I have a science essay saying that your state senator has written a bill cutting off funding for nuclear research. Explain why you would or would not support this bill. Plzz answer :)
-
I absolutely would NOT support that bill.
For starters, nuclear power plants are an excellent source of energy. People can moan and complain, but the simple fact is that coal is far nastier, and renewables can barely supply a tenth of the power. Also, not a single person in America has died from nuclear causes in fifty years. Reactor designs are getting better and more innovative. Killing research in that area would be foolish.
There's also the slight possibility for our holy grail, a fusion reactor. Do we simply give up on that concept?
There are medical applications. Radiation therapy especially has decent room for improvement. And then there's the astonishing trend that people consistently around low levels of radiation sport significantly lower cancer rates than the norm.
Nuclear propulsion is the best viable mean of space exploration. Do we tell NASA that their advanced propulsion labs should be axed? The geometry changes they are doing to reactor cores are applicable on earth too, if they prove successful. Also, although ion and plasma thrusters don't use reactors, that's nuclear technology as well. We have hundreds of those in space keeping our precious satellites up and running.
How about detection systems? Those could get better, and we certainly want to be able get more precise at finding radioactive materials that could be smuggled in with the intent of causing harm -atomic weapons, dirty bombs, etc. (As a side note, weed is slightly radioactive. To the drug dealers trying to move large shipments across national borders, THAT is how you keep getting caught. Sheesh.)
Plus, smoke detectors use nuclear technology. We like those.
I feel I'm ranting, but nuclear technology is not even close to reaching its full potential. Really really.
For starters, nuclear power plants are an excellent source of energy. People can moan and complain, but the simple fact is that coal is far nastier, and renewables can barely supply a tenth of the power. Also, not a single person in America has died from nuclear causes in fifty years. Reactor designs are getting better and more innovative. Killing research in that area would be foolish.
There's also the slight possibility for our holy grail, a fusion reactor. Do we simply give up on that concept?
There are medical applications. Radiation therapy especially has decent room for improvement. And then there's the astonishing trend that people consistently around low levels of radiation sport significantly lower cancer rates than the norm.
Nuclear propulsion is the best viable mean of space exploration. Do we tell NASA that their advanced propulsion labs should be axed? The geometry changes they are doing to reactor cores are applicable on earth too, if they prove successful. Also, although ion and plasma thrusters don't use reactors, that's nuclear technology as well. We have hundreds of those in space keeping our precious satellites up and running.
How about detection systems? Those could get better, and we certainly want to be able get more precise at finding radioactive materials that could be smuggled in with the intent of causing harm -atomic weapons, dirty bombs, etc. (As a side note, weed is slightly radioactive. To the drug dealers trying to move large shipments across national borders, THAT is how you keep getting caught. Sheesh.)
Plus, smoke detectors use nuclear technology. We like those.
I feel I'm ranting, but nuclear technology is not even close to reaching its full potential. Really really.