2014 FRQ Nuclear Energy

1. Radioactive waste is the nuclear fuel that can no longer produce enough heat to be useful in a power plant but continues to emit radioactivity. Two types of radioactive waste are high-level waste in the form of fuel rods and low-level waste in the form of contaminated materials used the maintenance of nuclear power plants. High-level waste can remain a threat to human healthy for up to 10 or more "half-lives", so they must be stored until they are no longer dangerous. Low-level waste is also considered to not be safe, and cannot be incinerated or shot into space as it could potentially create large amounts of radioactivity in the oceans or atmosphere. Therefore, it is also stored in a storage site far from human habitation, although it is not as big of a concern as high-level radioactive waste. An example of a specific isotope that may be present in high-level waste is cesium-137, and is generated when nuclear power reactors use uranium fuel and nuclear fission occurs.
2. Three characteristics of an ideal deep underground storage site for high-level radioactive waste are not allowing waste to leach into ground water/escape into the environment, being far from human civilization, and being secure against possible terrorist attacks.
3. Two other options that have been suggested for the long-term management of radioactive waste are near-surface disposal and deep geological disposal. Near-surface disposal has been implemented in many countries, including the United States. Facilities that use this will be affected by long-term climate, and can usually only be used for 30 years. Deep geological disposal is used in countries with a lot of high-level radioactive waste. No obligation to actively maintain the facility are passed onto future generations.
4. One sublethal adverse effect ionizing radiation can have on human healthy is damage to tissues and/or organs. Depending on the level of exposure, it can potentially the functioning of tissues and/or organs. This damage happens when radiation comes into contact with oxygen, which causes certain molecules to form in the body and potentially damage or break strands of DNA. Cells may die.

Hydraulic Fracturing Pros/Cons Position

Write a fracking pro/con position statement (250-400 words, must cite 3 pieces of evidence from the website and the video that support your opinion).

After consulting evidence from the Yale article and the excerpt from 60 Minutes, I have come to the conclusion that while hydraulic fracturing has many important benefits, its detrimental impacts to the environment and the quality of American life outweighs its relative convenience and short term profits. In other words, I do not support fracking because its long-term consequences will prove to be more impactful to our country than the streak of success it is earning in the American economy and society. One major issue surrounding hydraulic fracturing is the large amount of greenhouse gases it releases into the atmosphere. According to the Yale article, the amount of methane released from this practice completely outweighs the greenhouse gas benefits of the natural gas from fracking. This is very worrying, and the statement from a CEO on 60 Minutes that the United States contains "two Saudi Arabias" worth of natural gas only increases my concern about the leakage of methane. I also believe that this practice endangers the livelihoods of Americans by contaminating water supplies with chemicals; rendering them completely unusable. Although fracking companies may claim that drilling for natural gas poses little danger to the quality of drinking wells, as mentioned in the Yale article, the dozens of reported incidents of water contamination across the country say otherwise. The problem remains that although extraction techniques are "improving", many Americans are still being denied the ability to take showers or cook without the fear of getting sick. Finally, it is not surprising that the drilling of holes deep into Earth's surface has created concern regarding seismic activity. The Yale article takes note of how those who are pro-fracking claim that the "few instances" in which fracking may have contributed to earthquakes were minor and nothing to get too concerned about. However, I believe that the simple admittance that this practice is essentially making the foundation planet less stable is definitely something that should be worrying not only to the American public, but  also to the rest of the people around the world. In conclusion, I admit that hydraulic fracking can be considered in many respects a game-changing innovation in our global "energy crisis". However, we first must consider whether or not the benefits it presents outweigh the potential issues that it could cause for our future generations.

Words: 386