There are many ways to create power in the United States; one in particular is nuclear power. The nuclear power industry has caused some controversy over whether nuclear power plants should be continued or shut down. The first article, “Nuclear Power Now,” describes the benefits of nuclear power over conventional coal power plants; however, the second article “Nuclear Power Is Not the Way,” describes the concerns and problems with nuclear power. Looking at the first and second articles, one can conclude that the first article has better supporting details, the second article has better paragraph structure, and the wording both articles is equally convincing. The intention of both articles is to present a stand on nuclear power. The first …show more content…
In the first article, it uses pathos and ethos to de-emphasizing coal-fired power plants while emphasizing nuclear power, “…in the last forty years of this production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of operation of civilian nuclear power plants in the United States. In comparison, many people die in coal mining accidents every year and approximately ten thousand Americans die every year from pollution related to coal burning” (2008, Nuclear, p.64). The use of factual statistics from both nuclear power and coal power industries strengthens the argument for nuclear power. The reason for this is to persuade the reader into believing the articles facts with the appeals of logos and ethos. Another part of the article that is effective is the conclusion, “Until we can successfully educate the American electorate on the real pros and cons of nuclear power, we will not be able to engage in healthy national discussion on the topic” (2008, Nuclear, p.64). Concluding the article in this way shows a strong appeal to ethos by trying to voice the pros and cons of nuclear power. Throughout the first article, the writer always used statistics to compare the nuclear power industry with the coal-fired power industry. By doing this, the first article has better appeals to ethos and to logos to persuade the reader for nuclear …show more content…
We can meet our energy needs though energy efficiency and renewable energy, and have a clean and healthy world without nuclear power” (Pope, 2009, p.64). The starting tactic of article two uses logical ideas to de-emphasize nuclear power, while promoting renewable energy. Unfortunately, the renewable energy idea is short lived, and the article turns more towards appealing to pathos rather than logos, “…there is a risk that nuclear material will fall into the wrong hands. Some have recommended that we consider ‘reprocessing’ of spent nuclear fuel, a method that consolidates waste into weapons-usable plutonium…The more nuclear reactors, the more risk of radioactive material being stolen to make bombs” (Pope, 2009, p.65). Popes tries scaring the readers into believing nuclear power can be a threat to our nation. This is not an effective or right way to persuade the reader in an argument. If Pope had stated factual evidence that terrorists could steal nuclear waste and make bombs, then this would become a valid point, but he does not. Throughout article two, Pope uses some facts, and emotion to persuade the reader against nuclear power. By doing this, Pope had good appeals to logos but a flawed argument with appeals to pathos. Comparing the first
The article “Nuclear Waste” is an interesting perspective from Richard Muller. Muller is a very credited author and he speaks his mind about the situation where people are trying to figure out how to deal with nuclear waste around the U.S. There are many proposed ideas but Muller has a very simple and straight forward idea that he believes is the ideal decision. The essay he wrote can be interpreted in different ways but his motive for writing is very clear. Muller’s background is quite impressive because he is highly credited. When reading Muller’s essay, you notice points that supports his argument and truth about the situation around nuclear power. He brings his outlook on the situation to the audience and conveys that viewpoint convincingly.
Radioactive Waste One of the most talked about opposition to nuclear fission is the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive waste is what is left behind after using a reactor to make electricity. There are two levels of waste, low and high, but both are regulated by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. High level waste is made up of fuel that’s been used directly in the reactor, which is highly radioactive but can still be disposed of. Low-level waste is the contaminated items that have been exposed to radiation.
...ver, it doesn’t answer the question “Can Nuclear Energy Be Green?” The article “Is Nuclear Energy the Solution?” by Milton Saier and Jack Trevors addresses various issues about why nuclear energy is not a good energy source. The article presents a lot of data regard to its sub-argument, and those data is really good support to the argument. The authors compare the Nuclear energy with other energy sources, and state that “between 1000 and 2000 new nuclear reactors would have to be built around the globe to achieve a meaningful impact on CO2 emissions” (446). The author concludes that nuclear energy is not a good energy source to use, due to its costs and risks. In general, the essay presents a good point, but it doesn’t really answer the question. However, the article can be a good supplement to the yes side argument to assess that is nuclear energy really “green.”
Energy is undoubtedly one of the most important issues facing the world today. While fossil fuels may produce enough energy at a low cost, it also has severe environmental impacts on the world. Wind energy is a clean source, but is also extremely expensive to maintain. Nuclear energy may be the best energy alternative to coals and oil, with the ability to produce much more energy with relatively low cost, while also being more environmentally sound.
The use of logic and motivational proofs are also successful in this argumentative article. The authors uses Dallas’s consequences of a nuclear war to strengthen their own argument. The consequences ranged from health care failing, uninhabitable land, to lack of trust in the government which would lead to further destruction (Doyle and Helfand). By using Dallas’s examples the writers are able to state that these events would be impossible to prepare for (Doyle and Helfand). These consequences are acceptable examples of logic and motivational proofs. The authors exploit the advantage of the human need to stay safe by writing the consequences that could virtually wipe us out. The writers continue to claim that during the aftermath of just a few bombs that 2 billion people would be at risk of starvation. The authors back up this claim with a report that was “released in 2013 by the Nobel Laureate International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its U.S. affiliate Physicians for Social Responsibility” (Doyle and Helfand). This is a successful logic and motivational proof that encourages the audience to have increased awareness of the ultimate dangers of a nuclear war and begin using steps to prevent them. Another exceptional example of the use of logic is how the authors claim that even using all of the money from the U.S. defense budget to build a Nuclear Global Health Workforce would be useless (Doyle and Helfand). The writers back up this claim by stating a source named “Medical Implications of Nuclear
Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.
