Nuclear technology is in use all around us. A good amount of the world’s food is produced more efficiently --and thus more cheaply-- because of it; the lifesaving power of medical imaging and radiation therapy relies on it. Nuclear technology is involved in everything from cosmetics to contact lens cleanser to disposable diapers. Nuclear is so commonplace and crucial to modern life that it is worthwhile to try and imagine life without it.

The nuclear crisis in Japan has given new political legs to all those who would rather we put an end to nuclear. And the world over, from China to Germany, nuclear energy projects are screeching to a halt. Here in Canada, support for the closure of a nuclear energy plant in Quebec is broadening.

But with the homes and livelihoods of so many in Japan under threat today, and the stunning images of the earthquake and tsunami still fresh in mind, now is not the best moment for sober and prudent policy-making. What the Japanese experience ought to remind us is that like many forces, nuclear is one force humanity has yet to properly corral.

Humans have always had to learn over time --and often through disasters and death-- how to safely harness the technologies we develop, or those that the environment gives us. Heck, we're still trying to figure out how best to harness the power of the wind for energy purposes.

Ultimately, nuclear is just another phenomenon humans have stumbled upon along the long road of history, and it can bring about situations both triumphant and tragic. However, on balance, given its inextricable integration into our way of life, nuclear has to be a force for good, despite its risks.

It's never been humanity's way to shrink from risks. Throughout human history the world has been a tough place to live, and just when you’ve got it all figured out, a natural disaster could strike and wipe it all away. Nevertheless we’ve soldiered on. Most of our actions, on a large and small scale, entail some measure of risk. So it’s been our ability to manage risk, to find ways to defend against --not avoid-- the worst the world can dish out, that has allowed us to progress as far as we have. Nuclear is clearly another powerful tool for us to use in that struggle.

The con, by Jamaias Dacosta

Nuclear power a force for good? That, dear readers, is preposterous. With the slightest of accidents resulting from either human and or mechanical error, or as we have recently witnessed in Fukushima, natural disaster, surrounding areas become contaminated with highly toxic, cancer-causing radiation and can remain in ecosystems for as long as twenty four thousand years.

According to critics, the nuclear industry has developed its technology based on “low probability”. Basically, nuclear power has developed on the speculation that the likelihood of an accident is minimal. Despite the fact that the stakes are astronomical, the nuclear industry has rationalized proliferation of nuclear power based on what nuclear scientists consider low odds.

Just what are the odds? Let’s look at the facts. Since the emergence of nuclear power in the late 1950s, there have been approximately 100 nuclear power plant accidents, which have resulted in loss of life, cost millions of dollars and leaked radiation into ecosystems that will be around for thousands of years. It is impossible to quantify the loss of life, because one of the tricky truths about nuclear radiation is that most related deaths are not immediate. Cancer, which is the leading illness related to radioactive contamination, takes its time with many of its victims.

There have been some approximate guesses for the 1986 Chernobyl incident, and according to a 2006 study by Greenpeace International, the death toll will reach at least 200,000. The areas affected include surrounding countries in Europe and Asia, and several million people are still living in contaminated areas. Scientists continue to discover the long-term effects of living in a radioactive ecosystem. In a 2006 article published by The Observer, generations have been effected with low birth rates, high birth defects and rare illnesses are rampant. According to one senior doctor at a Belarus hospital, “one in four babies in the region is born healthy” twenty years later.

Following the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan two weeks ago, radioactive iodine has been found in the tap water in Tokyo, approximately 300 kilometers from Fukushima where the nuclear reactors are situated. The problem with radioactive iodine is that it is immediately absorbed by the thyroid, and has caused thyroid cancer throughout the surrounding area of Chernobyl. Another concern for people in Japan is Caesium-137 which is, according to nuclear analyst Shawn Patrick Stencil, the “principle source of radiation in the zone of alienation around the Chernobyl plant” and is a long lived radio isotope that can stick around for up to 300 years.

It cannot be debated that there are some helpful technologies that have emerged from nuclear development, such as medical isotopes and household fire alarms. The question is whether or not nuclear power is a force for good in the world. My opponent may suggest that these technologies, combined with the lack of fossil fuels associated with it, are examples of how nuclear energy is a force for good. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the high risks and irreparable damage associated with accidents and malfunctions raise a multitude of ethical questions and concerns about nuclear power.