1

Chrystal Chase May 4, 2014

Management of Nuclear Power

Introduction

I went to get a drink of water when I noticed that something sticky was above it. I was

told that it was oil that came from the sky, but I was so thirsty, I drank it just as it was. This

phrase is posted in front of the Fountain of Peace in Nagasaki, Japan [view picture 1, 19]. This

high lights the repercussions of nuclear fallout. Nuclear power is a “form of energy produced by

an atomic reaction that is capable of producing an alternative source of electrical power to that

supplied by coal, gas, or oil” (TheFreeDictionary, 2014). This allows nuclear power to produce

clean energy. However, it is also utilized in nuclear weaponry. There are concerns of terrorists

groups acquiring nuclear power. While it is crucial to continue managing nuclear power, its

harsh nature recommends a thorough scientific approach. As described in Nuclear Physical

Methods in Radio ecological Investigations of Nuclear Test Sites, these scientific approaches

include “technical safety, management operations, regulatory measures, and the importance of

accurate communication” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, XV). It is necessary to maintain these

standards in order to protect people’s health and the environment. Therefore, nuclear power

should not be used until further research can confirm ways to prevent negative outcomes for both

present and future generations.

Literature Review

The primary reason that supporters have argued to continue to use nuclear power is being

able to provide an “abundant, clean, affordable, and almost inexhaustible source of energy”

(Hecker, etal, 2000, 4). Nuclear power is evaluated through the Nuclear Security Enterprise

(NSE), an agency that “ensures the Nation sustains a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent

2

through the application of science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing” (US

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration). Although the Nuclear

Enterprise has managed nuclear power, there are high consequences for not following the

procedures safely. Ideally, there would be consistent procedures to follow when managing

nuclear power. These procedures include “set the priorities in the proper order, being the best

available analytical tools, enforce rigorous discipline and accountability, and perform critical

review by independent technical experts” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 26). In addition to these safety

procedures, three guiding principles would also be maintained. According to Shultz and Drell

(2012, 5-7), the three guiding principles are, first, calculations that were used to assess nuclear

risks in both the military and the civil sectors. Second, the risks associated with nuclear power

would more likely grow substantially, as nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear energy production

technology spread in unstable regions. Finally, we need to understand that no nation is immune

from risks involving nuclear weapons and nuclear power within their borders.

By not maintaining these standards, nuclear fallout can easily occur. An example of this

fallout includes the destruction of Fukushima’s nuclear plant on March 11, 2011 [view picture 2,

19]. As described in the article, The Situation at Fukushima, the nuclear breakdown was caused by

lack of coolant storage for water being used in the reactors. Since the water was not cooling properly,

it caused the pods to overheat releasing large amounts of hydrogen. As a result, it developed an

explosion, which forced 160,000 civilians to be evacuated. In order to rebuild Fukushima, the

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has been working on improving the stabilization of

nuclear pods from overheating which would increase the ability to resist natural disasters, such

as tsunamis and earthquakes [view pictures 3 and 4 , 20]. As described in the hearing statement

made on May 4, 2011, these studies have led to persuasion on the importance of following

regulations and the development of the Safety Culture Policy Statement. This policy is designed

3

to “proactively engage the public and stakeholders at an early stage and by involving them in a

way that gives them a sense of ownership over the process and its ultimate decisions” (US

Congress, 2011, 30).

By not considering these guidelines, it leads to drawbacks of other factors. These factors

include how it affects people’s health, ways to recover from nuclear disasters, capabilities

countries have in order to properly manage nuclear power, and what people are learning about

nuclear power at an educational level. The past experience of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima

and Nagasaki, Japan support this analysis, which is described in the Atomic Bomb Museums and

by Hibakusha (Atomic Bomb survivors).

These negative effects have caused arguments as to whether nuclear power should

continue to be used in society. Nuclear power provides benefits to improving living conditions

based in economic terms. However, lack of knowledge on its side effects makes it unpredictable

on how to prepare and recover from multiple health problems. These health problems include

loss of hair, skin affection, leukemia, and cancer.

