Does Phipps Use Nuclear Power As An Alternative Energy Source?

Our world runs on energy. Because of this, there is a never-ending search for the best energy source to use. Using nuclear power as an energy source has been in question for many years, but recently has been more a subject of debate. In Aaron Phipps’ article “Nuclear Power as an Alternative Energy Source: The Only Feasible Solution”, he explains the benefits of using Nuclear power as an energy source, while often comparing it to other fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which we are currently using. Although he admits there are risks with using this source, he still strongly argues for using nuclear energy, stating that it is our only “feasible” option. Meaning it is easy to use and convenient. While he definitely makes some valid

This energy was first found in the 1930’s and 40’s and used to make weapons during World War 2.(Touran) In today’s society, this nuclear power is being used across the globe to provide for electricity and our many energy-based needs. However as Phipps’ points out this type of energy only accounts for “11 percent of the world’s electricity”(Phipps). Phipps argues that this percentage should be higher because nuclear power is better than other fossil fuels.
In his article Phipps states some statistics about how health risks from burning fossil fuels are actually greater than that of using nuclear power. Apparently nuclear energy reduces “our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from… burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days”(Phipps). While this is a great statistic, his whole paper is comparing nuclear energy with that of fossil fuels. And when compared, it is a better option, but it is still dangerous posing a risk to human

The most well-known incidents happened in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Phipps claims that these incidents simply “added to the numerous safeguards protecting the public from future meltdowns”(Phipps). Duclecci and Jacobson in their article see it differently and put it this way: “failures and mistakes of the past suggest that it is impossible to rule out the probability that even the most advanced reactors will be designed, built, or operated incorrectly. Even if the risks of catastrophe are very small, they are not zero.” (Duclecci & Jacobson). So the risk is there, and those past incidents did cause damage. According to the National Cancer Institute, 12,500 people who had been exposed to radiation at a young age during the Chernobyl accident, were studied over a period of time. The results found 65 cases of thyroid cancer, where half were linked directly to radiation(“Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants”). Maybe that doesn’t seem like a big number, but that is still nearly 32 precious people who were harmed from using nuclear energy as a power source. Shouldn’t there be a safer option, that wouldn’t cause such harm to