Blog

Odyssey, Leadership is an essential part for any group in a society that wants to be successful at whatever it is trying to a

Odyssey

Leadership is an essential part for any group in a society that wants to be successful at whatever it’s trying to accomplish. Without a leader the group will not be able to achieve their goals. The group will instead be lost and confused. However, after that goal has been meet, does the leadership diminish as well? The passion that once was there to lead the group might not exist anymore. The wealth that the group has achieved will most likely outweigh the strength of the leadership that once excited. Also the group’s willingness to listen to their leader will also decrease. In book IX of The Odyssey of Homer, Odysseus’ leadership starts to decline, as his group was able to reach the goal that they had set out to accomplish.

The Greeks believed in the importance of social order and rituals, and one of those included having good leadership abilities. Odysseus has always portrayed himself as a true leader. He is the strongest and most powerful out of all of the men. He believed that he was the one that was responsible for leading his men to victory in the first battle against the Kikonians. Odysseus and his men defeated the Kikonians in battle and were rewarded with the war spoils that the Kikonians had to give to them. However, some of Odysseus’s men became greedy and took more possessions than was granted. They were just excited by the new fortunes that they had obtained. They did not listen to Odysseus because they had already gotten what they wanted. This caused the Kikonians to become frustrated by the way Odysseus and his people were dishonoring the social ritual of good hospitality. It will later lead to a second attack by the Kikonians and some of its’ neighbors against Odysseus and his men. This starts to demonstrate the decline of Odysseus’ leadership abilities.

In terms of the type of social order that the Greeks believed in, a good leader is someone that is honest, humble, not greedy and has to be willing to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the whole. Additionally, he needs to have goals and not allow anything to get in the way of what he is trying to accomplish. Odysseus felt that he was a fair and equal leader. It is quoted as saying on lines forty through forty-two, “I sacked the city and killed their people, and out …his proper portion.” The quote makes it seem that he was easily able to lead his men to victory against the Kikonians. There were not many true obstacles that stood in their way of obtaining victory against the Kikonians. Additionally, from the quote Odysseus shows himself as not being greedy and honest. This is done by when he talked about the war possessions and how he believed that all of his men deserved an equal share. This is a sign of a leader that is not greedy and honest. Furthermore, on lines forty-seven through fifty-one, it states “…more numerous and better men, well skilled in fighting men with horse…” In this phrase, Odysseus is trying to show that even thought his men were outnumbered and that the Kikonians had better materials to fight the war. He would not let his men become discouraged and just give in to the Kikonians. Odysseus is trying to show that he is direct minded and would rather end up dead than to quite the battle. However, after Odysseus and his men conquered the Kikonians and got their possessions, his leadership also declines.

Odysseus claims that he was a good leader towards his men and the people of Greece. However in reality, he ends up failing terribly. He does not live up to the standards of social order of what a good leaders should be. Instead, he tries to cut corners and makes it seem like he possessed good leadership to his people. Instead he can be considered in many ways to be selfish and the exact opposite of what a good leader should be. As stated earlier in lines forty through forty-two, “I sacked the city and killed their people, and out…his portion.” The quote is expressed in the first person instead of “we”. Even though Odysseus would have never have been able to have defeated the Kikonians without the help of his men, he still gives himself the most of the credit for their success. The next few lines afterwards are quoted as “…but they were greatly foolish…lumbering horn-curved cattle.” In times of prosperity Odysseus wants to be known as the main person that was responsible for it. However when times start becoming difficult he wants out of the recognition. So, is that what a good leader should be like? Odysseus has to be there for his men and the people of Greece through both the good and bad times. What he is doing is blaming his men for the second attack by the Kikonians and not himself. If Odysseus was indeed a good leader, he should have stepped in and try to prevent his men from being greedy. The second attack would have easily been avoided if they did not stick around as long as they did.

Additionally, Odysseus tries to place pity (pathos) towards his audience to show that he tried his best at being a good leader. As lines fifty-one through fifty-four states, “ They came early morning…Zeus was evil, to make us unfortunate.” Here Odysseus is trying to blame Zeus for not being behind him and his men in the battle. He is also trying to demonstrate to the audience that even though Zeus did not support them in protect them, they still went out and fought as best as they could against the Kikonians. Another example of pathos that Odysseus tries to install in his audience is when he talked about the Kikonians having many more men then they did and how they also had horses to aide them in the battle. Just as in the case of Cabeza de Vaca, Odysseus tries to use rhetoric to try and defend himself against his failures. In the case of The Odyssey of Homer, Odysseus is trying to sound as heroic as possible, to cover up for the death of six of his men. Death is inevitable whenever there is a battle; however it the way the six of Odysseus’ men died could have been prevented. He should have been more authoritative in his orders. However, true leadership does exist in the Odyssey as can been seen in the case of the Phaiakians and the Gods. The Phaiakians functioned very well under the leadership of Alkinoos. They are the protégée of how social order for exhibiting good leadership should function in the Greece culture. Alkinoos made sure that all of his people were treated equally and he was not corrupt as a leader. He knew not to look at his ambitions for personal wealth to interfere with his duties as a leader for his people. Another good example of good leadership that was under the Greeks’ belief of social order can be found in the Gods. Leadership will function correctly for the most part when the people listen to the Gods. An example of that is when, the family of the Suitors and Odysseus were going to fight due to what he did to their sons. However, Athena stepped in and prevented it from occurring. She told them that they had to make friendship between the Oikos or else there will never be peace in Greece. To her demands for peace, all the people listened. The main difference between Athena and Alkinoos’ and that of Odysseus’ leadership is that they were more respected by their people. The people were willing to listen to and trusted them. When the people stop listening to their leader then bad things will arise. As can be seen by the second attack by the Kikonians.

The ability to exhibit leadership is an important aspect to the Greeks belief of social order. Leadership is determined by the people’s willingness to put their trust into that leader. If the people stop listening to their leader, then the leadership will surely diminish. Consequently, it will lead them left open to an attack and it will weaken that group. In The Odyssey of Homer, Odysseus’s leadership declines as his people stop listening to him.

Bibliography:

Odysseus is a hero of all times thanks to Homer who wrote his story in The Odyssey

Odysseus

Odysseus is a hero of all times thanks to Homer who wrote his story in The Odyssey. Odysseus is a hero in his on time because of all his adventures and characteristics. Homer wrote about the Trojan War, in which Odysseus took part in, in the Iliad, and about Odysseus’ long journey home in, The Odyssey. There have been theories that suggest that Homer was illiterate and could not have possibly recited poems of these lengths by memory, and that they were put together much later on and added to. However, there is evidence that a city, possible Troy, existed and was destroyed. Also there was a kingdom of Ithica, which allows for a king Odysseus. Even if the King did not go to the war there was still a chance that he might have existed. In the Odyssey, Homer used a narrative structure to tell his stories. The original texts were written on papyrus scrolls and it is theorized that these scrolls each told a chapter in Homers plays. The modern version of The Odyssey is a combination of all these scrolls that could have existed as separate stories about Odysseus’ travels, his encounters, and how he obtained his status as a hero. Ancient Greece has always been an interest of mine. In 6th grade a teacher that I had know for my whole schooling showed a movie every week.

One week we watched “Jason and the Argonaughts”. Ever since then I could never get enough Greek mythology. In freshman year of high school we read the annotated textbook version of The Odyssey. Lucky for me, I transferred English classes at the semester and I was able to read The Odyssey twice. And since then Odysseus has been a hero to me. The story starts in book 9, Odysseus telling his story to the King of Phaeaica. They sacked a city then sailed away when faced with opposing force. Next, they landed on the island of the lotus-eaters. After Odysseus pried his crew away from the lotus-eaters, they landed on the island of the Cyclops. Here is where Odysseus displays all his heroic qualities. Odysseus picked twelve of the best warriors from his crew to accompany him on the visit to the Cyclops, Polyphemus, and son of the god that shakes the Earth, Poseidon. Polyphemus takes Odysseus captive and proceeds to eat his warriors for meals. Odysseus dreams up an ingenious plan. He reveals to the Cyclops that his name is Nobody. Then, while the Cyclops slept, Odysseus sharpened a log, heated it to an ember, and blinded the Cyclops. When Polyphemus cried to the other Cyclops that he had been blinded, he told them that Nobody had blinded him so the other Cyclops did not come to his help.

Then to complete his plan, Odysseus and his remaining crew hid in the under belly of Polyphemus’ sheep when they went out to pasture. Odysseus had to actually hold on to the sheep’s under belly with his arms, unlike his crew who was tied to them. Odysseus uses his heroic qualities to over come all the conflicts that the fates and the Gods throw at him. He uses his cunning when he returns to his household. First he has to figure out a way to defeat all the suitors when there are only three of them. After he defeats the suitors, he has to play mind games with his wife Penelope because of the warning Agamemnon gave him at the river of death. Another heroic quality is his looks and charm. If Odysseus had not have been as handsome then Circe would not have seduced him and he would not have been giving the advice about the river of the dead, the Sirens, Scylla and Charyboidis. Also, at the end of his journey had he not been handsome, Calypso would not have taken him in, fed him and gave him shelter, and he would have died on her island. And after all that, I do not believe that he would have been as welcomed at the Kingdom of Pheaecia by the princess Nausicaa. Having the protection of a god is also a certain quality of a hero.

Athena constantly helps Odysseus during his travels. Athena helps him escape from Calypso’s island, helps him land on Pheaecia, and she also disguises him when he finally reaches home in order to help trick the suitors. Finally Odysseus super human strength helps him become a hero. Out of all the heroes that went into the Trojan War, Odysseus was one of the few that came back alive and lived. His strength and fighting ability helped him in the war. Also without his strength he would have not been able to escape from the Cyclops, Polyphemus. His strength was also useful when he had to string his bow in order to win Penelope from the suitors and kill them all. In the text, heroism is defined as certain qualities that are revealed in interaction between the Gods, monsters and other humans. In book 8, page 207, line 559-84, the bard, Demodocus, tells the story of the hero Odysseus and how he defeated the Trojans. This is an example of how the Greeks remembered heroes, by their actions. Before the story Odysseus earns his title as a superb war hero by defeating the Trojans. Then in his journey home, Odysseus bests the son of a god, the Cyclops, Polyphemus. After that he tricks Circe, then he passes the Sirens, Scylla, and Charyboidis.