Relevant Background Information

These health problems are not only a hazard to the human body; it is also harmful to the

environment. This analysis is supported by multiple tests that were conducted in the Republic of

Marshall Islands and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) [view picture 5 and 6, 21]. For example, one of

the tests analyzed was that nuclear waste leads to “contamination by radio nuclides of surface

soil, contamination by radio nuclides of groundwater, and land disturbance” (Hecker, etal, 2000,

47). As a result, it forces Marshallese people to migrate from one island to another. This action

was conducted on Elugelab Island and the lagoons located near the island. Not only does nuclear

testing cause forced migration, it reduces the proper health growth for plants and animals and

4

humans. For instance, nuclear radiation creates soil disturbance, which has caused most common

food plants in the Republic of Marshall Islands to not grow properly. These food plants include

coconut and breadfruit, which are highly consumed by Marshallese people [view pictures 7 and

8, 22]. Because Marshallese people struggle at growing their own food products, they become

dependent on “surplus USDA food and financial compensation” (Hecker, etal, 2000, 87). It also

leads to severe health issues, such as shutting off biological systems that are related to calcium

and potassium. This is caused by “above-ground nuclear weapons tests, nuclear accidents, and

the improper disposal of waste from the processing of nuclear fuel rods” (Hecker, etal, 2000, 90).

Places that have already suffered this consequence include the Ukraine, Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL) in the United States, and the Kazakhstan Atoll.

Skin contamination is another possible side effect, which has occurred and spread to

family members living near the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These skin contaminations were

estimated based on “whole-body and skin dose due to y rays from material on the ground, skin

dose due to B particles from material deposited directly on the skin, and skin dose due to B

particles from material deposited on the ground” (Hecker, etal, 2000,191). Contamination from

nuclear radiation can lead to further health problems. One of these health problems includes

leukemia, “an acute or chronic disease that results in an abnormal increase in the number of white

blood cells” (Merriam Webster, 2014). Health issues, like the above examples, result in

questioning of economic development and challenges in people’s livelihoods.

One of the benefits nuclear power has toward society includes its increasing progress in

national security. For security, Jenkins argues that nations should maintain sufficiency in nuclear

power in case of advancement in future terrorism. An example of this included the attack on the

World Trade Center and 9/11. As a result, Americans worry about their sense of national

5

security. Along with questioning how advanced some terrorist groups are becoming and when

they might strike again. For example, Al Qaeda has become the first terrorist group with nuclear

advancement. After years of research on nuclear weapons, Jenkins analyzes that Al Qaeda has

the capability to use nuclear power, as a way to “create a climate of fear and alarm through

dramatic attacks” (Jenkins, 2008, 242). The primary target is the United States based on the

theory that “America is the reason for all oppression, injustice, licentiousness, or suppression that

is the Muslim’s lot” (Jenkins, 2008, 255). If Al Qaeda attacks with nuclear force, it can lead to

massacres of innocent people. Not only can it lead to immoral attacks, Iran might consider

developing its own nuclear power [view picture 9, 23]. Therefore, some people find it necessary

to continue to use nuclear weapons. Iran is also considering developing its own nuclear power.

The idea of Iran developing nuclear power might later on suggest that “military action would

again be necessary” (Jenkins, 2008, 232). It may also suggest that Iran may develop allies with

other terrorist groups and provide them with nuclear support. In order to prevent countries, such

as Iran, from creating aggressive attacks it is encouraged to maintain security with nuclear

power.

Using nuclear power has also been a benefit to economic development. As described in

hearing statements made by the NRC on February 28, 2013, nuclear power is a way to provide

cleaner electric energy. The agency also argued that after the tragic destruction in Fukushima,

NRC is carrying “out the mission of ensuring safe and secure use of radioactive materials and

public health and safety and the environment” (US Congress, 2013, 8). NRC is achieving this

long-term goal based on scientific analysis that has been observed and recorded since May 4,

2011. Thus, by providing proper maintenance of nuclear plants, it can guarantee that it would

6

provide society with clean energy. As a result, better maintenance would allow people to not be

skeptical if whether or not a spill out would occur.

For places, such as Illinois it is crucial to be reliant on nuclear power as primary energy

source due to its economic vitality [view picture 10, 24]. Because of this, it is important that the

NRC helps ensure that nuclear power “meets current and future energy needs without sacrificing

safety or security” (US Congress, 2011, 3). Even though nuclear power can guarantee security

and clean energy, it does bring about difficult challenges.

These challenges include tragic destruction in Fukushima, which resulted in lack of

knowledge of setting up a proper command structure. As described in the article, The Situation at

Fukushima, developing a command structure is difficult to maintain. Especially if there is no

government support, which lacks consideration on preparation of natural disasters. This often

leads to unreasonable consideration to its development. In the case in Fukushima, the nuclear

plant was not managed with enough preparation, in case an incident was to occur. Part of this

had to do with “issues of cost, not only of up-front construction but also of insurance against

liabilities in the event of an accident” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 15). Although the NRC has been

making progress at improving these errors, it would take time before a nuclear regulatory system

is properly developed.

