Opponents of nuclear power argue that the waste that is produced is harmful and can persist for thousands of years. Today, thousands of tons of radioactive nuclear waste are constantly being moved through several states (Arnold). Robert K. Musil, PSR Executive Director, stated, ?Even one severe accident in this transporting of nuclear waste would cause up to 18,000 latent cancer deaths and cost over ten billion dollars to clean up?(Arnold). Not only is transportation of nuclear waste a problem but there are also decisions being made on where to store it

One of the best reasons to use nuclear power is that there is an abundance of fuel. Compared to coal and oil powered plants, nuclear plants use significantly less amounts of fuel. The small bits of uranium found in coal would make more power in a nuclear plant than burning the coal itself (Cohen). Uranium is very abundant and serves no other purpose than to be used in nuclear power plants. If the Earth?s supply of Uranium is ever depleted, Thorium can be used in the plants. Although it is less effective than Uranium, Thorium is three times as abundant. Also, the spent fuel can be reprocessed into new fuel. Again, the plutonium produced is less affective than the Uranium, but it is a good way to recycle if there is a great need.

Nevertheless, nuclear waste can become less harmful than the waste produced in other power production methods. Direct contact with nuclear waste can cause cancer, but so can breathing smoke from the burning of coal and oil. The waste can also be easily contained in many areas. Canada is looking into proposed plans to store nuclear waste in the ?Pre-Cambrian Canadian Shield? (McCarthy). There are also many other places that are uninhabitable to humans that are suitable for dumping the waste, such as Antarctica.

In conclusion, nuclear energy is a valuable source that should be used in today?s society. Not only is it safe and reliable, but the benefits far outweigh the few drawbacks. What little waste that is produced can easily be contained, the plants are under no threats, and the energy that the plants produce is needed for many large countries in the world to function. Without nuclear energy there would be more pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels, more blackouts like the one in North Eastern United States recently, and also a greater economic struggle to obtain fuels for power. The production of nuclear power through nuclear fission and fusion should be continued because of the benefits that it offers to society.

Over time the nuclear waste can lose its radioactivity which makes it less dangerous. After only ten years the waste becomes 1,000 times less radioactive, and after 500 years the ?fission products? will be less radioactive than the uranium ore they were originally taken from (McCarthy). The waste is also not as abundant as would seem. ?Each year the UK produces 40 million cubic meters of industrial waste compared to 20 thousand cubic meters of nuclear waste? (Collum). The waste can also be reprocessed. During the reprocessing of nuclear waste, the plutonium created during nuclear fusion, which can also be used in nuclear reactors, is separated from the waste which leaves only three percent of the original waste left (Collum). Through these processes the containment and storage of nuclear waste can

Some topics in this essay:
Yucca Mountain, Shield McCarthy, Tritium Tritium, Vegas Arnold, Uranium Thorium, Mile Island, McCarthy Nuclear, McCarthy Considering, Uranium Plutonium, Executive Director, nuclear power, nuclear waste, power plants, nuclear power plants, nuclear fusion, nuclear energy, waste produced, waste cause, nuclear plants, targets terrorist, cubic meters, nuclear waste cause, contact nuclear waste, waste produced nuclear, plutonium nuclear waste,