And upon completion of his journey home Odysseus achieves the greatest task of all. A mere mortal beats a god; Odysseus battles with Poseidon through the whole story. All these conflicts earn Odysseus his rightful title of Hero in ancient Greece. In order to encounter all these conflicts, Odysseus has to endure great suffering. He is kept from his lovely wife, Penelope, and son, Telemachus, for twenty years. Not only that but he has to suffer by watching monsters such as Polypheums and Scylla devour his crew. And then he has to endure the destruction of his ship and crew at the hands of Zeus after they slaughtered the sun god’s cattle. Odysseus has suffered more than anyone that I can imagine. Odysseus is a classic Greek hero. A person has many attributes and events that make them a hero. In ancient Greece to be a hero you had to have certain advantages then the ordinary citizen. There was a very strict view on who could become a hero in ancient Greece. This stereotype was, a male born to a rich/high class family. Many heroes have come and gone, but Odysseus is one of the few that have remained. The reason that Odysseus is one of the few is that he displays all the characteristics of a hero in ancient Greek culture as well in today’s culture. During all of Odysseus’ encounters, he uses his “metes”, or street smarts, the most to survive and come out on top. Even though in most situations he could easily fight his way out he still tries to think his way out. Will Odysseus remain in the realm of heroism in the distant future or will our views of heroism change and eliminate Odysseus from the hero category?

Bibliography:

Odysseus To Be A Leader Or Not

Odysseus To Be A Leader Or NotMartin Luther King Jr., George Washington, and Michael Jordan were all leaders in different ways of life. A leader or leadership can be defined in many different ways. I have come to the conclusion that they both basically have the same definition, someone or something that can overcome obstacles and lead people on the right path to victory. In The Odyssey, a book about war, struggles, power, and leadership, one man who is a great warrior must learn to become a leader if he wants to be cherished as a hero. Odysseus, king of Ithaka, an island off the west coast of Greece, has been granted the gift of leadership. Failing to realize that he must create conditions that enable people to grow and have happy and productive lives he must overcome his own selfishness to prove that he can be a leader (II Fairholm pg 19).

Even though he leads a crew of men that are somewhat ruthless to the destruction of living organisms it is his responsibility to lead them to safety. I understand leading others is not easy; it can be very stressful and irritating (I Fairholm preface). Still Odysseus must learn to become more responsible and mature in the decisions that he has to make on his journey. At times, he makes the wrong decisions regarding the safety of his crew. Because of this, he is punished all through his journeys, were his pride and power really takes over his process to think correctly it enables him to have good judgment about situations. Even though he is a quick thinker, able to get out of almost anything that comes his way. He still is not a great leader for the time that he has a crew to follow his command. Also, Odysseus has a son, Telemachos. Because of Odysseus being away at war in Troy, he has not been able to be there for his son. This essay will involve the definition of leadership, Odysseus’s becoming a leader, how Telemachos acquires leadership skills in his father’s absence, and Odysseus’s eventual accomplishment of leadership skills.

As I mentioned earlier, a leader or leadership can be defined in many different terms of language. There have been many studies that have been conducted to determine the meaning of both of the terms. Even though leaders are needed throughout the world, it is hard to find the right person for the job (Nanis & Berns pg 5). Odysseus was chosen because of his rank as a great warrior in the Greek days. He was born to be a leader and a great warrior. The traits of his father Laertes, have been passed down to him; and the gods see that he will be a leader one day. A leader sets the occasion or provides a stimulus for the evocation of the follower behavior (spears pg 31). Odysseus gained his leadership because he knows how to sweet talk people and twist up a situation so that he may have what he wants in life. He was a very slick and shifty man that could con his way out of almost any thing. Leaders sometimes have the tendency to move out of the structure of things. All because of the excitement or the rule they may have over other people’s lives. This is one reason why Odysseus could not save the lives of his men in their time of need. Because he thought that they should know what to except out of situations that came before them in life. One can also see Odysseus irresponsibility when dealing with his son, Telemachos. He did not really have anyone to look up to and teach him how to become a great leader.

Odysseus, a man of much being, has been given the gift of leadership, but can it be said that he has proven himself to be a leader? After the Trojan War, Odysseus and his men must travel a long journey back to Ithaka. During their travel, they run into much hardship. Odysseus being the leader of these men in obligated to insure their safety to return home. Odysseus, still not really understanding what it means to be a leader puts the lives of his crew in danger. One example of this endngerment is when Odysseus and his crew encounter the Louts-Eaters. When Odysseus and his men sailed the sea restlessly for ten days at one point they landed on the country of the Lotus-Eaters and relaxed for some time. Odysseus decides to send some of his men to find out about the country they have landed on instead of going himself. When his men find the settlers they were offered some fruit. This is no ordinary fruit. It is the honey-sweet fruit of lotus. This fruit has the ability to make someone forget their homeland and stay there to eat away ate the fruit forever. Odysseus has to go and force his men on the ship in order for them to leave without anyone wanting to stay on the island (Homer IX pg 137). This time they were lucky not to loose any men, but at the lawless island of the Cyclopes they were not so lucky. Because of his greed and pride Odysseus causes the deaths of some of his men. If Odysseus is really a great leader, he would have avoided some of the situations that happened on his journey. It is just a matter of time before Odysseus becomes the only man left to return home to the great island of Ithaka.

Telemachos, the son of Odysseus, has been without the leadership of his father his whole life. His mother has raised him ever since he was a baby. It is good that his mother has been there to lead him on the right path throughout the time that his father is not there, but in that age and time it is very important to have a man there to follow as you grow up in life. The absence of his father is one thing that has come to hurt Telemachos as a young warrior coming into the world. A leader has the power to bring out the best in a follower (O’toole pg 23). Telemachos did not have anyone there to inspire him by showing him how good he is capable of becoming, and helping him realize his elevated aspirations. This absence of a father is why he really could not control the suitor’s actions when they entered his home. Because he did not have a leader there to create visions and values about situations that deal with everyday life he could not succeed. The conditions that were created for Telemachos did not really conduct a change in his behaviors as a man. In other words, even though his mother raised him up to be a man and take care of his responsibilities, Telemachos just never had a leader to show him how to be strong and take charge for all of his actions in life. Odysseus’s absence has really affected Telemachos a great deal, this absence may affect him throughout his life.

Odysseus was born to be a leader, but can he accomplish the goal of actually being a leader who shows leadership? Even though he has been through so many hardships and caused the lives of all his men, he will one day become a great leader. As he sits and tells his story to the Phaiakians, he realizes that there were some things that he should have done differently on his journey. During the situation on Circe’s island where his men were transformed into pigs, Odysseus was obligated to sleep with Circe in order for his men to be transformed back in to humans. He had to learn a lesson about leadership and the way a leader has to stay true to his mission or duty that lies ahead. Even though he stepped up as a leader at that poin, he was able to participate in sexual relations with Circe in order to free his men. He totally forgot about the fact that he was trying to return home to his kingdom. A leader primary contribution is in the recognition of good ideas, the support of those ideas, and the willingness to challenge the system in order to get new products, processes, and services adopted. I must say Odysseus is a real leader. He made many mistakes as a leader, but he was able to reflect on them and learn from all of his mistakes. Odysseus was the type of leader that saw his ideas in his mind and thought about the situation before reacting to it. That is why he was able to escape many of the obstacles that were laid in front of him. Odysseus will one day be able to challenge the process of individuals, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way for his son, and encourage the hearts of his entire kingdom (O’Toole pg 31).

Odysseus may one day be added to the list of great heros in his own way. Leaders are people who need to be respected throughout of life. They help pave the way for young people to grow up as mature adults in the world today. I know that I am a leader. I feel everyone can be a leader. It is not about what one does or how great one is, but how they do it. Odysseus had to learn that lesson the hard way. Telemachos, will eventually learn to become a leader in time. It is not hard to become a leader if a person really thinks about the situation and go approaches it the right way. One must take control, be the aggressor, and be a leader; that is what life is about. The faith of Odysseus’s men was determined by the decisions that he made on his journeys. Nevertheless, these obstacles were the only way that Odysseus could learn to take control and be a leader. Sometimes situations must occur to make sure that a person fully understands a point of view. It is hard to be a leader. That is why it takes a strong person with the right attitude to accomplish all of the goals that are needed. Leadership will bring Odysseus a long way; helping him to teach his son Telemachoas how to be a leader so he does not go through the things that he had to go through in life.

Bibliography:

O’Toole, James. Leadership A to Z: A Guide for the Appropriately Ambitious. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Fairholm, Gilbert. Perspectives on Leadership. Westport, Conecticut: London, 1998.

Spears, Larry C, ed. Insights on Leadership. New York: 1998.

Fairholm, Gilbert. Capturing the Heart of Leadership. Westport, Connecticut: London, 1997.

Bennis, Warren & Nanus, Burt. Leaders: The Strategies for taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.

Hormer. The Odyssey. New York: Harper Collins, 1965

Odysseus And Siddhartha One Hero With Two Faces

Odysseus And Siddhartha: One Hero With Two Faces?

Joseph Campell implores his students to study mythology with the enticing argument that myths are keys to unlock the spiritual truths of humanity. Latent in his statement is the idea that truth is universal; the unique interpretations of different cultures are no more than adaptations to support functional societies based on individual customs. “Essentially,” he states, “it might even be said that there is but one archetypal mythic hero whose life has been replicated in many lands by many, many people.” One cannot help but be intrigued by this notion, largely because of the inherent possibility of a worldwide understanding. Such an accord could be accomplished by recognizing the similarities of mythological systems and comprehending the cultural predispositions that necessitate their deviations.