Argument and Analysis

When looking into the negative factors of nuclear power, it is also considerable to learn

how they are being influenced at an educational level. These educational analyses include the

atomic bomb museums in Japan, which views nuclear power as a burden to society.

On June 13, 2009, I personally visited Hiroshima’s Atomic Bomb Museum [view picture

11, 24]. Inside the museum, The Hall of Remembrance displayed stories of victims that were

7

affected by atomic radiation. Many of these victims were mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters-

mostly civilian. Each of these victims had their own story, which further described the tragic

consequences of nuclear power. All of these stories were recorded and presented in this section

of the museum.

Out of all the stories, the most memorable one was about a young mother, who lost her

first baby child. After the bomb (“little boy”) in Hiroshima was dropped, she and her baby

daughter were instantly affected with nuclear radiation. Due to lack of medical support and

supplies, it was difficult for the mother to receive proper treatment for the side effects of the

nuclear radiation. It was even harder for her baby girl to co-exist with this harsh lifestyle. Her

daughter eventually died before she could receive proper treatment for these side effects. Even

though the mother was able to survive this tragic event and start a new family, it was impossible

for her to get over the death of her first child. Stories like this one brings up the question of how

a person can be forgiven. Perhaps in cases like this one, it is impossible to do so despite the

actions taken for recovery.

It was not only the loss of her daughter, many other innocent children died due to nuclear

radiation. The memories of these young children are symbolically remembered by statues

displayed near the museum. These statues include ones that are shaped like human figures and

wrapped in small aprons. One of these statues was covered in a red yarn coat, appearing like

Little Red Riding Hood [view picture 12, 25]. In front of the statue was a clutter of paper cranes,

which are also displayed near the museums. These cranes are a national symbol for hope and

peace, which play a significant role in remembrance of this sorrow during the Post World War II.

The story begins with a small girl named Sadako Sasaki.

8

Sadako was a two year old girl, who lived in Hiroshima, when an atomic bomb was

dropped on August 6, 1945. Despite the devastation in Japanese population due to nuclear

radiation, Sadako significantly survived and was able to return to school once it restarted its

sessions. But at the age of ten, Sadako became severely ill with leukemia, which was caused by

the atomic bomb. Since then, she spent many months in the hospital hoping to recover quickly.

Since she was not able to attend school, Sadako missed her friends and was sad for missing all

the interesting lessons. One day, when one her friends came to visit her, Sadako was advised that

if she “folds 1,000 paper cranes, her wish would come true” (Satomi, 2010, 11). Excited by this

great news, Sadako immediately began to fold dozens of paper cranes. Her wish was to quickly

recover from her sickness and return to school with her friends. Unfortunately, the leukemia was

so severe, Sadako died before she could finish folding 1,000 paper cranes. She was 12 years old.

Depressed by the loss of their friend, Sadako’s school mates decided to influence end of eternal

suffrage. This was conducted by collecting donations in order to build a monument that

represented the children who died due to nuclear radiation. This goal was achieved when the

Children’s Peace Monument was constructed in 1958 [view picture 13, 25]. To this day, people

worldwide visit this monument and display cranes in remembrance of these lost children.

Within Sadako’s story, people learn about the value of hope, which was constantly

wished for during Post World War II. Folding paper cranes became an inspiration during this

disaster and are further influential to people worldwide. The cranes that are displayed near the

museums symbolically show this affection by influencing the end of war and to “build peace in

the world” (Satomi, 2010, 21). This goal is further motivated with the quote, “This is our cry.

This is our prayer. To build peace in the world” (Satomi, 2010, 21).This is the pray that is

displayed near the museums with the use of a simple, yet powerful symbolic figure.

9

The second Atomic Bomb Museum I visited was during my study abroad trip in Fall

2014 in Nagasaki. Nagasaki was the second city that was destroyed by the biggest atomic bomb,

“fat man”, which affected more citizens compared to the ones in Hiroshima. Even though this

museum also displayed tragic stories of victims, it also analyzed scientific facts about nuclear

radiation and how it affects the human body. These studies were based on the development and

of both bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

According to the website of Nagasaki’s Atomic Bomb Museum, the bomb that was

dropped in Hiroshima, “little boy”, covered a deadly diameter of .7m with 15,000 tons of

radioactive force. The fissile material that was used for this bomb was uranium. “Fat man”,

which was dropped in Nagasaki almost doubled the diameter compare to “little boy”. The reason

why it doubled was due to its increased length and type of fissile material used. The fissile

materials used for “fat man” was plutonium. Based on these studies, atomic bombs can lead to

massive destruction and increased loss of lives, if it is managed without making thorough

decisions. Unfortunately, this convinced the United States to take offensive attacks on Japan

without having clear knowledge on the scientific effects of nuclear radiation.

