Nuclear Energy Tucker Summary

This source is clearly invalid for countless reasons, the most prevalent being that it is the opinion of a single individual expressed in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. Another notable flaw is the lack of grammar skills and frequent misspellings of common words. The author, Ms. Rose M Christy, is in adamant opposition to nuclear energy. She demonstrates poor argumentative skills in addition to weak wording, causing her letter to lose any significant

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

Should nuclear energy be used? Throughout the article “Nowhere to go”, the author objectively reviews the use of nuclear energy, using the text and graphics to provide details that demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Nevertheless, the consequences of using nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. One of these consequences is that working with nuclear energy can cause many health problems. The text states, “Dangers include radiation sickness, cancers, and other health problems. High level radioactive waste can present hazards ‘for a million years or more,’ Kamps says.” This means that using nuclear energy can cause health problems for future generations.

William Tucker, author of "Why I still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima" explains, "It's not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days"(Tucker 228). Tucker questions why there is use of harmful nuclear energy when there are better technologies available; in contrast, he then provides examples that prove there are no better alternatives and other energy technologies are equally not without risk. In a five year period, uranium rods sit in a reactor core and transform six ounces of its original weight into energy and as a result obtains the ability to power a large city similarly to the size of San Francisco for five years (Tucker 228). Tucker shows how natural gas, wind mills, solar collectors, and hydroelectric dams are

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

Tucker starts off with common counter arguments used by his peers. He mentions that even after the events of nuclear power damage in Japan, other technologies and substitutions would be in some form of risk. By comparing the natural resources that countries use in day to day life to the harm that they have caused, is his way of justifying his opinion on nuclear energy. An example given by William Tucker is how coal mining killed 100,000 workers in the 20th century, which is still killing an average of six people a day in China, but yet coal is used worldwide. Tucker gives a point concerning Uranium fuel rods, “Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

While Nuclear energy may have been beneficial to the American government and its citizens in some ways, it reshaped the way Americans and the United States Government thought of the role of citizens in Nuclear America. Americans could not rely on their government to keep them safe anymore and the government, through misguided attempts at preserving and improving the citizens’ lives, were putting those very lives at risk.

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.

Overall Mark Kenny's article 'The real debate – pipe-dream or nuclear' presents a persuasive argument however not without flaws. Kenny has gone for a hard hitting article to strongly express his viewpoints and through that has made it to one sided and opinionated which has led to elements of false analogies in his argument along with generalisations. He also verges on quoting out of context when referring to Peter Garrett and makes isolated individual examples through evidence that affects his line of reasoning and the readers validity of his argument due to lack of looking at both sides of the issue in relation to coal-fuelled and nuclear power.

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.

Despite the fact the countries continue to increase the production of nuclear energy, my position is that new nuclear power plants should not continue to be built. The current use of nuclear power should be carefully evaluated with a plan to slowly decrease production throughout the world. The negative implications to the environment and economy support my position.

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.

Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has