Devil's Tango: How I Learned The Fukushima Step By Step

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

These will be just some of the horrifying effects of global warming, if humans don’t make big changes in how we produce our energy. Now that’s a scary thought. Most of our country’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. But there’s a safe and effective solution to this problem: nuclear power. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

Arjun Makhijani, a prominent researcher for The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, claims that today’s emission rate of carbon dioxide is about nine gigatons annually and that the Earth only has the capability to absorb 3 gigatons annually—thus a problem arises. Furthermore, Makhijani states that about 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. With those shocking statistics in mind, fossil fuel’s emission of carbon dioxide is thought to be the leading cause of climate change—which is responsible for irreversible and catastrophic changes to the Earth. Yet, scientist had tremendous difficulty finding a safe, effective, and efficient form of energy supply that will met the great consumption rate. Many prominent scientist suggest that nuclear power is the most plausible explanation and solution to the fuel crisis. However, despite nuclear power having a exponentially lower emission rate, it presents its own hazards and threats—such as the Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incidents. These accidents have many activists and politicians cautious about the prospect of using nuclear power as a complete alternative to fossil fuels—regardless nuclear plants are responsible for 11% of the energy supplied to the world annually (World Nuclear Association.) What many of the activist and politicians seem to overlook is that fossil fuels are an indefinite energy supply and will quite possible run out within

　　　　On contrast, opponents hold different conceptions, they do not regard nuclear energy as a green and clean source of energy. According to Ross(2007), a news director for the National Urban League, fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive and harmful gases to atmosphere, and it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. As a matter of fact, the essential raw material for nuclear nuclear power is uranium, which is a dangerous radioactive element. Opponents also claims that uranium tailing which is byproduct of the procession of getting energy are being inappropriately disposed, which make the situation even worse. On the other hand, after the tragedies of nuclear energy in Chernobyl, three mile island and other district, some people have become more and more impregnable to believe the nuclear energy is dangerous. Dr.

In Susanne Antonetta’s environmental memoir, Body Toxic, she explains the story of two immigrant families who are drawn together from opposite sides of the world, Italy and Barbados, in search of the American dream. Their intentions circulated around building a summer home in the boglands of the New Jersey shoreline. They would soon realize that this is where the rural and industrial waste would gather. The families would enjoy their summertime in the nature that surrounded them, in the trees and in the water. However, the nuclear plant located nearby would soon create problems for the families. Gradually, the family members would begin to notice the effects of radiation on their bodies and the hard future to come.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

When the topic of nuclear weapons, stockpiles, or power plants comes to the forefront, many people automatically associate nuclear materials to terrorist. Because of that association, people automatically think the only dangers faced are when nuclear materials are in the hands of the terrorist. However, that has been proved to be a false assumption as accidents at nuclear stockpiles and power plants pose a far greater danger to American security than the deliberate use of nuclear weapons by terrorist. Throughout the paper, arguments will be constructed backing up the previous statement. The paper will start with a basic understanding of fission and radiation to set the foundation of the basic knowledge of the science behind the subject. Then

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

Rowell’s writing, Ten Reasons Why New Nuclear Was a Mistake- Even Before Fukushima, implements stylistic appeal on all levels involving the rhetorical triangle. Accordingly, delivering logos by citing specific examples to support each of her arguments. She delivered data, statistics and facts in such a way that was informative yet not overkill. Furthermore, she clearly provides evidentiary support to lend credibility to her arguments. Reminded by her perspective that there are clearly many different reasons why nuclear energy is not the first choice of most. In this writing, evidence of pathos evolves rhythmically as the writer appeals to the reader’s emotion by clearly discussing the dangers of nuclear energy. Likewise, the author evokes

Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

The public effects of the Chernobyl disaster were far reaching. First of all, it negatively influenced a number of counties’ domestic opinions regarding nuclear programs. Although nuclear protests were common in the 1970s, by 1986 it had dropped from public scrutiny to the point

This paper will address how the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant violated the following NSPE Canons of Engineering Ethics: holding the paramount of safety, health, and welfare of the public, and avoiding deceptive acts. The misjudgment and underperformance by the engineers during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake caused a large uproar of rejection towards nuclear power in Japan, which could have been prevented if the engineers had not misconducted before the events.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Nuclear energy could be the future of energy and potentially solve the energy crisis problem. Nuclear energy is a sustainable energy source and it can provide millions of times the amount of energy output from a fixed mass of fuel than any other energy source, such as fossil fuel, for the same mass of fuel. Nuclear energy is also very clean for the atmosphere. It produces no greenhouse gases at all. However, nuclear energy can be very harmful to both people and the rest of the natural environment if not managed well. Nuclear meltdowns etc. can release