Both Atomic Bomb Museums provide these resources as a way to promote worldwide

peace. In Japanese theory, worldwide peace cannot exist as long as nuclear radiation continues to

be used. Thus, due to these resources, visitors are influenced to view nuclear power as a negative

killing factor to society.

Not only do the Atomic Bomb Museums influence the negativity of using nuclear power,

Hibakusha’s personal experience further support this argument. One of these Hibakusha is

Sumiteru Taniguchi, who tells his story worldwide, in order to fight against the use of nuclear

10

weapons. During my study abroad trip in Nagasaki, Japan I personally heard his story at

Nagasaki Peace University on November 9, 2013.

Sumiteru Taniguchi was sixteen years old when the atomic bomb was dropped in

Nagasaki. He was riding his bicycle, delivering people’s mails as he normally does. He was 1.8

km away from the hypocenter when the atomic bomb landed. Once this happened, heat rays

struck Taniguchi’s back, causing him to fly off of his bicycle. After a few minutes of

unconsciousness, he woke up seeing the houses where he delivered mail completely perished.

His bicycle was tolled and dysfunctional, and he was unable to stand up. In order to find help,

Taniguchi had to crawl to a lonesome tree that was sitting on top of a hill. Despite his effort to

reach his destination, nobody knew that he was lying there. He spent the first couple of nights by

this tree, still unable to get up. On the third day, rescuers finally discovered Taniguchi and took

him to the nearest hospital. Because so many Japanese citizens were affected by nuclear

radiation, there were lack of medical supplies, doctors, and even food.

For almost two years, Taniguchi remained on a hospital bed, lying on his stomach.

During his stay at the hospital, the wounds on his back had to be continuously sanitized and

redressed. At this time, many remaining doctors and nurses were surprised that he was able to

live despite the conditions he was in physically. Shortly afterwards, Taniguchi received

appropriate surgery for his back. To this day, Taniguchi is able to stand and walk normal, and his

back somewhat healed properly.

Even though Taniguchi survived the nuclear bombing, it led to many consequences. One

of these consequences includes continuous visits to hospitals in order to treat nuclear radiation,

which still exists in his body. These visits focus on three primary concerns. The first concern is

being able to continuously provide medical treatment for his back. The second concern is

11

providing Chemotherapy in order to fight against cancer. Finally, the other concern is to further

inspect his torso to make sure that his rib cage is not shattering; he has to continue to lie on his

stomach. Not only does he need to arrange continuous visits to the hospital, Taniguchi

sometimes has to stay overnight, especially when he is not feeling well.

Not only has nuclear radiation affected him physically, Taniguchi mentioned that he was

often rejected from female acquaintances. The reason he has continuously been rejected because

they were disgusted by his perished body features. Not only has he received rejection from

society, some of his friends who were also Hibakusha, committed suicide because of the amount

of stress nuclear radiation has put on them. Based on these reasons, Taniguchi even mentioned

that there were times he wanted to kill himself.

Despite these struggles, Taniguchi continues to live, telling his experience in order to

support at abolishing nuclear weaponry. Taniguchi’s story has taught how easily life can be

broken when rational decisions are made. These rational decisions can lead to extreme

consequences. Based on his story, decision-making should be carefully evaluated, not only for

the interests of one nation, but to also be able to maintain cooperation with other countries during

war and peace time.

Even though there has been concern for people’s health due to the effects of nuclear

radiation, many societies continue to believe that nuclear power can bring satisfaction to society

when it is properly managed. For this next evidence, multiple countries will be evaluated on how

nuclear power is being managed based on their capabilities. Following along with their

capabilities, the benefits and challenges of nuclear power will also be evaluated.

The United States is one of the most nuclear producing countries. The first reason why

nuclear power continues to be used is in order to increase the nation’s security. According to

12

Jenkins, after 9/11 the government argues that the next time terrorists attack a nation they would

be armed with nuclear weapons. Based on this theory, many Americans fear that the United

States would experience future defeats caused by advance technological weapons. Thus, Jenkins

claims that unless national security increases its use of nuclear power, the next terrorist attack

would be more unmerciful than the 9/11. Ways in which it could be unmerciful include “military

defeat, imperial stretch, manufacturing decline, rising crime, moral decay, political corruption,

unconstrained materialism, unwillingness to sacrifice, government deficits, feckless leaders, and

the loss of community” (Jenkins, 2008, 215). In order to prevent further corruption, United States

continues to increase its security with nuclear weapons.