After the United States developed the atomic at the end of World War II, interest in nuclear technology increased exponentially. People soon realized that nuclear technology could be used for electricity, as another alternative to fossil fuels. Today, nuclear power has its place in the world, but there is still a lot of controversy over the use of nuclear energy. Things such as the containment of radiation and few nuclear power plant accidents have given nuclear power a bad image. However, nuclear power is a reliable source of energy because it has no carbon emissions, energy is available at any time, little fuel is needed for a lot of energy, and as time goes on, it is becoming safer and safer.
The purpose of this report is to investigate the different views and opinions on the safeness and cost effectiveness of nuclear power compared to other forms of energy. This report will explain the issues and background of the debate, the importance of the issue, and the parties who are involved in this debate with their thoughts.
“Face it. Nukes are the most climate-friendly industrial-scale form of energy” (Power, Reiss, Pearlstein, 655). This statement is what I’m trying to promote through my argument. It also ties Inconvenient Truths: 10 Green Heresies by Matt Powers, Spencer Reiss, and Jonanna Pearlstein and Nuclear Power is Best Energy Source: Potchef Stroom together by bring out the main point all authors are trying to get across. Global warming has been a big concern for years now and one of the biggest causes for it, is the burning of fossil fuels to get energy. People that live in the United States of America use a huge amount of energy in their daily lives and that amount continues to grow with our population growing with it. My purpose of this piece is to persuade people to switch to nuclear power for a cleaner energy source because it’s the cleanest energy source.
Media coverage of such cases have made the public less comfortable with the idea of moving further towards nuclear power and they only opt for reducing human activities to reduce global warming. It is true that there have been some notable disasters involving nuclear power, but compared to other power systems, nuclear power has an impressive track record. First, it is less harmful and second, it will be able to cater for the growing world population. Nuclear power produces clean energy and it delivers it at a cost that is competitive in the energy market (Patterson). According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are currently 65 such plants in the Unite States (National Research Council). They produce 19 percent of the total US energy generation.
Something always curious and provoking happens in science writing. Gwyneth Cravens is an author of five novels and many publications, and one who studies a topic in great detail. She creates an enormous work about nuclear energy for the last decade. Cravens’s research in her last published book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy has led her to do an about-face on the issue. In her article “Better Energy” which was published in May 2008 in Discover magazine, she disputes and claims that nuclear energy is currently best alternative and should be considered as our future energy source. At the beginning “Better Energy” she commences by introducing James Lovelock, who was greatly honored in the green movement for creating the Gaia hypothesis, which combines everything on earth as entirely organic. In the past Lovelock opposed nuclear energy. Unfortunately, to his fans, he changed his views beginning to support nuclear energy. Throughout the article Cravens goes with the explanation how the use of nuclear energy will be able to soft issue about global warming. Current fossil fuel power plants cause serious health problems in thousands of Americans, furthermore, continue to drive the warming. She tries to prove to the audience that currently there is no possibility that U.S. nation can use any of renewable energy sources such as the wind and sun (in which she looks to find common with public views about this case), and that nuclear energy is safe, and this is the best option to get the necessary amount of needed energy.
In 1945, when the Americans bombed Hiroshima, Japan, approximately 140,000 men and women were instantly killed by the effects of American nuclear defense. With such extreme brutality and force how many people must die for one to finally realize the strengths of nuclear bombs and what damage they can cause. Nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they kill thousands of innocent humans at a time, destroy the environment, and inviolate human’s right to moral and personal freedoms.
The use of nuclear power in the mid-1980s was not a popular idea on account of all the fears that it had presented. The public seemed to have rejected it because of the fear of radiation. The Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union in April of 1986 reinforced the fears, and gave them an international dimension (Cohen 1). Nevertheless, the public has to come to terms that one of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Fear of radiation may push nuclear power under the carpet but another fear of the unknown is how costly is this going to be? If we as the public have to overcome the fear of radiation and costly project, we first have to understand the details of nuclear energy. The known is a lot less scary then the unknown. If we could put away all the presumptions we have about this new energy source, then maybe we can understand that this would be a good decision for use in the near future.
Nuclear power, the use of exothermic nuclear processes to produce an enormous amount of electricity and heat for domestic, medical, military and industrial purposes i.e. “By the end of 2012 2346.3 kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity was generated by nuclear reactors around the world” (International atomic energy agency Vienna, 2013, p.13). However, with that been said it is evident that the process of generating electricity from a nuclear reactor has numerous health and environmental safety issues.
Nuclear energy is generated by a process called fission. Fission occurs within the reactor of a nuclear power plant when a neutron is fired at an atom of uranium causing it to split and release subsequent neutrons.1 These are able to crash into other uranium atoms causing a chain reaction and releasing a great deal of heat energy.