Homer’s Odysseus and Siddhartha, as portrayed by Hermann Hesse, are two heroes from two very different cultures. Siddhartha engages in a pursuit of truth, while Odysseus’s goal is to return to his homeland. Is it possible to find a common thread that would unite these heroes? Can we dismiss their differences as cultural?

Campbell summarizes the beginning of the heroic journey:

“The usual hero adventure begins with someone from whom something has been taken, or who feels there’s something lacking in the normal experiences available or permitted to the members of his society. This person then takes off on a series of adventures beyond the ordinary, either to recover what has been lost or to discover some life-giving elixir.” The Power of Myth, p. 123

Siddhartha’s journey begins with him living as a prince, his father a Brahmin. He is admired and loved by his family, friends, and society. In spite of this, he feels discontent. He leaves the security of his home in a search for something greater, declaring, “One must find the source within one’s own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking– a detour, error.”

Odysseus, similarly, is a king, the son of a heroic father, when he leaves for war. Successful in war, too, he now must return home.

While a feeling of something lacking in everyday life inspires Siddhartha’s journey, Odysseus seeks to regain what he has lost—a home life with his wife and son. Odysseus’s journey will ultimately unite him with his family; and Siddhartha’s, comparably, to his own Self.

The transformation of consciousness (which, Campbell declares, is the reason for the hero’s journey) is accomplished through trials themselves or illuminating revelations.

Odysseus’s trials consist primarily of temptations to distract him from his goal. The Goddess, Calypso, exemplifies this when she coerces him to spend seven years on her island, giving him the option to live with her eternally. He, finally, refuses her offer, saying:

“…I wish—yes, every day I long—to travel home and see the day of my return. And if again one of the gods shall wreck me on the wine-dark sea, I will be patient still, bearing within my breast a heart well-tried with trouble; for in times past much have I borne and much have toiled, in waves and war; to that, let this be added.” The Odyssey, [V. 215]

This declaration represents a decision, one that Odysseus must make several times throughout his journey, to steadfastly adhere to his goal to return home.

Siddhartha becomes a Samana when he leaves his father’s home. He leaves this lifestyle, however, upon the realization that asceticism is rejection of the self—not self-mastery. He informs his friend:

“Govinda,” “I believe that amongst all the Samanas, probably not even one will attain Nirvana. We find consolations; we learn tricks to deceive ourselves, but the essential thing—the way—we do not find… I suffer thirst, Govinda, and on this long Samana path my thirst has not grown less.”

The motif of a metaphorical death contributes to the necessary transformation of consciousness found in myths. Out of each of these ‘deaths’ comes a rebirth. Campbell explains, “In order to found something new, one has to leave the old and go in quest of the seed idea, a germinal idea that will have the potentiality of bringing forth that new thing.”

Siddhartha first ‘dies’ as an ascetic upon the realization that reality and meaning were not hidden behind things, they were in them.

How deaf and stupid I have been, he thought, walking on quickly. When anyone reads anything which he wishes to study, he does not despise the letters and punctuation marks, and call them illusion, chance and worthless shells, but he reads them, he studies and loves them, letter by letter. But I, who wish to read the book of the world and the book of my own nature, did presume to despise the letters and signs. I called the world of appearances, illusion. I called my eyes and tongue, chance. Now, it is over; I have awakened. I have indeed awakened and have only been born today. Siddhartha, p. 40

He later renounces his life of the flesh when he falls asleep under a coconut tree by the river. He awakens, now understanding that he had to become nauseous with worldly power in order that the ‘Siddhartha the pleasure-monger and Siddhartha the man of property’ could die.

Odysseus also ‘dies’ twice– once when he descends into the underworld, and later when Poseidon thrashes him into the depths of the ocean and is ‘reborn’ on the island of Scheria.

“Before he can achieve his goal of returning home to Ithaca, Homer’s Odysseus must meet with the dead. He learns of his destiny from Tiresias and of the nature of death. Having so “descended,” he can begin to rise into his true self, in a motif that relates him and many other heroes to the ancient sun gods, who seem to die each night only to be reborn each day.” The World of Myth, p. 295

Leeming states that, “The myth that emerges from the many cultural versions of the hero, then, must be seen as a universal metaphor for the human search for self-knowledge… To follow the hero is to lose our selves in order to find our selves…”

It is easy to see how Siddhartha fits this description. He is, without a doubt, pursuing knowledge of himself; and the theme of losing himself to find himself is repeated with his casting away of old dispositions for those more awakened. Odysseus’s quest is harder to decipher. Although the death and rebirth motif is present, we must read the epic with the belief that his journey home is a metaphor for the search for his true nature. The undeniable similarities in their journeys, as well as their mutual fit into the mold of the hero as described by Campbell, is evidence to motivate such an understanding.

Bibliography:

Edited by Betty Sue Flowers; Doubleday Press, 1988

The World of Myth; an Anthology, David Adams LeemingOxford University Press, Inc, 1990

Siddhartha, Hermann HesseTranslated by Hilda Rosner, Bantam Books, 1951

The Odyssey, Homer

Translated by George Herbert Palmer, Edited by Howard Porter, Bantam Literature, 1971

Myths and Legends, Neil PhillipeDK Publishing, Inc, 1999

Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions

Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions

The purpose of this lab is to compare the nucleophilic abilities of the addition of chloride and bromide ions to the compounds of n-butyl alcohol and tertiary butyl alcohol, in SN1 and SN2 environments. This will determine which of the anions the better nucleophile, in each mechanism is.

To better understand the reactivity of competing nucleophiles, the mechanisms of their reactions must be observed. In the lab, both of the basic nucleophilic mechanisms of unimolecular and bimolecular substitution reactions take place. In both of these reactions, the reactivity is based on the substrates structure, the nucleophile’s basicity, and the reaction conditions, such as the solvent used and the temperature (Smith 389). In the substitution bimolecular reaction (SN2), the reaction is bimolecular and takes place in a one-step process. The rate is dependent on both the concentration of the substrate and the nucleophile. This makes the mechanism a second-order reaction. The rate law is described as Rate = k [substrate][nucleophile] (Carey 331). If a large excess of the nucleophile is present then the law would be a pseudo-first order reaction (false-first order) (Smith 390). But in this experiment, this will not be observed. SN2 reactions occur mostly with the substrates being a methyl structure or a primary and sometimes a secondary structure. These structures allow for a backside attack of the nucleophile to take place. The mechanism rarely proceeds with a tertiary structure. This is due to the steric hindrance that does not allow the back attack of the nucleophile, because of the decreased availability to attack the carbon atom (390). Usually a good leaving group on the substrate, such as a halogen, is present for substitution, but in this experiment the halogens will be acting as the nucleophiles. The nucleophiles of SN2 reactions must act as a Lewis base. The stronger the Lewis base, the faster the nucleophile will attack the substrate. For the SN2 reaction to occur, the use of a polar aprotic solvent should be used. Ideally, the substrate should remain depronated or else a front side attack of the nucleophile may take place. This is why the non-polar solvent is used. The temperature of the mechanism is low (Carey 322). Once the environment is established, the reaction proceeds as follows:

H H H H Nu + H C X Nu—–C——X Nu C H + X

H H HThe rate-determining step is when the nucleophile is partially bonded to the carbon atom, while the leaving group is partially being pushed off. This intermediate is called a pent coordinate (309). The substitution from the opposite side causes inversion of the product to invert from its starting configuration of dextrorotary (+) or levorotary (-) to its opposite enantiomer. Walden inversion is the name of this process. The product produced is one hundred percent of the inversion of the reactant (308).

In the substitution unimolecular reaction (SN1), the rate is also based on the substrate’s structure, the nucleophile’s basicity, and the reaction conditions. The mechanism is unimolecular and it is a two-step process. The first-order rate law is described as Rate = k [substrate] (Smith 394). The concentration of the substrate is the sole component in the rate law. This is from the slow step of the substrate’s ionization to form the carbocation. This must occur first. Because the formation of the carbocation, caused by the removal of the leaving group, requires less energy in tertiary and secondary structures, SN1 reactions never occur with methyl or primary substrates (393). A good leaving group is also needed, such as a halide. But again, the experiment uses the halides as the nucleophile. Opposite of the SN2 reaction, the nucleophile must be a weaker Lewis base. The use of a polar protic solvent is needed for the mechanism to take place. The polar solvent allows for the required pronation of the carbon atom to occur, so the weaker nucleophile can begin to attack. The temperature of the SN1 mechanism also remains fairly low (Carey 331). The reaction will proceed as follows:

CH CH CH

H C C X + Nu H C C + + Nu + X H C C Nu + X

CH CH CHSince the nucleophile can add to either the front side or the backside of the carbocation intermediate, a racemic mixture of the product is produced. However, slightly more of the inverted enantiomer is produced (319).

The main reagents used in this experiment are n-butyl alcohol, tertiary butyl alcohol, ammonium chloride, and ammonium bromide. The substrates are the two alcohols and the nucleophiles are equal amounts of the chloride and bromide ions from the ammonium salts. Consequently, alcohols do not readily react by simple nucleophilic substitution as halides do. For this reason, of the need to remove the strong hydroxide ion base of the alcohol, the use of an acidic medium must be used. Such an acid is concentrated sulfuric acid. The acid causes a rapid pronation of the alcohol, creating water, then the stable water molecule dissociates from the nucleophile. This allows the chloride and bromide ions to attack the carbocation. Depending on the structures of normal or tertiary, the ions will react with an SN1 or SN2 mechanism (Handout). Because equal molar concentrations of the ammonium salts are added, the conclusion of which is the better nucleophile, the one that can readily attack the substrate at a faster rate, can be attained. The analysis of the percent of alkyl halide products can be achieved with the use of a refractometer.