Not only is the United States considering ways to improve its security, the country has

also analyzed ways to safely manage nuclear plants. After the spill out in Fukushima, United

States has also assessed efforts made in Japan, in order to learn the mistakes made when this

nuclear plant fell into massive destruction. As described in the hearing statement made on May

4, 2011 it is argued that the Commission structure being made in Fukushima is under

“development of a highly professional technical staff and very stable long-term planning” (US

Congress, 2011, 34). This long-term planning would guarantee guidance on what responsibilities

and tasks need to be taken in order to continue to use nuclear power, without the fear of another

spill out. It is understandable that there is high concern of the conditions in Fukushima, but as

argued by the NRC, it is important to analyze these errors. By analyzing these errors, societies

can learn how to improve safety regulations and licensing a nuclear plant.

As mentioned in the first hearing statement, while the devastated nuclear plant in

Fukushima is continuously being rebuilt, its constructive development includes “an orderly

closure of the technical review and adjudicatory activities” (US Congress, 2011, 65). Also to

13

ensure that the construction in Fukushima does not cause financial debt, a draft budget request

would be used during this construction. That said, the United States pushed to provide Japan

with “continuing resolution and applicable guidance” (US Congress, 2011, 66) on managing

nuclear power and how to recover from future spill outs.

China on the other hand, continues to increase its nuclear power development within the

nation. Shultz and Drell (2012, 248-249) indicate that China currently has thirteen nuclear power

plants and is planning to develop twenty-six more plants across the nation. Although China

strives at being as powerful as the United States, its aggressive expansion plans introduce

unrealistic ideas on how to expand and managed their current and future nuclear plants.

As a result, many of China’s nuclear power plants are continuing to be managed without

approval from China’s National Nuclear Safety Agency (NNSA). This drawback causes many of

these plants to “not been designed with sufficient earthquake safety because of the substantial

increase in capital costs this would entail” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 249). Not following safety

regulations causes China to be at greater risk at having nuclear fallout. Fortunately, after hearing

about the spill out in Fukushima, China has made progress to stop construction of new nuclear

power plants. Instead, the country intends to “conduct safety checks on all existing plants both in

operation and, more importantly, under construction” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 250).

Even though China is considering reevaluation on all of its current nuclear power plants,

some countries believe that this would be a temporary project. Thus, China would eventually go

back to the idea of constructing more nuclear power plants.

Another concerning country is India, which shows little glimpse of hope that the country

can properly manage nuclear power. Shultz and Drell argue (2012, 236) that India has included

new safety procedures in order to ensure proper management of nuclear power plants. Even with

14

these new regulations, it has left a heavy burden because the Indian policymakers would not

provide liability coverage. As a result, India lacks appropriate resources to develop and manage

nuclear power plants. Despite lack of resources, India continues to push at being equipped with

nuclear power. For example, the US-India Nuclear Deal “has allowed India to access nuclear fuel

and technology, which was finally approved by the Indian Parliament and the US Congress in

August 2008” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 242). Even though India has had the approval to be

provided these materials, it is challenged with the lack of political responsiveness and to have

appropriate landscape to construct nuclear power plants. With these issues combined, it is almost

impossible for India to efficient plan and develops nuclear power plants. Therefore, the

construction of nuclear power plants are often slowed down and/or not properly developed.

China’s overactive planning and India’s mismanagement of nuclear planning results in

concern on the quality of their nuclear power plants [view picture 14, 26]. In order to resolve

these issues, Shultz and Drell argues that the United States need to engage at bolstering “the

safety and regulatory cultures of Chinese and Indian power stations” (Shultz and Drell, 2012,

253). Even though the United States is capable of providing support to China and India, it

remains uncertain if this procedure should be taken.

Although most developing countries, such as the United States, China, and India, intend

to use nuclear power in order to bring satisfaction to its citizens, there are increasing concerns

about other nations, such as Iran and North Korea, having nuclear capabilities.

In the article, The Next Arms Race, Soloski suspects that many countries in the Middle

East are pushing at receiving nuclear power. For many countries, like Iran, the ultimate goal for

having nuclear power is “to deter adversaries, compensate for conventional weapons shortcomings,

fight wars, garner domestic political power, and win international political power, especially to

leverage against the United States” (Soloski, 2012, 179). If any of these actions take place, it could

15

lead to great endangerment and further international threat to other countries, especially the United

States.

