Nuclear Energy, the Dummy Explanation

Nuclear energy, Gabe, not "bombs"

From time to time in our research we run across well-meaning – but clueless – college-kid freelancers who fail to understand the difference between proselytizing and informing. This has been especially true of the more controversial topics like fracking and GMOs, and today we discovered another topic: nuclear energy. We'll acknowledge the nuclear disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl and the near-disaster at 3-Mile Island, but we submit that attempting to answer the question "What Is the Importance of Nuclear Energy?" by referencing Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems... hyperbolic to us. That's just what Gabriel Dockery did for Sciencing.com.

It's our opinion that to address the question at hand, one needs to discuss energy in its entirety, and where nuclear energy fits into the very real issue of global climate change and the balance between fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Dockery, frankly, didn't have much (if anything) to say on the topic. Instead, Gabe babbled about the dangers of nuclear weapons, invoking the bombs not once but three times and radiation twice. Oddly, he never mentioned either of the major nuclear power plant accidents known at the time (he cobbled his post together in 2009, two years before Fukushima).

Instead of offering information – nuclear power plants do not contribute greenhouse gases, and could be a tool in weaning society away from fossil fuels – Dockery instead babbled incoherently and, unfortunately, absent much knowledge of the science involved. His ignorance appears in typical misinformation and misstatements, such as,

• "...there are three production methods for nuclear energy: radioactive decay, fusion and fission. " – To our uncertain knowledge, no one uses radioactive decay as a "production [method] for nuclear energy." It seems a rather unlikely power source...
• "Nuclear energy itself is everlasting and does disappear [sic] unless it is converted into another energy form [sic]. " – Wait, what? A) that doesn't make any sense, and B) by definition radioactive decay diminishes over time. Had Gabe never heard of a half life?
• "Nuclear energy aids in many medical procedures, such as nuclear MRI technology." – Ummm, Gabriel? Medical tests (not "procedures") do not use "nuclear energy"; they use radioactive elements to improve imaging and detection.

• "...nuclear energy produced in nuclear power plants provides power for countless people in many countries, while reducing the need of ozone-depleting fossil fuels..." – Gabe, Gabe, Gabe: the larger problem of fossil fuel usage is greenhouse gases, not ozone depletion. Yet you used neither the word "climate" nor "greenhouse"!
• "Nuclear energy exposure leads to many pathologies in humans and other animals..." – That sounds as if operating a toaster with electricity generated at a nuclear power plant can cause cancer. You idjit, you've confused nuclear energy with radioactivity!

Our wannabe neuroscience major's grasp of some of the most simple aspects of nuclear physics suggests that he probably needed to take a few more basic science course before writing semi-technical articles for eHow.com. He didn't, however, so he's just earned himself a sparkling new Dumbass of the Day award. We certainly hope that, as he continued in his schooling, Dockery learned that nuclear energy is not the same thing as nuclear physics. We somehow doubt it...

SI - PHYSICS