DEACTIVATING NUCLEAR-INDUCED PROGRAMS: A WAY TO
ATTAIN HUMAN HEALTHY ORGANS
The
world, as it is known, has a beginning and will equally end one day. However,
the incessant production of toxic substances in some quarters might
fast-forward the end of the mother earth than ever thought before. The
deactivation of nuclear militarization programs in the world should be upheld
by every well-meaning nation.
One
of the reasons to have the nuclear energy programs stopped in countries where they
are being embarked on is the unresolved nature of the issues surrounding
waste management. Where can those by-products of the activities involved in
generating nuclear energy be disposed if not into the body of water around or
at least somewhere on the surface of the earth? The cost of keeping those
stuffs safe from human contact should be something that should have discouraged
going into the program in the first place. A situation of “more borrowing” was
noted for Japan in its bid to clear the mess created by the nuclear energy
trouble of 2011 in Fukushima and it was posited that that could “lead to higher
interest rates in [the country] and in the world as a whole” (Oka).
Deactivating nuclear programs due to unresolved issues on nuclear wastes should
be strongly considered.
For instance
and as a matter of fact, France who was observed to be “relying on nuclear for
80% of its energy production” still considered it a necessity to contact other
countries like Germany “to meet their needs.” And apparently, Germany is a
country that is doing away with nuclear energy programs and it is in the fore-front
of countries advocating for clean energy. It had energy during the winter
naturally from the sunlight and wind, and thus could provide France with such. Whatever
the mother earth provides mankind with, is ordinarily enough to sustain them. It
is clear from this that, that a country is relying on nuclear does not make it energy-independent.
Another reason
to go for nuclear programs’ deactivation is the
unsafe condition such create. Uranium is a material used in the generation
of nuclear energy and it can only be mined. Besides the fact that this resource
is unlike the renewable fossil fuels, and that the process of mining it posed
danger, keeping it safe afterwards is another threat to life. The meltdown
instance of the reactors kept in the nuclear plant at Fukushima in 2011 was not
a good scene to remember. A call for “a stress-test for all nuclear power
stations” was afterwards deemed necessary, as a result, in Europe and “in
neighboring countries” (Leinen). Unsafe condition created by the nuclear programs
is a vital reason to disregard going back on the decision to deactivate nuclear
programs.
The
threat of possible repetition of the like of atomic bomb witnessed in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki as seen in Fukushima’s nuclear event of 2011 mentioned above
bluntly pointed out the risks of nuclear power. As a reactionary development,
Italy masses voted out every idea on the continuation of nuclear energy program
in their country. A total sum of some 90% votes recorded apparently shrank back
the nuclear energy’s programs in Italy. In the same way as read on https://www.debatingeurope.eu,
other European countries including the Left ideologies, the Social Democrats
and the Greens all displayed some levels of disavow towards the nuclear energy
programs. They all want that the programs should be put under close check.
The last reason provided here to buttress the need for the
deactivation of all nuclear programs on the surface of the earth is the
concerns nursed on nuclear weapons proliferation. One of such concerns
centers on the situation requiring avoiding unplanned wars which could be
apparently catastrophic. While Peter Schellinck posits that “nuclear energy is
remarkably clean, safe and powerful,” there is no 100% guarantee that it could
not fall on wrong hands. Even countries like Iran that claims to be embarking
on a nuclear program for peaceful use, still declared it needs nuclear power to
protect its nuclear plants. Nuclear weapons proliferation is real, and it is
enough a reason to rollback the nuclear energy programs wherever they are.
The need to deactivate
nuclear-induced programs has been made necessary because of unresolved issues
on toxic nuclear waste management, unsafe condition of the nuclear plants’
situations and the concerns on the nuclear weapons proliferation. Despite the
fact that nuclear power is pointed as the only serious option in availability
if humans “are serious about cutting carbon emissions,” doing away with it in
its totality is the quickest way to help man attains healthy organs and a
definite clean atmosphere (Schellinck).