It is not just the Middle East to take in consideration. There are also high levels of tension

within Asia, especially North Korea. Despite the warfare relationship between North Korea and

South Korea, Russia willingly met with North Korea’s current leader, Kim Jong II in order to discuss

at improving the Russian-North Korean relations. According to Soloski, the improvement on the

Russian-North Korean relations leads into the possibility of providing North Korea with nuclear

capabilities. If this relationship occurs, it could lead to “armed conflict and inviting the intervention

of other powers, especially the United States” (Soloski, 2012, 68).

Not only would improved relationship between North Korea and Russia risk at starting an

intense war within Asian borders, it could also lead to negative impressions on Russia. These

impressions can cause Russia to be recognized as having “immediate periphery that is quite unstable,

fraught with local conflicts that can turn into local wars and lead to foreign military interventions

against the national interests, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of Russia” (Soloski, 2012, 70).

Providing nuclear power to countries, such as Iran and North Korea, can cause massive

destruction to others and can violate interests of international law and global peace. With said, it is

crucial to prevent providing nuclear power to countries that intend to use it in immoral aggressive

behavior.

One a broader scale, the development of nuclear power is increasingly expanding in various

parts of the world. However, based on the situation of each country, there is strong concern on the

ability to manage it. The primary question, as stated by Shultz and Drell (2012, 224), is how a

nuclear program can be safely secured and developed, even if the nation does not have all the

mandatory resources. This is a big concern because many of these countries are experiencing lack of

resources. Unfortunately, this can lead to “infrastructure, regulatory, knowledge, and safety/security

16

shortcomings” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 224). To better understand these situations, five countries

would have their regulatory system evaluated (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 224):

France: program has been successful due to its reprocessing system and

standardization. This nation intends to aggressively pursue in international sales.

UK: program has been successful and intends to expand it. Then nation also engages

in reprocessing.

Russia: the nation’s intention at entering international commercial market is

conducted in ways that are considered aggressive and questions the concerns of

safety, regulatory, and non-proliferation.

South Korea: the program is quickly growing with proficiency in safety, security, and

nonproliferation. The nation would like to engage in international commercial, but

this process remains questionable since the nuclear program was just recently

developed.

South Africa: even though this program is relatively small, the government is

strongly interested in international vendors. In order to accomplish this, the nation is

currently discussing with the United States about inter-governmental agreements.

All of these analytical studies show that nuclear power can be manageable, but the

capabilities of doing so remain questionable. As shown in these studies, further research on nuclear

power is required. This would provide better understanding on how to properly manage a powerful

element. To better understand these consequences, the spill out in Fukushima, Japan would be further

evaluated.

The spill out in Fukushima was a result of terrible management and inconsistent analysis on

how to resolve the solutions [view picture 13, 24]. Even though Japanese citizens have been able to

return to Fukushima, certain parts of the area are still off-limits due to increased levels of nuclear

17

radiation. Although the nuclear plant is currently being reconstructed and food storage is closely

monitored, it is predicted that it would take thirty to forty years of complete recovery. As a result,

learning how the nuclear plant was destroyed and the process for recovery has led to “serious

questions about the safety of reactor designs, emergency back-up system, on-site spent fuel storage,

and the regulatory systems governing nuclear power” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 209-210).

The reason why these questions are often brought up is due to the three factors of radioactive

fallout. Shultz and Drell (2012, 108) describe these three factors as first, technical difficulty in

underlying complex processes. Second, uncertainty in the results of nuclear power due to lack of

experience, and thirdly, fundamental unpredictability in most of the processes. Unfortunately, these

factors make it difficult for societies to plan, prepare, and to avoid other outcomes of nuclear

radiation. One of these outcomes is Black Rain, which creates radioactive fallout at ground level.

These fallout can lead to prompt radiation, which is developed by “particles and rays emitted directly

from, and experienced immediately after the explosion” (Shultz and Drell, 2012, 111).

It is understandable that nuclear power can guarantee efficient energy and security. However,

when nuclear power is not managed properly and leads to destruction, it often negatively affects

people’s existence due to increased radioactivity. The biggest factor is people’s health. Since current

medical studies are continuing to find solutions to recover from these health problems, it is

impossible to guarantee that people can continue to co-exist with nuclear power without the concern

of their health being affected. Therefore, the use of nuclear power should be shut down until further

studies can guarantee that nuclear power can be secured more efficiently. In order for this to be

effective, nations need to develop one consistent set of regulations on how to properly manage

nuclear power. These regulations should include what materials are required for storing nuclear

power, ways to prevent fallouts from occurring, and a public escape route in case nuclear fallout does

occur. By better managing this powerful element, it would least likely harm people’s livelihoods.

Until this can be developed, nuclear power should not be relied upon.

