured to do useful work. At present, we can't do any "controlled fusion" and capture heat to generate electric power. But we can use fission to our advantage to make heat to boil water to generate steam to turn a turbine to turn a generator and make electricity. And we do this pretty well.
The exposure to nuclear radiation has many risks associated with it. Cancer, DNA mutations, and radiation poisoning can all occur with any level of radiation exposure.
The major risk is the only bi products which are capable of radiating harmful radiations such as gamma rays and emitting alpha and beta particles. Otherwise it will be a great boon for the humanity to produce electrical power in a cheaper way. In case of nuclear fusion such a problem does not exist but the pity is that for initiation we need the nuclear fission to produce the high temperature needed for fusion reaction to get started.
Not with current technology.
The safety standards are such that there is no significant risk
A single rod will never form a chain reaction, there is not enough material there. The storage and transport of new fuel has to be carefully managed though, to avoid criticality risks, in particular to avoid the risk of flooding and hence getting inadvertently a critical assembly.
It could, but the inefficiency and huge risks mean it shouldn't.
nuclear reactors are not very safe at all. the nuclear energy buisness basically went to crap after the three mile island accident, because people decided the risks outweigh the benefits
No. Not enough uses that slowly kill you and are extremely explosive.