After the dropping of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, Japan in 1945, the world was never truly the same. Nuclear power was on the rise, not only as weapons of war but as ways to light and heat our very homes, such as the reactors in Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. I will admit, it has its benefits, but I’d like to get into the weeds of the issue to truly determine if it is still right we use this kind of energy at such a high cost to human lives.
Obviously, any kind of nuclear explosion decimates the land and humans surrounding it, often killing people immediately or within a few days of exposure but to me, the most horrifying and devastating effects are those on the immune system. The ions in radiation causes the cell walls in any part of the human body to deteriorate and undergo apoptosis. The immune system then picks up the leftover proteins from these cells, believing them to be pathogenic in nature since no natural system for apoptosis was activated (Yahyapour, 2018). The body then attacks the healthy cells believing them to be infectious, killing them and causing autoimmunity (Yahyapour, 2018). So besides the high rates of cancer, hair loss, internal bleeding, cardiovascular disease and thymus decay, humans are likely to die from its own protective mechanisms if the listed symptoms above haven’t killed them (Cardis 2006, Fujiwara 2006, López 2011, Yahyapour 2018).
Besides treating the symptoms and cleaning out the radiation as best as possible, there is no cure and no guarantee these people will live healthy lives. Beyond that, their children will be subjected to higher cancer rates and mutation in their DNA passed on from generation to generation (Fujiwara 2006, Yahyapour 2018). This brings me to my question, is it still ethical to use nuclear energy for war or even our homes if this is the risk we cannot come back from? Is that a risk humans should be willing to take although the costs of human life and environment are so high?
References:
Cardis, E., Krewski, D., Boniol, M., Drozdovitch, V., Darby, S. C., Gilbert, E. S., … Boyle, P. (2006). Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident. International Journal of Cancer, 119(6), 1224–1235. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22037
Fujiwara, S., Carter, R. L., Akiyama, M., Akahoshi, M., Kodama, K., Shimaoka, K., & Yamakido, M. (1994). Autoantibodies and Immunoglobulins among Atomic Bomb Survivors. Radiation Research, 137(1), 89. doi: 10.2307/3578795
López, M., & Martín, M. (2011). Medical management of the acute radiation syndrome. Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 16(4), 138–146. doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2011.05.001
Yahyapour, R., Amini, P., Rezapour, S., Cheki, M., Rezaeyan, A., Farhood, B., … Najafi, M. (2018). Radiation-induced inflammation and autoimmune diseases. Military Medical Research, 5(1), 9. doi:10.1186/s40779-018-0156-7
Morgan,
ReplyDeleteThis was a good and informational read for me. Apart from how efficient nuclear power is, this source seems serve two reasons for its existence. One being an alternative to using fossil fuels and decreases greenhouse gas emissions( Seifritz, 1978). Another seems to be a defence mechanism against countries with nuclear weapon capabilities. Even with such a high detrimental health risk, it serves some good in accordance to our nation's defence. Yet, I do not agree with this use, I find it necessary to be able to have this technology at hand in the face of defending ourselves against others. Still as I write this, it haunts me to think of the logic behind having such a destructive weapon as a “just in case” measure. In the face of a nuclear war, without separating into different teams, we will be hurting the one overarching team that matters, which is humanity. It does not matter if the opposing team loses and we are able to claim a victory, this win will mean nothing if we shall soon follow or have our children and world be affected greatly; since radioactive material can last for years (Harak, 2010).
Apart from the idea of a nuclear bomb going off in the future, there are still risks associated with nuclear plants failing in safety mechanisms, and also having natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis causing plants to become unstable (Bukszpan, 2014). I am still not sure on why we do not turn to solar energy instead, as it seems to be a safe alternative. Factors that may add to this reason on why we haven't turned to just solar power can allude to the fact that the sun must be visible and the solar panel must be able to be clear of any obstacles in order to come into contact with the suns rays. This should be a goal for the near future since we have messed up the planet enough, but when it comes to war and national defense, I am not too sure how to solve that. Can we still be the top dog country without nuclear weapons?
References:
Bukszpan, Daniel. (2014). 11 Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters. Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2011/03/16/11-Nuclear-Meltdowns-and-Disasters.html
Harak, Ben. (2010). Does nuclear waste last millions of years? Retrieved from:.
https://www.visionofearth.org/news/does-nuclear-waste-last-millions-of-years/
Seifritz, W. (1978). The role of nuclear energy in the more efficient exploitation of fossil fuel resources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 3(1), 11-20.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0360319978900538