The Abbe refractometer is an important tool in analyzing liquid samples. It helps to acquire their identity and purity. It is used to measure the refractive idecies of the compounds being analyzed (Ault 161). An index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in the sample. The critical angle helps to distinguish this ratio. The angle is found by the use of Snell’s Law. It is described as the sin of a lights angle change through an air or vacuum media divided by the sin of the angle change through water, glass, or a prism. The refractive indices depend on the temperature as well as the frequency of the light (Palleros 238). For this reason, the refractive indices are usually standardized with a sodium lamp. This is the D line of sodium that has the wavelength of 5,890 nanometers. With the conditions, organic compound’s refractive indices range from 1.35 to 1.50 with added .00035 to .00055 for every degree above twenty degrees centigrade. The refractometer finds the critical angle of the sample between two glass prisms with a white light. The waves of light are refracted, or the speed and direction the light goes, below angles of critical value. The light is then adjusted by an adjustable reflector, until the critical boundary between the light and dark region shows in the eyepiece. The reading of the refractive index with a plus or minus 0.0002 error is taken (Ault 162).

Starting the lab begins with an assembly of a reflux apparatus. This is needed to carry out a reaction at high temperatures, constantly for long periods of time. The apparatus does not allow any solvent to escape into the atmosphere while boiling (Garner 123). The use of an acid trap is also needed due to the gas created by the heated sulfuric acid. Next, the solvent-nucleophile medium is made. It is composed of concentrated sulfuric acid, ice water, and equal molar amounts of ammonium chloride and ammonium bromide. Since ammonium chloride is only 28.3% soluble at twenty-five degrees Celsius, the solid salts are heated to dissolve, then half of the medium is transferred to a separatory funnel.

The n-butyl alcohol is then added down the condenser of the reflux apparatus, and a slight boiling is achieved. It is then boiled for seventy-five minutes. During the refluxing, the reactions with the tertiary butyl alcohol are then ran.

To begin the reactions, the t-butyl alcohol is added to the separatory funnel containing the solvent-nucleophile medium. The solvent and the alcohol are then mixed for two minutes, and the pressure is equalized in the funnel. After mixing, the alkyl halide layers should be formed by allowing the separatory funnel to sit for about two minutes. The lower layer, which is the acid and water, is drained and the less dense alkyl halide top layer is poured into a beaker containing solid anhydrous sodium bicarbonate. This is used as a drying agent to remove any contamination of water in the alkyl halide layer. Once the drying process is complete, the clear product is transferred into a vial with Saran wrap under the cap and saved for analysis on the refractometer.

Once the t-butyl alcohol procedure has been completed, the reflux period should be finished. The refluxed solution containing sulfuric acid and the alkyl halides is cooled and swirled to complete the reactions. The cooled solution is then transferred to the separatory funnel, and extracted with sodium bicarbonate. The sodium bicarbonate is used as an extracting liquid because it is insoluble with alcohols, and it is a very low polar molecule (Garner 131). After it extracts the organic layer, the lower dense layer is drained into a beaker containing solid anhydrous sodium sulfate. The sodium sulfate is also used as a drying agent to help to take out the contaminating water from the alkyl halide layer. The solution should be clear, and be placed in a vial with Saran wrap and saved for analysis on the refractometer (Handout).

The refractive indices for the SN2 mechanism products of pure 1-chlorobutane and pure 1-bromobutane are 1.4280 and 1.4398 respectively at twenty degrees Celsius. The SN1 mechanism’s pure products of 2-chloro-2-methyl propane and 2-bromo-2-methylpropane have the refractive indices of 1.3877 and 1.4280 at twenty degrees Celsius. Since each of the mechanisms products retain a percentage of each product and no amount of pure product, the refractive index of the SN 2 reactions should read between the pure readings of the 1-chlorobutane and the 1-bromobutane. Also the index of the SN 1 reactions should read between the pure readings of 2-chloro-2-methylpropane and 2-bromo-2-methylpropane (handout). Since this is true, the use of the following graphs could be used to estimate the percentages of each product:

To have a more accurate composition of the percentages, the following math equation can be used:

X= % Br (1.4398)(X) + (1.4015)(1- X)= refractometer reading

Once the percentages are found, the average molecular weight, theoretical yield, and percent yield can all be attained and calculated (Handout).

The following tables are from the experimentation done in the laboratory:

SN2 SN1

Weight of n-alcohol 4.22 g Weight of t-alcohol 5.25g

Weight of product 1.46g Weight of product 1.40g

Refractometer reading 1.4353 Refractometer reading 1.3984

Percent n-bromobutane 88.2% Percent of t-bromobutane 23.6%

Percent n-chlorobutane 11.8% Percent of t-chlorobutane 76.4%

Theoretical Yield 7.50g Theoretical yield 7.29g

Percent yield 19.4% Percent yield 19.2%

The purpose of this lab was to compare the nucleophicility of the competing chloride and bromide ions in SN1 and SN2 mechanism environments, when reacting with t-butyl alcohol and n-butyl alcohol. For the comparison of the nucleophilic abilities of the two halide ions in SN1 and SN2 mechanisms to be observed, equal molar concentrations of the soluble ammonium salts of ammonium chloride and ammonium bromide were added to both the t and n-butyl alcohols. Usually, alkyl halides are used as the substrate, because of the halide leaving group, and water as the nucleophile to produce an alcohol. Since the leaving group and nucleophile are reversed, the use of concentrated sulfuric acid is needed. This allows the hydroxyl group, which is a strong base, to pronate off of the carbon atom that in turn creates the reactive carbocation. The procedures for the SN1 and SN2 reactions proceeded and the chlorobutane and bromobutane products were produced. The percentages of each of the products were discovered by analysis with the refractometer and simple calculations. The average molecular weights for the normal and tertiary halides were calculated, along with the theoretical yield and percent yield.

The data of the lab showed that the bromide ions in SN2 reactions have greater nucleophilicity than that of the chloride ions. Adversely, the chloride ions have greater nucleophilicity than bromide ions in SN1 reactions. In the SN2 reactions, bromide is a better nucleophile because it is a stronger Lewis base than chloride. This is due to the increased distance of the bromine’s electrons from its nucleus (Carey 313). Since the bromide is a larger molecule and there are no side chains on the n-butyl alcohol to cause steric hindrance, the bromide attacks the carbocation at a faster rate than the chloride. These occurrences are evident from the data found from the refractometer reading.

In the SN1 reactions, the chloride reacts with the t-butyl alcohol at a faster rate than that of the bromide. The chloride ion is a weaker Lewis base than bromide, making it more suitable for the SN1 reaction. This is from the electrons being closer to the nucleus in the ion (313). The tertiary structure of the butyl alcohol causes steric hindrance on the attacking nucleophiles. Since the bromide ion is larger than the chloride ion, the hindrance does not allow the larger ion to attack as easily as the chloride. This allows the chloride to add at a faster rate. Again, the evidence is found in the refractometer readings.

The data also shows a small percent yield of product. This implies that there were many places for error to occur. Possible errors include the following: Not dissolving the ammonium salts by not heating the solution enough, pouring the n-butyl alcohol into the condenser and allowing some to run down the outside (actual occurrence), having the heat too high when refluxing; this may cause the solution to be lossed from rapid boiling, not allowing the layers to separate completely in the separatory funnel, not venting the separatory funnel while mixing; too much pressure could build up causing the stopper to pop off (actual occurrence), confusing the organic layer with the water layers, not using enough of the drying agents, or not sealing the storage vial tight enough to allow the alkyl halides to evaporate (actual occurrence).

Errors on the refractometer reading may also occur. This could be from the ignorance of cleaning the prisms on the refractometer, or by incomplete covering of the prism with the alkyl halide solutions.

Refractometry has many uses. Not only can it be used to evaluate reactivity of certain compounds, it can also be used to find the identity of a compound, the density of a compound, or the concentration of a compound. In practical situations, such as winemaking, the refractometer can be used to find the amount of the ingredients in the wine. One could possibly find the alcohol content or even the sugar content. Other uses could be in identifying the oils, fats, or proteins in food and other places. It can also be used to find the chemical makeup of an unknown substance, such as drug analysis. Refractometry is one of the experimental methods that has many uses. It is used for many different situations and it is a valuable technique for any organization that requires the analysis of any chemical compounds.

Bibliography:

Ault, Addison. Techniques and Experiments for Organic Chemistry. Sausalito,

California: University Science Books, 1998.

Carey, Francis. Organic Chemistry: Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000.

Garner, Charles. Techniques and Experiments for Advanced Organic Laboratory.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997.

Handout. Experiment 24: Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions: Competing Nucleophiles

Palleros, Daniel. Experimental Organic Chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.,

2000.

Smith, Michael and Jerry March. March’s Advanced Organic Chemistry: Reactions,

Mechanisms, and Structure. Fifth Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.,

2001.

Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear Proliferation

The United States of America has always been a nation that others could look to when a precedent was needed. We have always maintained a high international standing, if not being the World leader. Yet, in recent times, our concerns have begun to shift. Legislation that is needed to ensure that America stays involved in the world happenings has been ignored. One of these major international mishaps came very recently with the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although it is true that the Treaty was not properly introduced and may have needed some revision, it was still an important and monumental piece of work, which should have been given greater consideration on the Senate Floor.

As you know, the Treaty called for an international ban on nuclear weapons testing, both above and below ground. We, the United States, have not tested a nuclear weapon in seven years, but many other nations such as North Korea and Iran have just recently become nuclear powers, and are testing their weapons often. If passed, this Treaty would have allowed the U.S. to maintain international leadership, while strengthening the international coalition against further nuclear proliferation.

Many of the Treaty’s basic principles are based on years of legislation. It is not as if the world has suddenly decided that weapons are destructive and should be limited. The first anti-weapons legislation came in the Kennedy administration, and the trend was followed in administrations thereafter. Many Americans fear that by the sudden disregard for past policies and the lack of concern for international politics will create a rift between the United States and some foreign nations. International relations between the U.S. and countries like Russia had just began to make vast improvements, and now the defeat of a favorable Treaty will “destabilize the foundations of international relations” (Johnson).

