Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Historically speaking, what was the net effect of scientists discovering how to split the atom? Good or bad?
Interesting question. Just off the top of my head I'd say net good, though there have been a LOT of bad things that came of it as well.
My "net good" assessment is particularly true if we include all of the tangential advances that were caused or heavily influenced by the presence of nuclear/thermonuclear energy.
One example is the Space Race that was part of the Cold War. The Cold War was caused by the presence of thermonuclear weapons, etc. So much of our modern technology is either derived directly from, or represents advances on or next-generations of, technology developed specifically for the space-race.
Will be most interested to see how this thread progresses...
I think its great. If not for the atomic bomb, one of the many Cold war conflicts would likely have escalated into WW III. All the money that all the nations have spent on these weapons which can never be used, is still far less than the cost of WW III.
And nuclear energy has an outstanding safety record, the coincidence of the Three Mile Island accident happening just after the release of "The China Syndrome" fixed it so that hysteria triumphed and the nuclear industry stopped expanding in the US. If we hadn't made such an emotional decision, we would be in far better shape today energy wise. France went on a crash nuclear energy building program in the 1970's and today generates 75% of their electrical power with nuclear plants. Zero accidents, zero deaths.
I think it's hard to make a case that it hasn't been a net positive for humanity. The points laid out above would echo my own thoughts. The creation of nuclear weapons has had an extreme limiting factor on large scale traditional warfare. It still happens, of course, but the threat of two or more modern industrial societies engaging in open warfare was certainly curtailed by the development of atomic weapons. Then we have all of the technological advances that we have benefitted from do to the competition fostered by these now constrained powers. Add on to that the massive benefits of nuclear energy and it is hard to argue a negative.
I think its great. If not for the atomic bomb, one of the many Cold war conflicts would likely have escalated into WW III. All the money that all the nations have spent on these weapons which can never be used, is still far less than the cost of WW III.
And nuclear energy has an outstanding safety record, the coincidence of the Three Mile Island accident happening just after the release of "The China Syndrome" fixed it so that hysteria triumphed and the nuclear industry stopped expanding in the US. If we hadn't made such an emotional decision, we would be in far better shape today energy wise. France went on a crash nuclear energy building program in the 1970's and today generates 75% of their electrical power with nuclear plants. Zero accidents, zero deaths.
I say the jury is still out on this one. The basic question is will rationality prevail over the forces of fear, paranoia, terrorist groups, and a few rogue nations that cannot be trusted with this technology.
Nuclear energy offers mankind the potential of generating safe, environmentally friendly, electricity at a reasonable cost. For those who see global warming as a great threat, nuclear energy may ultimately turn out to be the only real alternative. We've been talking solar power for years, but there are still huge hurdles to be overcome before it becomes a true alternative energy source for most families.
Its true that atomic weapons may well have prevented a World War III. However, none of us should forget how close we came to a nuclear World War III during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. When that first atomic bomb was detonated near Los Alamos, New Mexico in 1945 the world entered a brand new era.
Of some things, it must be said that we as a people "have yet to survive them".
I read a paper that I will need to paraphrase that was published during the whole Fukushima debacle. Basically, the pollution caused by coal power plants which are still the predominant form of electrical generation in the US is directly linked to approximately 10,000 deaths a year. In order for nuclear energy to do that, there would need to be something like 25 complete meltdowns per year in order to even begin to approach that number. The basic truth is that nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most reliable form of power generation we know of.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what about the countless millions of lives saved by the use of the bombs in ending the war? If the US had no choice but to invade Japan the casualties were estimated as at least 1 million US soldiers and 1-2 million Japanese civilians. If a program of blockade was imposed, it was determined that upwards of 1 million Japanese would have starved to death. The death totals from the atomic bombings are also less than the deaths do to conventional firebombing employed on cities like Tokyo.
Compared to the ecological impact of burning billions of tons of coal, fossil fuels etc? And those are known carcinogens so how many tens of millions of cancers is that?
When we can 'safely' dispose of nuclear material, either breaking it down via an atom smasher, or other ways to dissipate the radioactivity of the spent fuel rods, then I will be the first one to advocate thier usage...ok, maybe I have to stand in line for that, since the above posters sang the accolades of it already.
Deep sea burial in concrete cannisters will only last so many years before the concrete breaks down and radiation will become prevelant in the Marianna Trench, (which they were deposited, because its the deepest part of the Ocean near land). Who knows where the radiation may migrate with the ebbs and flow of the currents of the deep. Fish kills? Unknown factor, since we dont concern ourselves with anything 'that deep'... Yea right, and if it migrates to the surface or along the bottom, then we shall see an increease in dead aquatic life, be it coral or fish or mamamalian.
Burial in Yucca Flats, where the Atomic Testing was theorized, as they could drop it in a huge 'pocket' that the bomb blast made underground, but, there is always a chance of water filtration through the soil and sand, and if it gets into an aquafier, then millions can be affected by some form of cancer.
No, too many variables have to be worked out, before I can sign off on a 'clean' Nuclear Plant, when we cant figure out what to do with the waste that it produces.
I wish you well...
Jesse
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
