Nuclear Power vs Solar Power    

 

The climate change is a major global concern that perpetuates the need for better and sustainable energy sources. For this reason, several researchers and governments are selling the idea of clean energy based on various platforms including solar and nuclear power. Sustainable development involves the ability to meet the current needs of the society without affecting the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability encompasses development in both the social and economic aspects, as well as environmental conservation; therefore, a sustainable option addresses the challenge of climate change. This paper discusses sustainability based on nuclear and solar power sources. Therefore, in arguing the case of choosing between nuclear power and solar power, the main issue is its sustainability. The main ethical concerns take note of safety, waste management, and carbon emissions.

            One of the challenges associated with power production is the ability to ensure it does not mean that the safety of the society is compromised. To begin with, nuclear power is ranked as the most dangerous form of energy that poses a high level of risk to people. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive material that, despite the many efforts to ensure safety is released to water and air. Studies show that long-term consumption of radioactive material causes cancer and birth defects. In addition, the risk of nuclear power plants increases with time; therefore, most should be stopped and closed within forty years. The challenge of safety involved in nuclear power production is clear in the fact that accidents are tragic. For example, Chernobyl and Fukushima plants accidents resulted in a number of deaths and affected the environment making it unviable for people to stay. Several states have come up with nuclear production regulations expected to solve some of the security challenges. On the other hand, solar power production requires photovoltaic material such as cadmium, which is highly toxic. Most countries banned the use of the materials in solar systems. However, in comparing the two sources of power, nuclear remains a bigger safety risk.

            Waste is another social concern that in many cases raises ethical issues. In this case, a comparison between solar and nuclear power shows that the latter requires a lot of resources for waste management. As stated, nuclear power production results in radioactive waste that requires specialized means of management and storage. It is important to note that the radioactive waste material can be used to make nuclear weapons. This may be a challenge in this case because it makes the nuclear weapons available. Currently, there is no viable solution for long-term storage or treatment of the waste for disposal available. The radioactive material is stored in underground or surface-level bunkers that require special safety measures to ensure that the material does not leak. However, the fact that the radioactive elements of the waste have a half-life is a considerable break. This means that the elements lose their radioactivity – they decay and become non-radioactive – in half the time they would normally take. The material can then be disposed of safely. In contrast to nuclear, solar power production does not necessarily give waste that needs special attention. Therefore, in this case solar power production is sustainable socially, economically and doesn't pose problems to the environment.

            The main reason for climatic change is carbon emissions that cause global warming. Both solar and nuclear power sources are considered cleaner sources of energy compared to other common ones such as old fuels. The need to minimize climatic changes is one of the major global concerns. Most companies include plans to reduce carbon emissions as one of the goals of sustainable development. It is a popular belief that nuclear is the cleanest source of energy because it has zero carbon emissions. However, as proven by studies based on the entire cycle of its production, this is not entirely true. In this case, the researchers attribute carbon emissions to processes such as mining, enrichment, and production of uranium. Solar power also has carbon emissions that occur in producing particles. The particles contribute to electrical-conversion efficiency; however, trends indicate that the amount is reducing due to the fact that current technologies produce thinner wafers. Solar power initially resulted in more carbon emissions than nuclear power, but the improving photovoltaic technologies have led to lower rates in the former. Therefore, solar power has managed to address the issue better than nuclear power production.

            Nuclear and solar power production methods involve significant costs in both the initial and maintenance aspects. In this case, the cost is an ethical concern based on the tax burden that the government may put on people to support subsidies and the affordability of the resulting product to consumers.  A solar photovoltaic system may require approximately the same amount of setup costs as a nuclear power plant. However, solar systems require significantly lower funds in maintenance compared to nuclear plants. The immense costs of maintenance in nuclear power production come from repairs, safety, and waste management. Solar systems require fewer repairs and costs in energy storage, which nuclear systems do not need. In most cases, both methods require government subsidies to enable them to reduce their costs of operation. In the case of costs to consumers, nuclear power is considerably cheaper based on facts from Europe and the United States. The reason for the difference is that a nuclear plant can produce significantly more power compared to the solar system that costs the same amount to setup. Therefore, nuclear power is more affordable compared to solar power.