18

Conclusion

Information provided in this paper showed how nuclear power is intended to be managed.

Unfortunately, since regulations for developing and managing nuclear plants have not followed

consistently it has been difficult to ensure that future fallouts would not exist. Not only has there

been concern on these regulations, fear of advanced terrorism persuaded countries like the

United States to increase its security. On the bright side, nuclear power has effectively provided

clean energy without the reliance of old-fashioned fuel items, such as wood and coal. Despite the

efforts being made to manage nuclear power, multiple studies have shown that it continues to

affect people’s health. These health factors were influenced based on the bibliographies of

Sadako Sasaki, who suffered with leukemia and Sumiteru Taniguchi, who experiences multiple

stages of cancer. Nuclear power has also been harmful to the environment, which makes it

impossible to maintain efficient food supply. These environmental problems are shown in places,

such as the Republic of Marshall Islands. Based on this information, it is strongly arguable that

nuclear power should not be used.

19

1.

Chase, Chrystal. “Fountain of Peace”. November 9, 2013

2.

Colorado State University-Morgan Library. “Japan”-map PrEx3.10/4:J 27/5 (Barcode:

UL 84019233872). Accessed April 23, 2014

20

3.

World Nuclear Association. “The Situation at Fukushima”-reconstruction of nuclear

plant. 2014

4.

World Nuclear Association. The Situation at Fukushima.“Reconstruction of Nuclear

Plant. 2014

21

5.

Colorado State University-Morgan Library. “Marshall Islands”-map PrEx3.10/4:M35

(Barcode: UL84015550086). Accessed April 23, 2014

6.

H.J. DE BLIJ, Editor. Atlas of the United States. “Map of Nevada”. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006. Accessed April 23, 2014 (Page 147)

22

7.

Chase, Chrystal. “Republic of Marshall Islands-Breadfruit Tree”. July 2012

8.

Chase, Chrystal. “Republic of Marshall Islands-Coconut Tree”. July 2012

23

9.

Colorado State University-Morgan Library. “Iraq/Iran”-map PrEx3.10/4:IR 1/46

(Barcode: UL84024455659). Accessed April 23, 2014

24

10.

H.J. DE BLIJ, Editor. Atlas of the United States. “Map of Illinois”. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006. Accessed April 23, 2014 (Page 132)

11.

Chase, Chrystal. “Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Museum-Clock Tower”. June 13, 2009

25

12.

Chase, Chrystal. “Little Red Riding Hood Statue”. June 13, 2009

13.

GoJapanGo.com. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. “Children’s Peace Monument”.

Mi Marketing Pty Ltd, 2001-2014. Accessed April 26, 2014.

http://www.gojapango.com/travel/hiroshima_peace_memorial_park.htm

26

14.

Colorado State University-Morgan Library. “China/India”-map PrEx3.10/4:IN 2/8

(Barcode: UL84027578359). Accessed April 23, 2014

27

1. US Congress. House. 2011. Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Subcommittee on

Environment and the Economy of Committee on Energy and Commerce House of

Representatives. 112th Congress, 1st sess. Serial No. 112-43, US Government Printing Office (May

4).

This source is a hearing that took place in Washington on May 2, 2011. During this hearing,

representatives of Illinois explain to the court procedures that are being taken in order to improve

management of nuclear radiation. Examples of these procedures include improvement of safety,

support in recovery from the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear plant, and progress being made

on nuclear management. This hearing would help contribute into understanding what steps are

being taken in order to improve maintenance of nuclear radiation. Not only would these procedures

be beneficial at better understanding why people choose to continue to use nuclear radiation, it will

also help analyze how society is managing the importance of other factors, such as people’s health

and the environment.

2. US Congress. House. 2013. Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Subcommittee on

Environment and the Economy of Committee on Energy and Commerce House of

Representatives. 113th Congress, 1st sess. Serial No. 113-11, US Government Printing Office

(February 28).

This source is a joint hearing that took place in Washington on February 28, 2013. This

hearing further analyzes progress being made from representatives of Illinois, on managing

nuclear radiation. As mentioned in the hearing that took place on May 4, 2011, these

representatives analyzed that they are working at improving things, such as safety procedures,

recovery from Fukushima nuclear plan, and benefits of continuing to use nuclear radiation. Just

like the first hearing, this one would benefit at better understanding why people choose to

28

continue to use nuclear radiation. Also, explain how society is managing the importance of other

factors, such as people’s health and the environment.