There are also some other internationally based concerns, ones that focus on the impact on American international standings, and the standing of the Treaty. “The Clinton administration and Senate Democrats, backed by European allies, argue that the pact would not threaten American nuclear might” (Tyson 1). Yet, despite all of the assurances, the predominantly Republican Senate voted against the Treaty. Only a few short hours after the defeat Hillary Clinton stated that “this vote sent a dangerous message to people around the world, to our allies, and to Americans at home” (Nagourney B5). This message that Mrs. Clinton refers to is one that discourages nations to sign the treaty, and as she predicted, an official from Pakistan said “it is virtually certain now that neither Pakistan nor India will sign [the Treaty]” (Johnson). Without signing the Treaty ourselves, we hold no authority on which to persuade other nations to sign (Kimball).

When other nations see the U.S. has not signed the Treaty and they begin to doubt its validity, the Treaty will be left very unstable and practically useless. A major fear that will end up to be the demise of the Treaty is that “every country will use [the defeat] as an excuse not to sign (Johnson). Because of Article 14 in the Treaty, an “Entry into Force” clause, without the signatures of everyone of the 44 international nuclear powers the Treaty cannot go into affect, and the world will remain a nuclear testing ground for those smaller less secure countries (“Hindu”).

Although there was some legitimate arguments that under the Treaty’s present form the U.S. will lose some of its international power, this should not have been enough to invalidate such an important Treaty. Even more so, with such detrimental backlash expected, the Treaty should have been treated with more care. The United States is defensively strong and secure. We can afford to let loose some slack to avoid more damaging aftermath.

If in the event that after we had signed the Treaty we found it to be threatening in any way to our stability as a nation, we had a back-out option. The Treaty allows for withdraw from the contract if a nations “supreme interest” is in anyway seen to be jeopardized (Marquis, Ridder A05). The only requirement of this action is six months notice before withdraw. In other words, no nation could use this clause to instantly refute the Treaty and resume testing when relations got heated, but with advanced notice we could get out of the Treaty if it were our best interests.

At the current time there is no need for powerful nuclear weapons because international relations are positive. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would have created a stronger international summit, allowing for the downsizing of weaponry. Even in the event of a need for nuclear weapons our computer monitoring systems will have us up-to-date with testing. Also, on the future U.S. agenda for defense systems is the National Missile Defense system, which attempts to develop anti-missile missiles (“Consensus”). This system will be constructed despite the regulations in the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty specifically to ensure that Americans are safe without the actual testing of nuclear weapons.

Even though we are taking all of these safety precautions so that we feel secure, “the Government employs a $4.5 billion annual program of computer models and non-nuclear explosive tests,” and with this technology available we have not had to test a weapon since 1992 (Schmitt A1, Tyson 1). In fact, the number of international nuclear tests has drastically decreased from 178 in 1963, to only 57 in the 1990’s combined (“Dangers”). If we haven’t tested a nuclear bomb in 7 years without added protections, why should we even need a security blanket? Nuclear weapons are not as readily tested and therefore the loss of underground testing would be no great impairment. There is an annual inspection each year of a prototype of each bomb to ensure that decay has not begun. This test is very thorough; it includes both electronics and nuclear components to make sure that our bombs will not backfire on us.

Critics, and even some proponents of the Treaty have trouble deciphering where it allows for monitoring and regulation of testing. It is true that in every document I have seen concerning the Treaty there has not been much mentioned of consequences for violators, yet there has always been a great deal of provisions for global nuclear monitoring. The treaty establishes an International Monitoring System called the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and an International Data Center with 337 worldwide facilities (Snowe G4). Many Republicans doubt that the U.S. Intelligence is powerful enough to detect all explosions, yet the United States uses many different devices to detect explosions. The most successful of our monitoring systems involve radionuclides, hydroacoustics, seismology or infrared (Marquis, Ridder A05).

If in the monitoring system an explosion is detected that violates the Treaty there is a process by which the explosion will be verified. This process involves an inspection of the premises on which the explosion took place after 29 of the 51 nuclear capable countries in the world have approved the inspection (Boschwitz 19A). If or when a country is found to have broken the Treaty’s guidelines, it will be in the hands of the United Nations to exercise its authority and to give a just repercussion.

Even with all of the precautions that are built into the Treaty, the Senate still elected to defeat the Treaty. When lines are drawn evenly between the two parties there is reason to believe that other motives were behind the defeat. You are aware that a 2/3rd majority is needed to ratify treaties in the Senate, and this Treaty was defeated by a vote of 51 to 48, not even close to the lines of ratification.

Most of the Treaty’s opponents in the Senate were Republican. Not straying far from previous votes, the parties were strictly separated, only 4 Republicans crossing over to vote with the Democrats to ratify the Treaty (Schmitt). This Treaty was, however, more important than a simple veto on a proposed budget, and it should have been treated so. It was the first treaty that held international importance since 1920 and the Treaty of Versailles, to not be ratified by the U.S. Senate (Schmitt). With this being said, consider the devastating aftermath of that decision by our Senate. World War II started shortly after the United States made the decision that consequentially turned its back on the international community. Our country is important to the success of international relations. To turn back to the same isolationist values that were implemented in 1920 will almost certainly cause problems in the future.

“The world will not be a safer place because the Republicans in the Senate voted against the Treaty” (Nagourney B5). Instead of working together with the Democrats to resolve their conflicts within the Treaty, it seemed as if they worked harder within their unit to defeat it. The Republicans could not put aside their differences with President Clinton that arose from recent turmoil, so “the Test-Ban Treaty was, in effect, a stand-in victim of impeachment” (Garthoff M2). Hillary Clinton has a strong feeling that the Republicans “played partisan politics at the expense of our national security” by defeating a treaty in order to maintain favorable party status (Nagourney). It is tragic that our Senate cannot pull together when things need to get done.

The politics that were involved in the defeat of this Treaty were “the worst kind of partisan politics…because it was so blatant, and because of the risks it poses to the safety of the American people and the world” (Macintyre). When eighty percent of the American public agrees that we should ratify the Treaty, it is evident that the Senators that were against this were not justly representing their public (Snowe G4). The twenty percent of our country that opposed this Treaty could not have been enough to defeat it, consider the mathematics. There are one hundred Senators, so in the way that the Treaty was defeated, fifty-one percent of the country should have been against it, that is if we are being accurately represented.

The U.S. Senate decided to use their power to crush the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty against President Clinton to strike at him in the only way they could. We, the American public were also cheated out of justice. The Republicans were just “determined to deny Mr. Clinton a victory in the final chapter of his presidency” (Macintyre). I will admit that our president has not made the smartest choices while in office, but these choices were for his personal life. The Senate’s Republicans took it upon themselves to make it a national ordeal. Even after President Clinton was found innocent of any political wrong, they felt it was their duty to make him feel guilty and to punish him the only way they could. This Treaty is not a game; fair and rational politics were put aside when the Senate voted against it.

The Senate may also have felt that they were not given the right amount of say in things. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1996, without first going to the Senate and introducing the Treaty to test if it would be ratified when the time came. The president does not have to consult with the Senate before signing treaties but in most cases it is safer to test out the reaction before it comes down to a deadline. As a direct result of a lack of communication, the Senate refused to postpone the Treaty or to give it its needed time on the floor. This postponement was feverishly asked of the Senate not only by the president, but also by Tony Blair of Great Britain, who actually sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott contesting the speedy action (Pine A1). Lott and the Minority Leader Tom Daschle worked towards and finally came to a compromise, but when handed to the rest of the Senate a small group of Republicans refused to compromise (Pine).

No matter how the Treaty was defeated, it was still defeated and things to occur now that will ensure that America is serious about nuclear disarmament. Now that the vote is over, Americans need to be concerned about what this will do to our country. We can examine the treaty, decide where it went wrong and try to amend it, or we could start over.

First, to make a better treaty, one has to decide how effective global limits can be made to nuclear weapons, being that those in the Treaty were rejected. This is already being formulated, although many politicians in favor of the Test Ban Treaty believe that because this Treaty was rejected by the United States the smaller countries of the world will not feel comfortable signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which will be reviewed next year (Pine). Although this treaty is a separate entity of the Test Ban Treaty, it is proposed along the same lines.

Another way to possibly pass this treaty through the Senate is for President Clinton to re-submit it after amendments are made (Associated Press). At least two Republican Senators, Jon Kyl and James Inhofe, have already counted this solution out of the possibilities, saying, “it will not come up again, because the United States cannot unilaterally amend the treaty” (Associated Press). However, it is possible that with time the Treaty will become trustworthy after it has been in affect in other countries. When these countries are able to adequately protect their citizens with a non-nuclear Treaty in affect, hopefully America’s doubtful will reconsider. President Clinton will not be in office long enough to re-submit the Treaty, but the next president would be able to, without doubting our technology nor our security, return the Treaty to the Senate for another vote.

Knowing the poor relationship that President Clinton had with the Senate, one can only hope that in the future this will not occur once again. Presidents of the past, such as George Bush who was able to pass many successful weapons treaties in his presidency, have all worked with the Senate to come to an agreement that pleased both parties. If you look back to the terms of Reagan and Bush, you can see that Republicans do not hold anything against nuclear testing. During the twelve years that these men were in office treaties such as START II (which limited our nuclear weapons to only 3,500), and the Chemical Weapons Convention (which outlawed poisonous gases) were passed (Boschwitz 19A). These treaties are just as binding as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would have been; yet they were passed.

Your Senator and presidential candidate George Bush stated, “It depends on whether or not the next President can earn the trust of the Congress. It’s just a matter of relationships that need to be strong” (Berke and Seelye). On these lines the Senate seems to be very optimistic, in that two Senators, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Joseph Lieberman, came together in a bipartisan effort in order to make it possible for a test ban treaty to eventually be passed through the Senate (Raum). Liebermann commented on their almost heroic effort saying, “We believe it is important to leave the door open to return a treaty to the Senate that can be passed” (Raum).

In response to the many consequences for the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the United States must work through their oppositions to compose a viable ban on nuclear weapons. “It is a sad and dangerous matter when U.S. security interests and a constructive role in the world become a political football” (Garthoff M2). It is important to national security, global security, and international relationships that The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty be ratified in the United States as well as across the globe. Americans, although maybe not directly affected by nuclear testing, are certainly indirectly affected by nuclear testing radiation, and the global processes that have begun to speed up as a consequence of increased radiation in the atmosphere. It is our duty to protect not only our country, but also the world in which it lies. America cannot exist without healthy international surroundings, and we certainly cannot exist if the world as a whole is overly contaminated by nuclear radiation.