            Based on the information about the two energy sources, solar power is better that nuclear power. First, the fact that nuclear energy remains the most dangerous source is good enough to warrant its minimal application. Over the years, nuclear plant accidents that occurred resulted in major environmental degradation and effects on the general society. An ethical view of this concern indicates that it is not worth it since nuclear power results in long-term dangers to the entire society. However, solar energy does not cause any high risk to society that cannot be averted. Crystalline and polycrystalline silicon replaced the use of cadmium. Second, nuclear plants produce waste that remains a major challenge in managing. As stated, there is no method of storing the radioactive waste that is live for the long-term. This means that with time some of the waste may leak. On the other hand, solar power does not result in any dangerous waste; this means it is more manageable and less dangerous to the society and environment. Finally, it is clear that technologies involved in solar power production are improving to curb the challenge of carbon emissions. Therefore, the method addresses the concern whereas nuclear power production remains with the same problem. Ideally, it would be better to resolve the issue of carbon emissions, but many governments attempt to sell the idea that nuclear is the cleanest source of energy. In the long run, the problem remains as the focus on nuclear production is on improving its safety. Despite the fact that nuclear power is cheaper, its negative effects seem worse. For instance, the difference of cost to consumers in Arizona is only 30 dollars per megawatt hour, which is not good enough to warrant the government to overlook the other ethical concerns.

            There is a strong argument against the application of nuclear power compared to solar power. Nuclear power poses significant ethical issues that are detrimental to the realization of sustainability in energy production. The source of power seems to affect the social and environmental aspects more than the economic aspects. Nuclear power production is a safety concern, creates a major waste management problem and does not address the carbon emissions issues as in the case of solar power production.  Nuclear power is not a sustainable source of energy in comparison to solar power.

THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR DISASTER

 

INTRODUCTION:

                    On Friday, the 11^th of March 2011 a big earthquake hit Japan. This earthquake was very huge, and because the center of it was in the ocean it made a very disastrous tsunami that hit Japan directly. Many people died and many suffered; the city of Fukushima was totally destroyed. Japan has nuclear plants which generate power and these nuclear plants are located near the ocean and when the tsunami came, it hit these plants directly causing a major disaster which was then known as the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster.

CAUSES:

                The main cause of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster was because of the earthquake which caused the tsunami but many organizations said that manmade reasons were also a cause of it. I will discuss these causes as mentioned by many experts worldwide. When the tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear plant, the water broke the cooling system that was used to cool down the nuclear reactors. Without the cooling system, the reactors started to heat up with high temperatures which caused explosions inside these plants. These explosions came from the high amount of pressure of hydrogen inside the nuclear reactors.

EFFECTS:

               There are many effects that came from this disaster, and I will mention them in the following.

 The government of Japan started to evacuate people around the area; almost 350,000 people were evacuated because the government feared of the direct radiation from the nuclear plant that leaked from the explosions.

  As a result of this disaster, the radiation that was released from the damaged plant was high levels. This radiation affected many people who were near the plant directly. The area was stated as a danger zone because of the harmful levels of radiation.

The disaster caused a big amount of financial loss to the government, the companies that owned the nuclear plants and the people. Everyone who was living near the nuclear plant lost everything.

 The lives of many innocent people were lost during this disaster. It was estimated that more than 5000 people died from this disaster and many other lives were in danger after being hit with direct radiation from the disaster.

 

Radioactive materials that are dangerous to life were released in high quantities. The contamination came from the explosion and some of it from the release of it to reduce the pressure. This contamination was spread in the air and also in the water that went to the sea. There was a direct contamination to everything.

