More Research on Using Thorium for Nuclear Power Should be Undertaken
03.7.10 by Sarah Deren
The environmental movement has been gaining steam around the world for the past few decades, recently much more so due to the prevalence of arguments concerning global warming and its solutions. No matter whether you believe that global warming is an imminent danger that needs to be dealt with now or just a silly hoax that is being perpetrated by some political or environmental group, understanding and planning our energy futures should be important to everyone since we reap the benefits of having on-demand energy practically every minute of our lives.
We currently get our energy from many sources – we use petroleum-based gasoline in our cars and natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear power to heat and light our homes, offices and everything else. Unfortunately, fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and are estimated to run out within a few generations. Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and even geothermal, have been gaining popularity in recent years but are still not in widespread use due to skepticism and cost prohibitions, among other things.
Nuclear power has been used to create electricity in the United States since the late 1950’s. While nuclear energy does not produce the air pollution and environmental devastation that fossil fuels do, it still has its drawbacks. Nuclear waste storage is always an issue – nobody wants to live next to a waste disposal site, and trying to find places to safely put all of that nuclear waste is becoming a problem as the world becomes ever more populated. Furthermore, the fission process used to create nuclear energy creates weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct, which, when put in the wrong hands, creates the potential for nuclear war.
Earth Day
04.22.09 by Daniel Gaddy
Today, April 22nd, is Earth Day, the one day every year that we stop to think about how our irresponsible actions are affecting the planet. We spend this day pondering the ways we can change our behavior and save our planet, so that tomorrow we can go back to life as usual. But as the planet grows warmer, the ice continues to melt, the oceans continue to rise and the levels of toxic gases in the air continue to rise, it is time we start spending more than just a day thinking about these issues. Denying the existence of global warming is akin to denying the existence of evolution – or clouds. It is undeniable. Moreover, mounting scientific evidence indicates that global warming is the result of human action. Over the past century, the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit. That may not seem like a lot, but if you consider what it takes to raise the temperature of the entire planet by even 1 degree, it is frightening. So, we can spend the rest of our lives sitting around talking about it, but what can we actually do about it? Well, until the government actually enforces stricter emissions regulations, we as individuals can make small changes in our daily lives that can make a difference. These small changes may include changing all of your incandescent light bulbs to more energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs. Try actually turning your lights and electronic devices off when you are not using them. Buy energy- and fuel-efficient appliances and cars. Drive your car less – walk more, use public transportation when you can, and car pool. Reduce your waste and recycle everything you can. Most of these changes can actually save you money, as well as make you healthier. As important, spread the word – educate your family, friends and neighbors on the dangers of climate change and the benefits of going green. Find more ways to go green in the Related Articles section below. Share ways that you have gone green in the comments.
Presidential Candidates Answer Science Questions
09.17.08 by Daniel Gaddy
In the debates that took place during the Republican primaries earlier this year, some of the candidates for President proudly proclaimed that they did not believe in evolution. Many of us in the science world were aghast. Luckily, none of those candidates made it very far in the race, but it still raised an important issue: politicians of all stripes will pander to almost any group of people on almost any topic, but science is not one of them. With this in mind, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western University professor of astrophysics, decided to try to do something about it. He joined with screenwriter/directer Matthew Chapman, journalist and author of The Republican War on Science Chris Mooney, and screenwriter Shawn Lawrence Otto to form a non-profit organization called Science Debate 2008. The primary purpose of this organization is to “elevate the visibility of science in the Presidential race,” with the hope of organizing science-oriented debates between candidates of both parties. More than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on and supported Science Debate 2008, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. More than 3400 questions were submitted for candidates to answer about science and the future of America.
Well, those debates never materialized, but Science Debate 2008 would not be defeated. Instead, they narrowed the list of 3400 questions down to the top 14 questions, addressing a broad range of topics including climate change, energy, health care, research, science education and American innovation. The questions were submitted to the candidates and, finally, the candidates decided these topics were important enough to address specifically.