Bibliography:

Works Cited

The Associated Press (1999, October 18). Albright: US Will Honor Nuke Treaty. Associated Press U.S. News 18 Oct. 1999. 19 Oct. 1999. .

The Associated Press (1999, October 14). Where Candidates Stand on Treaty. Associate Press U.S. News 14 Oct. 1999. 17 Oct. 1999.

Berke, Richard L. and Katherine Q. Seelye. “DEFEAT OF A TREATY: THE HOPEFULS; Treaty Ricochets Into Presidential Fray.” The New York Times 14 Oct. 1999, late ed., sec. A: 13+.

Boschwitz, Rudy. “CTBT Provisions Were Reasons Enough to Vote No.” Star Tribune 20 Oct. 1999, metro ed., sec. A: 19+.

Burt, Richard. “Fumble on the Test Ban Treaty.” The Washington Post 18 Oct. 1999, final ed., sec. A: 19+.

Garthoff, Raymond. “The World; Diplomacy; A Loss For the U.S. in World.” Los Angeles Times 31 Oct. 1999, home ed., sec. M: 2+.

“Is the CTBT Finished?” Editorial. The Hindu 13 Oct. 1999.

Johnson, Maureen (1999, October 15). Nations Upset by U.S. Treaty Vote. Associated Press U.S. News 15 Oct. 1999. 19 Oct. 1999.

Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power

To provide the power for a dynamo-electric machine, or electric generator, nuclear power plants rely on the process of nuclear fission. In this process, the nucleus of a heavy element, such as uranium, splits when bombarded by a free neutron in a nuclear reactor.(1) The fission process for uranium atoms yields two smaller atoms, one to three free neutrons, plus an amount of energy. Because more free neutrons are released from a uranium fission event than are required to initiate the event, the reaction can become self-sustaining–a chain reaction–under controlled conditions, thus producing a tremendous amount of energy.

In the vast majority of the world’s nuclear power plants, heat energy generated by burning uranium fuel is collected in ordinary water and is carried away from the reactor’s core either as steam in boiling water reactors or as superheated water in pressurized-water reactors. In a pressurized-water reactor, the superheated water in the primary cooling loop is used to transfer heat energy to a secondary loop for the creation of steam. In either a boiling-water or pressurized-water installation, steam under high pressure is the medium used to transfer the nuclear reactor’s heat energy to a turbine that mechanically turns a dynamo- electric machine, or electric generator. Boiling-water and pressurized-water reactors are called light-water reactors, because they utilize ordinary water to transfer the heat energy from reactor to turbine in the electricity generation process. In other reactor designs, the heat energy is transferred by pressurized heavy water, gas, or another cooling substance.

Because the water used to remove heat from the core in a light-water reactor absorbs some of the free neutrons normally generated during operation of the reactor, the concentration of the naturally fissionable 235U isotope in uranium used to fuel light-water reactors must be increased above the level of natural uranium to assist in sustaining the nuclear chain reaction in the reactor core: the remainder of the uranium in the fuel is 238U. Increasing the concentration of 235U in nuclear fuel uranium above the level that occurs in natural uranium is accomplished through the process of enrichment, which is explained below.

The fuel core for a light-water nuclear power reactor can have up to 3,000 fuel assemblies. An assembly consists of a group of sealed fuel rods, each filled with UO2 pellets, held in place by end plates and supported by metal spacer-grids to brace the rods and maintain the proper distances between them. The fuel core can be thought of as a reservoir from which heat energy can be extracted through the nuclear chain reaction process. During the operation of the reactor, the concentration of 235U in the fuel is decreased as those atoms undergo nuclear fission to create heat energy. Some 238U atoms are converted to atoms of fissile 239Pu, some of which will, in turn, undergo fission and produce energy. The products created by the nuclear fission reactions are retained within the fuel pellets and these become neutron-absorbing products (called “poisons”) that act to slow the rate of nuclear fission and heat production. As the reactor operation is continued, a point is reached at which the declining concentration of fissile nuclei in the fuel and the increasing concentration of poisons result in lower than optimal heat energy generation, and the reactor must be shut down temporarily and refueled.

The amount of energy in the reservoir of nuclear fuel is frequently expressed in terms of “full-power days,” which is the number of 24-hour periods (days) a reactor is scheduled for operation at full power output for the generation of heat energy. The number of full power days in a reactor’s operating cycle (between refueling outage times) is related to the amount of fissile 235U contained in the fuel assemblies at the beginning of the cycle. A higher percentage of 235U in the core at the beginning of a cycle will permit the reactor to be run for a greater number of full power days.

At the end of the operating cycle, the fuel in some of the assemblies is “spent,” and it is discharged and replaced with new (fresh) fuel assemblies. The fraction of the reactor’s fuel core replaced during refueling is typically one-fourth for a boiling-water reactor and one-third for a pressurized-water reactor.

The amount of energy extracted from nuclear fuel is called its “burn up,” which is expressed in terms of the heat energy produced per initial unit of fuel weight. Burn up is commonly expressed as megawatt days thermal per metric ton of initial heavy metal.

The nuclear fuel cycle for typical light-water reactors is illustrated in Figure A1. The cycle consists of “front end” steps that lead to the preparation of uranium for use as fuel for reactor operation and “back end” steps that are necessary to safely manage, prepare, and dispose of the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Chemical processing of the spent fuel material to recover the remaining fractions of fissionable products, 235U and 239Pu, for use in fresh fuel assemblies is technically feasible. Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel is not permitted in the United States. The front end of the nuclear fuel cycle commonly is separated into the following steps.

Exploration. A deposit of uranium, discovered by geophysical techniques, is evaluated and sampled to determine the amounts of uranium materials that are extractable at specified costs from the deposit. Uranium reserves are the amounts of ore that are estimated to be recoverable at stated costs.

Mining. Uranium ore can be extracted through conventional mining in open pit and underground methods similar to those used for mining other metals. In situ leach mining methods also are used to mine uranium in the United States. In this technology, uranium is leached from the in-place ore through an array of regularly spaced wells and is then recovered from the leach solution at a surface plant. Uranium ores in the United States typically range from about 0.05 to 0.3 percent uranium oxide (U3O8). Some uranium deposits developed in other countries are of higher grade and are also larger than deposits mined in the United States. Uranium is also present in very low grade amounts (50 to 200 parts per million) in some domestic phosphate-bearing deposits of marine origin. Because very large quantities of phosphate-bearing rock are mined for the production of wet-process phosphoric acid used in high analysis fertilizers and other phosphate chemicals, at some phosphate processing plants the uranium, although present in very low concentrations, can be economically recovered from the process stream.

Milling. Mined uranium ores normally are processed by grinding the ore materials to a uniform particle size and then treating the ore to extract the uranium by chemical leaching. The milling process commonly yields dry powder-form material consisting of natural uranium, “yellowcake,” which is sold on the uranium market as U3O8.

Uranium conversion. Milled uranium oxide, U3O8, must be converted to uranium hexafluoride, UF6, which is the form required by most commercial uranium enrichment facilities currently in use. A solid at room temperature, UF6 can be changed to a gaseous form at moderately higher temperatures. The UF6 conversion product contains only natural, not enriched, uranium.

Enrichment. The concentration of the fissionable isotope, 235U (0.71 percent in natural uranium) is less than that required to sustain a nuclear chain reaction in light water reactor cores. Natural UF6 thus must be “enriched” in the fissionable isotope for it to be used as nuclear fuel. The different levels of enrichment required for a particular nuclear fuel application are specified by the customer: light-water reactor fuel normally is enriched up to about 4 percent 235U, but uranium enriched to lower concentrations also is required. Gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuge are the commonly used uranium enrichment technologies. The gaseous diffusion process consists of passing the natural UF6 gas feed under high pressure through a series of diffusion barriers (semiporous membranes) that permit passage of the lighter 235UF6 atoms at a faster rate than the heavier 238UF6 atoms. This differential treatment, applied across a large number of diffusion “stages,” progressively raises the product stream concentration of 235U relative to 238U. In the gaseous diffusion technology, the separation achieved per diffusion stage is relatively low, and a large number of stages is required to achieve the desired level of isotope enrichment. Because this technology requires a large capital outlay for facilities and it consumes large amounts of electrical energy, it is relatively cost intensive. In the gas centrifuge process, the natural UF6 gas is spun at high speed in a series of cylinders. This acts to separate the 235UF6 and 238UF6 atoms based on their slightly different atomic masses. Gas centrifuge technology involves relatively high capital costs for the specialized equipment required, but its power costs are below those for the gaseous diffusion technology. New enrichment technologies currently being developed are the atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS) and the molecular laser isotope separation (MLIS). Each laser-based enrichment process can achieve higher initial enrichment (isotope separation) factors than the diffusion or centrifuge processes can achieve. Both AVLIS and MLIS will be capable of operating at high material throughput rates.

Fabrication. For use as nuclear fuel, enriched UF6 is converted into uranium dioxide (UO2) powder which is then processed into pellet form. The pellets are then fired in a high temperature sintering furnace to create hard, ceramic pellets of enriched uranium. The cylindrical pellets then undergo a grinding process to achieve a uniform pellet size. The pellets are stacked, according to each nuclear core’s design specifications, into tubes of corrosion-resistant metal alloy. The tubes are sealed to contain the fuel pellets: these tubes are called fuel rods. The finished fuel rods are grouped in special fuel assemblies that are then used to build up the nuclear fuel core of a power reactor.

The back end of the cycle is divided into the following steps:

Interim Storage. After its operating cycle, the reactor is shut down for refueling. The fuel discharged at that time (spent fuel) is stored either at the reactor site or, potentially, in a common facility away from reactor sites. If on-site pool storage capacity is exceeded, it may be desirable to store aged fuel in modular dry storage facilities known as Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) at the reactor site or at a facility away from the site. The spent fuel rods are usually stored in water, which provides both cooling (the spent fuel continues to generate heat as a result of residual radioactive decay) and shielding (to protect the environment from residual ionizing radiation).