Japan is known for high technology; this made major companies invest there but after the disaster many companies stopped their investment and this gave Japan a lot of economic loss.

THE ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED

When looking at the Fukushima nuclear disaster, there are many ethical issues that should be explained because when we discuss these issues we will know exactly the problems and the solutions and try to prevent this not to happen again. There many other ways to look at it. When this disaster happened, it changed many things to how these plants should work. First of all, the nuclear plants should have taken other prevention ways because it wouldn’t happen if they took prevention. I will discuss the ethical issues in the following:

 The nuclear power plants were very old and the facilities should have been used with high technology  such a disaster happened. These companies didn’t care to change the old facilities, because it cost a lot of money.

 

 During the nuclear disaster, there was a slow communication between the companies and the government. People were not informed fast and this led to the direct radiation to the people because they didn’t know that the area is contaminated.

The people who were evacuated from the affected areas lost everything, and they had nothing to take with them because everything was affected with radiation. It is something that really affected them financially and also mentally. They were left without homes and the government didn’t have a fast solution and also they were affected mentally. The government should have tried to compensate them.

The disaster caused many other psychological effects on people. The government efforts were not enough and they showed signs of depression and their lives were changed. It is also the responsibility of the government to help these people with their lives.

 The companies that use nuclear plants to provide power should give their workers life insurance and also the people that live near these nuclear plants.

Conclusion :

  To my view of the problem, I find that this problem should be given more interest by the government and it should try to prevent such a disaster to happen next time. The world should come together to help Japan and try to find solutions to those who were affected by the disaster and to give them the proper care. Also; there should be ways of making nuclear plants very safe during natur disasters because the climate is also changing and this change might bring hurricanes that might be strong to destroy everything, in case the plants weren’t strong enough to survive. In my point of view, all nuclear plants should be built in places that are less populated and also the buildings should be very strong. Technology also very important; the plants should use high technology to make it safe during disasters.  Human lives are very important and the governments should do everything to protect people from natural or manmade disasters.  Companies should give proper care to everyone.

              

References:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

http://thebulletin.org/five-assessments-fukushima-disaster

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/19/uk-government-new-plant-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-warning

 

 

Mandatory drug testing

The majority of employers have adopted mandatory random drug testing on their employees, arguing that the enormous damage caused by the pervasive use of drugs in our society carries over into the workplace. Typically the tests involve taking urine or blood samples under close observation, thereby raising questions about personal privacy as well as privacy issues regarding drug use away from the workplace that is revealed by the tests. 

Present & defend your view concerning mandatory drug tests at the workplace.

In your answer, take account of the argument that, except where safety is a clear & present danger, as in the work of pilots, police & the military, such tests are unjustified. Employera have a right to the level of performance for which they pay employees, a level typically  specified in contracts & job descriptions. When a particular employee fails to meet that level of performance, then employers will take appropriate disciplinary action based on observable behaviour. Either way, it is employee performance that is relevant in evaluating employees, not drug use per se.

What do you think?

Drugs are very dangerous so, the company does this random test trying to reduce the drug abuse. In my opinion this test is useful if the people know that they can lose their jobs because of drugs. For the privacy, I can say this is an issue that can affect the future development of our life. On the other hand, some jobs need full attention for people and property safety like a pilot; he must be fully aware because his job is  a very risky job.  

THE COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING IN BANGLADESH

      A tragedy that will not be forgotten in Bangladesh happened on the 24^th of April 2013, and was considered to be one of the worst structural accidents ever in modern human history. This is the collapse of an eight storey building in the suburbs of Dhaka. The building contained shops, apartments and many clothing factories.  According to the Bangladeshi government, 1128 people died and 2515 were injured and most of them with serious injuries.

