sldkfjkdlsf

Now that we have established Schlesinger's thesis and rebuttal, we must ensure that they are, in fact, strong arguments. Schlesinger provides two reasons in support of his thesis:

1. Nuclear power is safe because it has the same risks as those everyday risks accepted by society.

2. Nuclear power is safe because its purpose is to primarily provide an alternative source of heat, not function as a sensationalized association with the atomic bomb.

We have discussed both of these supporting reasons briefly while analyzing the audience of the text. Schlesinger validates the safety of nuclear power by immediately recognizing that unforeseen perils are a fact of life. He utilizes the analogy of flying on an airplane to support his claim. What society desires, he emphasizes, “is assurance that the aircraft is properly designed and will be properly operated” (JCAE 6). Under these circumstances, Schlesinger acknowledges that “flying in an aircraft is not much more risky than walking across the street,” which encompasses some risk in itself (JCAE 6). The assurance that these daily activities are safe is an applicable principle to the design and operation of nuclear reactors. Since there is “no absolute certainty of anything,” Schlesinger claims that we must operate on statistical probability – we must reason via a statistical framework that the levels of risk are tolerable and improbable (JCAE 7). By comprehending the safety of the design and operation of nuclear reactors, and ensuring that they are, indeed, designed and operated in a secure manner, the levels of risk to society are low. The probability of an accident, in the same accord, is likewise low. By the same logic used to describe the aircraft situation, Schlesinger concludes that ...

... middle of paper ...

...s this is a personal discussion, that I have been a skeptic about nuclear power in the past […] I have changed with regard to my personal perspective for three reasons” (JCAE 7). It is interesting to note that his utilization of the word “discussion” creates an entirely different as opposed to if Schlesinger had utilized terms like “speech” or “testimony.” Why? Well, an acknowledgement of the term “discussion” demonstrates a willingness for a two-sided discourse in which Schlesinger is willing to consider alternative options – even if he were to rebut them at a later time. This open-mindedness and genuine inclination to listen to the members of the JCAE creates an atmosphere of respect and authenticity within the hearing, and strengthens the validation of Schlesinger's argument because he has indeed considered all possible areas prior to formulating his argument.