Reprocessing. Spent fuel discharged from light-water reactors contains appreciable quantities of fissile (U-235, Pu-239), fertile (U-238), and other radioactive materials. These fissile and fertile materials can be chemically separated and recovered from the spent fuel. The recovered uranium and plutonium can, if economic and institutional conditions permit, be recycled for use as nuclear fuel. Currently, plants in Europe are reprocessing spent fuel from utilities in Europe and Japan.

Waste Disposal. A current concern in the nuclear power field is the safe disposal and isolation of either spent fuel from reactors or, if the reprocessing option is used, wastes from reprocessing plants. These materials must be isolated from the biosphere until the radioactivity contained in them has diminished to a safe level. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the Department of Energy has responsibility for the development of the waste disposal system for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Current plans call for the ultimate disposal of the wastes in solid form in licensed deep, stable geologic structures.

Bibliography:

Nuclear Power Uses

Nuclear Power Uses

Is nuclear energy clean energy? Are its benefits greater than its risks? One of the basic characteristics of our “modern” societies is the usage of various products/goods/services that are involved to our lives.

We can think hundreds of such goods that were not used before and we are using them today in order to satisfy our wants and to meet our needs: from walkman to cars, from computers to bank machines. Of course, there are thousands of businesses and manufacturers that supply all these products/services and they all require energy to work.

Can we imagine our “modern” world without electricity? Can we imagine it, without the kind of energy that produces electricity? Purpose of this text is to examine one basic source of energy-nuclear energy. This text will discuss advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power.

We will examine the basic points about nuclear energy and we will compare them to the usage of other energy sources. But, what do we mean by nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy refers to the energy that we can obtain if we split atoms. Atoms have neutrons, protons (both in nucleus) and electrons (around nucleus). If nucleus breaks up, huge amount of energy is released. This procedure is called fission.

The energy is explained by the difference of mass between fission products and reactants. The energy and the heat that are produced can be used to produce electricity. The whole issue was under consideration from the beginning of the 20th century but the greatest physician; Albert Einstein explored the usage by giving enough details. Later on, the impact of nuclear energy was understandable in order to give a great energy source and —unfortunately- the absolute lethal weapon.

The World War 2 and the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs proved the consequences of nuclear power as a war “tool”. One important thing that we must mention is that the products of a nuclear explosion (as a bomb or as an accident) have the ability to “keep” their radioactivity for a period of time. That means that the consequences will not stop, but they will affect peoples and environment for a long time.

Most of the world’s electricity is generated by either thermal or hydroelectric power plants. Thermal power plants use fuel to boil water which makes steam. The steam turns turbines that generate electricity. Hydroelectric power plants use the great force of rushing water from a dam or a waterfall to turn the turbines.

The majority of thermal power plants burn fossil fuels because thermal power plants are cheaper to maintain and have to meet less of the governments requirements compared to nuclear power plants. Fossil fuels are coal and oil. The downfall of using fossil fuels is that they are limited. Fossil fuels are developed from the remains of plants and animals that died millions of years ago. Burning fossil fuels has other downfalls, too. All the burning that is required to turn the turbines releases a lot of sulfur, nitrogen gases, and other pollutants into the atmosphere.

Nuclear power plants generate only about eleven percent of the world’s electricity. There are around 316 nuclear power plants in the world that creates 213,000 megawatts of electricity. (INFOPEDIA) Radioactive, or nuclear, waste is the by-product of nuclear fission. Fission occurs when atoms’ nucleus’ split and cause a nuclear reaction.

When a free neutron splits a nucleus, energy is released along with free neutrons, fission fragments that give off beta rays, and gamma rays. A free neutron from the nucleus that just split splits another nucleus. This process continues on and is called a chain reaction. (World Book vol. 14, 588)

Nowadays, we are using all the above ways to produce energy and scientists are trying to improve their applications in order to achieve the maximum benefits and to reduce the financial/environmental cost(s). The amount of energy differs from each method, as well, as the dangers for people and environment. Nuclear energy is a great source but it has many “traps” and dangers.

In a nuclear power plant, Uranium is used as fuel to boil the water for the steam that makes the turbines turn. So, uranium is, in a sense, the coal of a coal-fired power plant. When fueling nuclear power plants, the uranium arrives as uranium-enriched pellets. These pellets are an equivalent to one ton of coal. The pellets are sealed in tubes that are made of a strong heat-and corrosion-resistant metal alloy. This metal alloy will protect people and the environment from the high levels of radiation that the uranium is giving off.

The tubes are bundled together to make a fuel assembly. The assemblies are put inside the reactor to create heat that will boil the water. The fuel assemblies are used until they are depleted and sent to a repository.

A repository is a storage facility that stores high-level nuclear waste deep underground so the waste cannot harm or effect people or the environment. (DOE’s Yucca Mountain Studies) With the technology that we [humankind] have today, scientists believe it to be possible to make a repository somewhere. The guidelines of a repository are mainly if the geologic location will work out (i.e. will an earthquake be able to rupture it, will water be able to corrode the repositories outer wall.).

To make sure that the repository would be able to stay unharmed for thousands of years, scientists in all areas of science are making predictions of what could happen over the time period. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, a repository may pose no greater threat than un-mined uranium from which the high-level waste was produced.

The repository the EPA wants to make has to be proven that it will still be isolated underground in 10,000. After this extensive time, the high-level waste should no longer be radioactive enough to harm the public health.

Can we refer to nuclear energy as a clean source? To answer this we must examine both advantages and disadvantages of the usage and to refer to some events that indicated various outcomes.

THE “CLEAN” SIDE… By using nuclear power we can avoid some others source that can cause serious pollution. For example, we can produce electricity without any kind of burning fuel. Burning fuels would create serious damages to environment.

We all know the color of the sky in various places where factories burn such products for their manufacturing activities. Probably the two cleanest sources of electricity are hydropower and nuclear energy. Similar, we can talk about the effects and the pollution that caused by using various energy sources.

One of the most basic pollutants is Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) causes serious damages to our environment. It has the ability to not let the heat (from sun) to escape from atmosphere. So, the heat is trapped into earth causing various effects to the physical balance (climate problems, green house phenomena).

Nuclear energy replaced other sources that produce Carbon Dioxide and prevent a higher CO2 level to our atmosphere. Another sources of pollution are Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Both of these chemicals cause serious problems to our health. They are in part, produced by burning fossil fuels. It is logical to assume that if we use nuclear energy we will pollute our environment less.

In USA, nuclear plants have displaced about 82.000.000 SO2 tons between 1973-1997. Without the usage of nuclear energy, there is estimation that the level of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) would be fifty percent more. Nuclear energy could reduce Carbon Dioxide by 155.000.000 metric tons. In addition, the level of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)-again in USA- could be 37.500.000 tons less. In 1996, electricity sources were replaced (fossil fuels to nuclear energy) causing a decrease of 16.000.000 tons of Sulfur Dioxide. Generally, between 1973 and 1996 the amount of Sulfur Dioxide reduced was 219.000.000 tons —worldwide. From all the above, it is easily understandable that there are advantages by using nuclear energy, comparing to other sources. Of course, this does not-automatically- mean that nuclear energy is characterized as clean as others are not.

Unfortunately many people lost their lives from accidents and bombs that utilized nuclear power. In the Second World War nuclear power was harness into an atomic bomb. This was used as a weapon of mass destruction. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are towns that were all but wiped out due to technology dropped by our country.

On April 25th -26th, 1986 the World’s worst nuclear power accident occurred at Chernobyl in the former USSR (now Ukraine). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant located 80 miles north of Kiev had 4 reactors. While testing reactor number 4 numerous safety procedures were disregarded. At 1:23am the chain reaction in the reactor became out of control creating explosions and a fireball which blew off the reactor’s heavy steel and concrete lid.

The Chernobyl accident killed more than 30 people immediately, and as a result of the high radiation levels in the surrounding 20-mile radius, 13,500 people had to be evacuated.

The consequences of such incidents/ accidents were (and many times, are) still faced from citizens and environment because of the abilities of radioactive elements through time. Thus, how can we describe this type of energy “clean”?

Nuclear energy was, is and will be a very powerful form of energy. Actually it is the most powerful- and has many dangers for our health, for the environment and for every type of life into the planet.

The effect of radiation can be fatal and can cause serious damages. First of all, an exposure to high level radiation will cause death, as many functions of our body will stop (molecules in our body will be ionized). In addition, higher percentages in the possibility of cancer and leukemia for people that are in contact with radiation (for example a worker in a nuclear station has more possibilities of exposure in radiation than others).

A rem is a unit scientist use to measure radiation exposure. Over a person’s lifetime, they usually receive 7-14 rems of natural sources of radiation, such as cosmic rays and ultraviolet rays from the sun. On a single exposure of 5-75 rems, there are few to no noticeable symptoms.

For someone to receive 75-200 rems of exposure, vomiting, fatigue, and loss of appetite would occur. Recovery would take a few weeks. If someone were to be exposed to more than 300 rems, severe changes in blood cells and hemorrhage takes place. If someone were to receive more than 600 rems, symptoms would be hair loss, loss in your body’s ability to fight infection and usually results in death. (World Book vol. 16, 79)

The effects of radiation sickness is not too pleasant. The main reason for building a repository is to keep people and the environment safe from deadly radiation.

The workers of our countries 104 nuclear plants are among at most risk for radiation exposure. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, a federally governed organization, regulates the allowed limit for occupational radiation workers. The average amount for workers is .65 Rem per year. The federal limit of radiation for plant workers is 5 rems per year. This is measured by total of external whole body dose and internal dose. Eye exposure to radiation is also closely monitored. The NRC limit for eye exposure is 15 rems per year.

Nuclear power is also used in our nation’s defense. Submarines and aircraft carriers use nuclear power to generate enough power to propel the enormous vessels.