     A thorough investigation was done and many issues were the reason to this tragedy, but negligence from the building`s owner was said to be an important reason. The building was designed for only apartments and shops and not for factories, because it wasn’t strong enough to support the weight of the heavy machinery used in these factories. A day before the collapse, inspectors issued warnings to evacuate the building after noticing huge cracks that caused an alarming attention, but workers were forced to work after being threatened by the factory managers with losing their jobs if they did not come to work. Some shops accepted the inspector`s warning and closed their shops, but some just neglected the warning of evacuation issued by the inspectors. Another major reason that should be taken under consideration is the fact that the construction companies use cheaper building materials in order to create vast amount of profits, without caring about the dangers that might come through using these cheaper materials. This is being done because of a corrupt administration, regulations are not followed and thus no inspection is being done during the building of the structure.

      Such a tragedy should be taken with great ethical concerns and the safety of workers should be the first priority to all companies or building owners. This tragedy shouldn’t have happened if the authorities issued firm and strict regulations that should be followed by the construction companies and also by the owners of buildings. Specifications should be adjusted and strict punishment to those who neglect these specifications, in order to implement the safety of the workers and to save the lives of innocent workers.

        Greed and the making of faster profits will always be the reason for many major problems that will face the poor. Governments all over the world should implement strict rules, and firm regulations to preserve the safety of people. Many people in poor countries are forced to work in severe working conditions without the protection of authorities. The world community and the major worldwide organizations should stand together to help the poor countries and preserve the safety of workers all over the world.

Reference:

1.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22476774

2.  http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/14/world/asia/bangladesh-building-collapse-aftermath/

3. http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Bangladeshbuildingcollapse

Human rights

The American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration was largely the work of Thomas Jefferson, who later became the 3rd President of the United States. It is really the basis of what we call rights ethics.
This basically rests on the view that all human beings have human rights. Human rights are not legal rights. They are universal and so democratic. They fit in with what Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address (November 1864) described as 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.
Human rights rely on the belief that other people have a duty to respect our rights.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" That was the first sentence of Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

This was the concept of ‘the noble savage’.

Thomas Hobbes:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Aluminium cans

 

Approximately 1 billion are produced in the USA each year. The first can was designed in 1958 by Kaiser Aluminium. This metal proved ideal as it was a lightweight, flexible material that allowed manufacturing of the bottom & sides of the can from a single sheet, leaving the top to be added after the can was filled.

 

The first cans were opened with a separate opener but this was inconvenient so Ermal Fraze designed a small lever attached to the can which was removed as the can was opened.

 

The design was workable but after a while it created an ethical dilemma:

In that time most of people were buy the cans without realizing the hazard could be caused. After sometime people start analyze some hazard for human and environment. Human get injured and environment spoiled.

 

So in 1976 Daniel F. Cudzik invented a simple, stay-attached opener of the sort familiar today.

 

 

As improvements were made in the design & production of aluminium cans, various ethical problems arose concerning:

 

   

     a.      Human safety:

          During store and transportation of bottles maybe catch some dirt so, that could affect human.

 

      b.     Environmental pollution: 

      

        The usage of soft drink will increase so, the waste will increase. Some people do not care which hazard the environment. Recycle is one of the solutions but still need more weariness how is prevent the environment pollution.

         c.      Convenience:   

     

      Much faster and efficient way to dispense and store. Easy to carry and use, especially beneficial for people with back problems or disabilities.

 

 

          d.     Money:

Some companies can redeem many of the cans and bottles they buy. They pay the deposit when they buy the product, so redeeming these empties is a great way to recycle, while putting a little change back in to them.

 

 

   

 

Gray Area

A gray area is that somethings we look at with different opinions; some issues in many places are not allowed while in other places are normal or legal; sometimes we judge  somethings without knowing it, like black or white but, there is gray. In Egypt, if a man comes back home and find his wife with another man and he kills both, in Egyptian  law it's not a murder. In some  European  countries it's a murder.
If we do  a survey  on this issue, whether it's murder or not, I think some will consider it a murder while others will not and this is a gray area. For the people who say murder, the wife is human and she does not deserve to die. For people who say not murder, the wife cheated the husband in his bed and his house.