There is a great depth of curiosity in traversing the unknown, in embarking on journeys where the discoveries far outweigh your greatest expectations. In terms of nuclear power, the journey is still ensuing. Has progress been made? Yes. Have policies been formulated? Yes. Has a vast deal of information been researched? Yes. And yet, the learning continues, and it will be a never-ending process that depends upon harnessing, refining, and innovating nuclear energy and technology. As the old-age adage goes, however, with this learning comes knowledge, and knowledge is power. Power and responsibility, however, are not mutually exclusive prospects, and all three of these components are highly applicable to the atomic energy discussed in Dr. Heinz Haber's, Our Friend the Atom. Haber's book was published by Walt Disney, who opened up Tomorrowland in Disneyland in connection with the book. Why? Well, Disney was fascinated with the progression of science, and the way in which it could benefit and enhance human life. Thus, both the book, its cinematic counterpart, and Tomorrowland were dedicated towards embodying the scientific advancements of the future. The audience of Haber's book, however, is quite unique. Disney was – and is – a universally recognized name, attracting viewers and readers from young toddlers to adults. Specifically, however, the text of Our Friend the Atom, was tailored towards children- children who attended school. The 1950s proctored the expansion of science curriculums into school, and most of the textbooks and materials were geared towards “domesticating” the nuclear bomb, and culturally immersing students into a world of atomic energy. American technology was rapidly changing, and the dynamic nature brought fo... ... middle of paper ... ... follows the “diagnose, evaluate, and prescribe,” method that Entman determines is the integral component of framing (Entman). He diagnoses the problem of nuclear energy by illustrating a fable to emphasize how we wish to master great power- as the Genie, of course, became a symbol of power in terms of Disney- evaluates both perspectives of power, world hunger, and health, and prescribes acceptance and progression of nuclear technology as the solution. This strategic breakdown helps the audience understand, remember, and identify with Haber's claims. Rhetorical arguments in this realm of public policy- nuclear power- are common, and yet it is the way in which people accept or reject these arguments that truly validates the ability of this persuasion. After all, how you phrase something is just as important as what you are phrasing, and who you are phrasing it to.
Smil, V. (2010).Myths in the Headlines: Nuclear Power, Energy: Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate (pp. 150-157). Washington, D.C.: Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute.
...ing of nuclear weapons, because that is how the Cold War started. And the Cold War led to this nation’s depression and it hurt not only our nation, but also the world. This project has opened my eyes to the dangers and uses of nuclear energy and has given me insights on policies and terms associated with nuclear energy in general. Nuclear energy is beautiful and powerful, but it is also destructive and dangerous, and in the wrong hands, deadly. Our world needs nuclear energy, but may be destroyed by nuclear weapons. There is a give and a take, a light and a darkness, and nuclear energy is no exception. What we need is caution, knowledge about nuclear energy, and a plan for the future. This project has given me those things, now I must go out and make the world a better place.
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
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.
...for nuclear power has declined as support for renewable energy has increased. Though nuclear power produces zero energy and is seen by many as a cheap way to reduce the world’s carbon emissions (Kessides 2012), several major factors have affected its support amongst the general population. Incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have forever shifted support away from nuclear power (Burton 2006, Cyranoski & Brumfiel 2011) as governments shift support to renewable energy sources that do not pose the same risk.
Lynas, Mark, and Peter A. Bradford. "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?" The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
Nuclear energy is a tricky topic. At first thought, the word nuclear tends to throw some for a loop, flashing images of deadly “nukes” and atom bombs in their heads. However, nuclear energy can offer a wide array of benefits that can realistically solve the growing energy crisis our planet will soon face, not to mention the many rewards that nuclear research can lead to. As fossil fuels slowly get burned away, where will we turn to next? Yes, there are several renewable sources of energy that can help, but none that are a clean everyday-everywhere solution. Unfortunately, nuclear power is not without its own issues, as no source of energy is perfect. Nuclear energy can be wildly beneficial, both as an energy source and research port, but at what cost?
Today’s world faces many problems. Hunger, war and pollution are some common problems that come to mind. Nuclear energy however, should not have to be one of these problems. Nuclear energy has been around since the early 1950s. Over the years, many have debated whether nuclear-produced energy is any better than other energies such as coal-produced energy. While both sides have their pros and cons, nuclear energy, is the overall worst out of the all the energies being produced.
Folke, L., & Burnette, H.S. (2005, March 28). Burning bright:nuclear energy's futute. Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba511/
our use of nuclear power and how people only look at its technological benefits and how they
“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.
B. Motivate Audience to Listen: When thinking of the term “Nuclear Energy”, many people immediately think it’s very expensive. That is not exactly true, a pound of uranium
Thesis: Nuclear power is a powerful and dangerous source of energy, but it depends on how people choice to use it.
Although it is the irresistible trend to put an end to nuclear power, we could not achieve the nuke-free dream through an immediate action. There are a few essential reasons.
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.