Nuclear power has a lot of advantages over other forms of energy production. There are some negative effects such as health risks, environmental risks, misuses in weapons, and the threat of total destruction. If nuclear power is closely regulated and used properly, it can serve as a useful and “clean” source of energy that will send this country into a cleaner, safer future.

Bibliography:

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy

During the early stages of nuclear power there were many accidents that resulted in several people’s deaths and the destruction of millions of dollars of property. The accidents at Chernobyl which killed over 30 people and the incident at Three Mile Island are just a few of the catastrophes that occurred. How could something like energy be more important than the lives of innocent people? The race to perfect nuclear power continued and although many countries rely on nuclear power to operate effectively, it does not mean that nuclear power plants are without faults. They have numerous flaws in design and are not only producing power but harmful radiation as well.

Opponents of nuclear power argue that the waste that is produced is harmful and can persist for thousands of years. Today, thousands of tons of radioactive nuclear waste are constantly being moved through several states (Arnold). Robert K. Musil, PSR Executive Director, stated, ?Even one severe accident in this transporting of nuclear waste would cause up to 18,000 latent cancer deaths and cost over ten billion dollars to clean up?(Arnold). Not only is transportation of nuclear waste a problem but there are also decisions being made on where to store it. Currently, there are plans to dump waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Although the waste would be buried deep underground, the site is only ninety miles from Las Vegas (Arnold). Many people are afraid that if the waste is dumped at the site it may leak into underground water sources. If this were to occur, the results would be disastrous. Contact with nuclear waste can cause cancer and genetic mutations? (Clearfield). The harmful waste that is produced during nuclear fission is almost unmanageable and can be very dangerous if not contained.

Nevertheless, nuclear waste can become less harmful than the waste produced in other power production methods. Direct contact with nuclear waste can cause cancer, but so can breathing smoke from the burning of coal and oil. The waste can also be easily contained in many areas. Canada is looking into proposed plans to store nuclear waste in the Pre-Cambrian Canadian Shield? (McCarthy). There are also many other places that are uninhabitable to humans that are suitable for dumping the waste, such as Antarctica.

Over time the nuclear waste can lose its radioactivity which makes it less dangerous. After only ten years the waste becomes 1,000 times less radioactive, and after 500 years the fission products will be less radioactive than the uranium ore they were originally taken from (McCarthy). The waste is also not as abundant as would seem. Each year the UK produces 40 million cubic meters of industrial waste compared to 20 thousand cubic meters of nuclear waste? (Collum). The waste can also be reprocessed. During the reprocessing of nuclear waste, the plutonium created during nuclear fusion, which can also be used in nuclear reactors, is separated from the waste which leaves only three percent of the original waste left (Collum). Through these processes the containment and storage of nuclear waste can be done safely and efficiently.

Many critics say nuclear power plants are easy targets for terrorist attacks. If a nuclear power plant was bombed, the fallout from the explosion would contribute to the incidence of cancer all over the world (McCarthy). There is also the issue of waste being used to create weapons. The plutonium in nuclear waste could be extracted and used in nuclear weapons. The RBMK reactors built by the Russians were designed to operate as reactors and suppliers of plutonium for weapons (Keeny). This fault in design is the main reason that the plants failed to operate successfully. With so many countries on the brink of war, nuclear proliferation could become a real threat. If countries that support terrorist groups were able to build their own nuclear power plants, the terrorist would have access to a supply of plutonium, which would allow them to create deadly weapons. The dangers that nuclear power plants create may far outweigh any benefits that they might have.

However, nuclear plants are more than likely not viable targets for terrorist. The plants are built very securely and even if they were attacked most of the radiation would not be spread (McCarthy). Also, the waste that comes from the production of nuclear energy is not suitable for making weapons. Using the plutonium from nuclear waste in weapons would result in a bomb that not only would be unstable but also one that would be complex and difficult to maintain (Rossin). Nuclear plants are not needed to create nuclear weapons. Every country that has tried to make a bomb has succeeded, and none of them used nuclear waste (McCarthy). Nuclear power plants are not targets for terrorist, and in no way contribute to the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Critics argue that power plants are also costly. The plants are so expensive that most countries cannot afford to build them. The plants also take a long time to build and are require skilled technicians to operate them. Adding to the costs, the plants also require a high amount of security. If the plants are not constantly maintained the problem could cause an accident, or result in the shutting down of a plant. In order to open the storage facilities in Yucca Mountain on schedule, it will cost an additional 58 billion dollars (Arnold). The solid bars of waste that will be stored in this site are a few cubic meters in volume and will cost about one million dollars each (Hagen). With all plants in the U.S. being maintained by the government, the costs of the plants adds greatly to the taxes that the average citizen has to pay (Hagen).

However, the total cost of nuclear energy is actually less than other sources of power. The current price of uranium is 50 dollars per pound (McCarthy). Since the cost of uranium ore is only 0.04 cents per kilowatt-hour, even large increases in ore are affordable without increasing the cost of nuclear generated electricity significantly? (Cohen). The energy invested in building a plant is paid back in five months (McCarthy). The basic fact about nuclear energy is that the input energy is 4.8 percent of the output energy? (McCarthy). Although the facilities to store the waste are expensive, producing the waste in glass form is not. Even if the bars of waste do cost one million dollars each, an average household of four people only uses enough energy in a year to produce an amount of waste equal to ?the size of a cigarette lighter? (Cohen).

Some people believe that nuclear power plants are dangerous. The radiation that occurs during the process of nuclear fission can cause different types of cancer, and lead to death. In the Chernobyl accident, over 30 people were killed in the explosion caused by the overheating of the plant (McCarthy). The blast also made about 20 square miles of land uninhabitable for a long time. An accident like the one of Chernobyl might happen again today. When the reactor began to overheat at Chernobyl there was nothing that could have been done because the whole process lasted only a few seconds before exploding (Cohen). If a plant were to blow up it could cause thousands of deaths and spread deadly radioactive particles through the entire atmosphere.

Actually, nuclear power plants today are very safe. The amounts of radiation that are released are insignificant. The protective walls of concrete keep the workers in the plants safe. The amount of radiation that someone would receive at a nuclear power plant is less than the amount that he would get daily from the sun (McCarthy). With today’s technology a nuclear plant would not blow up. The reactors used today are opposite the ones used at Chernobyl in that the reactions slow down when water used to cool the rods begins to boil. The ones at Chernobyl sped up the reaction which is what caused the immense heat and quick buildup of pressure (McCarthy). Considering that cave-ins of coal mines have killed hundreds, the accident at Chernobyl was a rather small disaster.

One of the best reasons to use nuclear power is that there is an abundance of fuel. Compared to coal and oil powered plants, nuclear plants use significantly less amounts of fuel. The small bits of uranium found in coal would make more power in a nuclear plant than burning the coal itself (Cohen). Uranium is very abundant and serves no other purpose than to be used in nuclear power plants. If the Earth’s supply of Uranium is ever depleted, Thorium can be used in the plants. Although it is less effective than Uranium, Thorium is three times as abundant. Also, the spent fuel can be reprocessed into new fuel. Again, the plutonium produced is less effective than the Uranium, but it is a good way to recycle if there is a great need.

Not only is nuclear power easily fueled but it is also the most reliable of power sources. Unlike hydroelectric plants, which have to be built on a water source, nuclear power plants can be built anywhere. Other sources of power such as solar power and wind power are too expensive and unreliable. Solar panels will probably never be a major source of power because of the high cost it takes to produce them. There are only a few places in the world that wind could even be considered as a source of power, because of its unpredictability. Besides Uranium and Plutonium, another source of nuclear power is Hydrogen. This gas is one of the most abundant elements in the world and is the main element used in nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fusion could supply countries with almost endless amounts of energy. Fuels for nuclear fusion are very abundant. Fusion requires using isotopes of Hydrogen and Tritium. Tritium is rarely found in nature because it is radioactive and has a short half-life, but it can be produced from lithium, one of the most abundant metals in the earth’s crust (Murari). There is no waste produced in nuclear fusion. When the two atoms are combined in nuclear fusion the only product created is helium (Murari). After the fusion occurs the radiation that affects the surrounding area declines rapidly because of the less radioactive sources that are used (Murari). Although nuclear fusion is only in the early stages of development it could one day become the only source of power needed to supply the entire world with energy.

In conclusion, nuclear energy is a valuable source that should be used in today’s society. Not only is it safe and reliable, but the benefits far outweigh the few drawbacks. What little waste that is produced can easily be contained, the plants are under no threats, and the energy that the plants produce is needed for many large countries in the world to function. Without nuclear energy there would be more pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels, more blackouts like the one in North Eastern United States recently, and also a greater economic struggle to obtain fuels for power. The production of nuclear power through nuclear fission and fusion should be continued because of the benefits that it offers to society.

Bibliography:

Works Cited

Arnold, Ed. Dangers of Nuclear Waste Transport. 3 July 2003. U.S. Newswire. 29 Sept. 2003 http://usnewswire.com/topnews/first/07030129.html.

Clearfield, Abraham. Nuclear Relapse. 17 Aug. 2001. NIRS. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www.nirs.org/nuclearrelapse/toptenreasons.htm

Cohen, Jameson. Pro Nuclear. 9 June 1998. UIUC. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www2.uiuc.edu/ro/er/dec2002/pronuclear.html

Collum, Hugh. 20 Feb. 2000. BNFL. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www.bnfl.com/website.nsf/s2/7F65C8EA0C84538280256B9E0065AF56?OpenDocument

Ronald, Hagen. Nuclear Analysis. 1 Dec. 2002. EIA. 29 Sept. 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/anasum2.html

Keeny, Spurgeon. Plutonium Reprocessing. 22 Sept. 1998. Frontline. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/keeny.html

McCarthy, John. FAQs about Nuclear Energy. 11 March 2002. Stanford University. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

Murari, Andrea. Fusion Energy. 8 April 2003. Jet. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www.jet.efda.org/

Rossin, David. Spent Fuel Reprocessing. 31 March 1998. Frontline. 29 Sept. 2003 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html