3. Jenkins, Brian M. Will Terrorists Go Nuclear? New York: Prometheus Books, 2008

This book looks into how terrorism is improving its offensive attacks by going

nuclear. According to the studies in this book, the author argues that nuclear radiation should

be used as primary weapons. The reason is so that countries, such as the United States, can

protect itself from possible terrorist attacks. However, the author also analyzes how terrorist

groups are considering and collecting biological weapons. This includes nuclear radiation.

Due to these activities, the author also argues that terrorism would eventually lead into

nuclear attacks. This book would be a good outlet at explaining why some countries, such as

the United States, decide to maintain use of nuclear radiation.

4. Shultz, George and Drell, Sidney. The Nuclear Enterprise. California: Board of Trustees of the

Leland Stanford Junior University, 2012

This book explains consequences for using nuclear radiation and what

approaches should be taken when managing this type of product. Not only do the

authors look into the United States, they also researched on how other countries, such

as China and India, are managing nuclear radiation. Based on these studies, the authors

explain both on how to manage nuclear radiation in a safe environment and why some

of these techniques are considered inappropriate for using nuclear radiation. This book

29

would be a benefit on why nuclear radiation should not be used, but also how societies

can improve on managing it.

5. Hecker, Siegfried and Mason, Caroline and Kadyrzhanov, Kairat and Kislitsin, Serge. Nuclear

Physical Methods in Radio Ecological Investigations of Nuclear Test Sites. The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000

This book looks into experimental procedures that were analyzed during nuclear

testing in Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of Marshall Islands. Even though some of these tests

might analyze nuclear radiation as a positive protective weapon, for the most part it

shows negative effects it does to its existing environment. The effects include decrease in

agricultural products due to the conditions of soil that has been affected by nuclear

radiation. It also explains how neighboring citizens, such as the Marshallese, view

nuclear radiation due to the procedures taken near their islands. By further reading these

tests, this book would help support on why nuclear radiation should not be used.

6. Soloski, Henry D. The Next Arms Race. US Army War College: Pennsylvania July 2012.

This article analyzes how nuclear power has become an armed weapon for many

countries worldwide. These countries include Iran and North Korea. These

analyses explain how nuclear power is being used to increase military force and

the results of it. Not all of these studies are being used in positive ways.

7. Google. “Hiroshima Peace Site: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum Website”. Last modified

2000-2011. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html

30

This website shows Japan’s Atomic Bomb Museum and Peace Park in

Hiroshima. The purpose of this museum is to promote worldwide peace by

denying use of nuclear weapons. The website provides historical information

about the museum, as well as facts about nuclear weapons and the importance of

worldwide peace.

8. Google. “Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum”. Last modified 2009. Accessed March 29, 2014.

http://www.city.nagasaki.lg.jp/peace/english/abm/

This website shows Japan’s Atomic Bomb Museum and Peace Park in

Nagasaki. The purpose of this museum is to promote worldwide peace by denying

use of nuclear weapons. The website provides historical information about the

museum, as well as facts about nuclear weapons and the importance of worldwide

peace.

9. Taniguchi, Sumiteru. Nagasaki Peace University. November 9, 2013. Lecture.

On this day, I personally listened to a lecture that was given by Sumiteru

Taniguchi. Sumiteru Taniguchi is a Hibakusha (atomic bomb survivor), who originated

from Nagasaki, Japan. During his lecture, Sumiteru Taniguchi told his personal

experience after an atomic bomb was dropped in Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 at 11:02

AM.

10. Satomi, Nakamura. Trusting the Paper Crane: The Story of Sadako and her friends.

Japan, August 6, 2010.

31

This children’s book tells a story about Sadako, an atomic bomb survivor in

Hiroshima. She was 12 years old when she died due to advance stages of

leukemia. Before she died, Sadako tempted to make 1,000 paper cranes in order to

have her wish come true. Her wish was to recovery her illness so that she can live

like a normal child again. This story describes her life leading to having leukemia,

her efforts to recover, and her wish was later granted by her friends.

11. World Nuclear Association. “The Situation at Fukushima”. World Nuclear Association,

2014. Accessed April 9, 2014. http://world-nuclear.org/Features/Fukushima/Situation-at-

Fukushima/

This article explains how the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan led to massive

destruction. It also analyzes the results of this destruction and what current actions

are being taken in order to recover from this disaster.

12. TheFreeDictionary. 2014. “Nuclear Power”. http://legal-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Power

This website defines nuclear power.

13. National Nuclear Security Administration. “Nuclear Security Enterprise”.

http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/defenseprograms/nuclearsecurityenterprise

This website defines Nuclear Security Enterprise.

14. Merriam Webster. “Leukemia”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leukemia

This website defines Leukemia.

32