This process, called labeling, strikes fear in the hearts of most farmers who are afraid that an uninformed American public will steer clear of the GM crops “just to be on the safe side.” The fact of the matter is that Americans have been eating these altered crops since 1995 and no one has been harmed. This simple albeit somehow debatable fact did not stop one interest group from taking out several full-page ads in the New York Times warning of the dangers of these newfangled foods (Isserman, 2001). This, like many technological advances has met much resistance, but it will ultimately be accepted and change the face of agriculture. The decision of whether to produce GM crops is based more on politics than on practice. Farmers are not interested in deciding which type of crop is better for consumers, better for the environment, or better for the world, but instead are only concerned with which type of crop consumers are willing to buy.
The Ozone Layer - A Philosophy of Science Perspective. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Grundmann, Reiner. Transnational Environmental Policy - Reconstructing Ozone. London/New York: Routledge, 2001.
All Rights Reserved. Robinson, Arthur B. and Jane M. Orient. “Science, Politics and Death.” The New American 20.12 (June 2004): 37 par. 24 November 2004 http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm Taylor, Jerry. “Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate.” Diss.
Global Ecological Integrity and "Sustainable Development": Cornerstones of Public Health. World Health Organization, European Centre for Environment and Health, Rome Division. Wackernagel, M., and William, R. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC. 1994. Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 2000.
In addition, the demand and competition for oil in a near future will eventually be too great for the supply; indeed, our lifestyles are currently based on inefficient energy devices. This includes automobiles and electric appliances that require high consumption energy-based industrial processes. However, experience in the field of energy has shown that nuclear power is an alternative for our future needs. Further, of all the electricity generating methods, nuclear is the cleanest. This is a fact from mining of the uranium ore to final disposal of the wastes.
Nuclear Energy: The Future Energy Source America uses a lot of energy to supply electricity to millions of homes and businesses and needs an energy source that will supply an abundant amount of power but is also efficient. Nuclear energy is a reliable and efficient energy source that America can use. Fossil fuels and other resources used in the United States are running out or are very expensive. Nuclear power will provide a cost effective and long term power supply. America should use nuclear energy because of its many benefits which are environmental benefits, economic benefits, safety, power production, and reliability.. Nuclear power is a potential energy source for America because of its many economic benefits.
The United States Must Abandon Nuclear Power The United States must re-examine many policies previously accepted as reasonable, especially its own national energy policy. As the largest overall and per capita energy consumer in the world, the U.S. needs to decide upon a reasonable source of energy for the foreseeable future, especially since its energy needs will increase dramatically during that time. With political instability likely to remain the norm in the Middle East, oil continues to be an energy source of questionable reliability; in addition, current estimates of worldwide reserves suggest we may in fact run out of oil entirely in the next fifty years. Natural gas reserves are in fairly short supply too, and costs limit its uses as well. Another major alternative, coal, has become the nation’s leading energy source (providing more than 55% of the country’s electricity), and projected supplies could last for hundreds of years (Sweet 49).
I wish to highlight some negatives associated with nuclear reactors with appropriate focus on health and environmental impacts. The interesting thing about nuclear energy is that it has become a very integral part of the energy sector within such a short period of time. The process is relatively simple in theory but also very complex in its application. The process involves generating large amounts of heat/energy from either a fusion reaction (fusing together smaller elements to produce heavier ones) or a fission reaction (which involves breaking down heavier elements into smaller one). The efficiency of these reactions are so high that relatively very little amounts of these elements is needed to produce tremendous amounts of energy.
Effects of Atomic Radiation A Half-Century of Studies From Hiroshima and Nagasaki. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 1995. Bibliography: WORKS CITED Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture Of an American Myth. Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1995.