Please follow the directions given in class to read the following link:
http://www.2facts.com/icof_story.aspx?PIN=i1500270
If that link doesn't work, try this one:
http://www.fofweb.com/Demo
Same login/username as given in class. Go to the right, issues/controversies, and then select the link on nuclear power.
After reading, answer ONE of the following. Clearly label and restate the question. Use correct language mechanics. Clearly answer the question, and use details from the article to support your answer.
1) Is it irresponsible of the U.S. government to support nuclear power which produces dangerous nuclear waste, instead of sustainable technologies, like solar power and wind energy? Why or why not?
2) Is nuclear energy the best option for America's energy needs, or is it merely the most convenient option? Explain your answer.
3) Of all the reasons in support of nuclear power, which one do you find the most compelling, and why?
4) Of all the arguments made against nuclear power, which one do you think is the strongest, and why?
It is irresponsible of the U.S. government to support nuclear power which produces dangerous nuclear waste, instead of sustainable technologies, like solar power and wind energy, because it can cause "pollution" to different bodies of water. Also, the U.S. government can have big problem with other governments, and possibly effected societies. The radio action can harm, or poisen the water used by people, and things imported can be radio active, and also hirt users. this can cause many other problems, and mainly I think that it would be completely dumb for the U.S. to support this nuclear power. Finally, there needs to be something done about this issue.
ReplyDelete1)I agree with Gaquise. It is irresponsible of the U.S. government to support nuclear power which produces danderous nuclear waste because Nuclear power plants and nuclear waste could be used for for terrorist attacks. In my opinion, nuclear energy just adds on to a list of things that produce pollution. With todays economy, the U.S. needs to think more logically and find another way to help society. I also agree with Gaquise about using money on solar energy and wind energy. If nuclear waste were to spill out, everyone would get cancer and die slowly. Isn't the disaster in Japan proof enough? The reactors in the power plant are damaged and radiation is spreading through the food and water.The U.S. cut off the imports from Japan which affected the economy as well. Japans pretty much isolated and there is nothing we can do about it accept send donations and pray for them. The bottom line is: nuclear energy isn't the answer. The U.S. just needs to put more time,money, and effort on working on a cause that could actually benefit the country. Someone just needs to stand up and tell the U.S. not to support nuclear energy.
ReplyDelete4.) Of all arguements, I think the one that is strongest is that nuclear power is dangerous and expensive. For example, an opposor may say that nuclear power can stay radioactive for thousands of years. This arguement could be backed up with scientific evidence. Another statement that can be said is that nuclear power can cause environmental contamination. Again, this fact can be backed up with scientific proof. Lastly, opposors with this arguement can easily appeal to the doubt link. When presented with this arguement, a person will begin to wonder. It will be from the simple fact that this was an unknown fact.
ReplyDeleteKarion V
ReplyDeleteOf all reasons to support nuclear power, I think the best is that it gives the community power and energy from the earth. Eveyone needs energy but this is best source to get it. The world cannot survive with out power and energy. Energy provides us with heat and with out heat we can die. If nuclear energy was the last source of energy on earth I woulkd use even though its putting us in harm because if we dont we will die. Some people are scared of this energy but if it was the only sourde I would use. I would only perfer using this energy if all other energy sources are not availlable and I would keep a extra source of all energy including nuclear for emmergencies.
Nuclear power is the most conveniant to the U.S. This can also be dangerous to the environment. Radiation can be active for many years and cause health problems.I would also have to agree with Gaquise because of the pollution caused by nuclear power. There shouldn't be so many nuclear power plants in any country. I don't know if anyone can tear down powerplants.I also think we should find another energy source.
ReplyDelete1) I also agree with Gaquise and Kai. I think that the U.S. government getting involved with this issue will just make it bigger than what it already is. As Gaquise said , it will affect the water used by people and it will also affect babies and they will have to adapt to a new life style. The U.S. government isn't thinking about the "what ifs". What I mean is, they are not thinking about what would happen if their plan doesn't go as smoothly as planned. Japan didn't expect what happened to happen, at least not at that period of time and they are still to this day regreting it because they are putting many people from miles and mile away in danger. They are only thinking about their actions not the consequences. But, the consequences are what make the actions so powerful or meaningless.
ReplyDeleteWell I agree with both sides of the situations.I mean it is bad that the U.S is using dangerous nuclear energy that may seem very harmful. But,It is considered to be the best waay for the word to meet the world's energy needs. This nuclear power seems to be the only source needed right now.Many others would write that this would only be necessary for weapons. But the U.S says it"s needed write now, and I believe them. They are having hard times with money, but they are discovering new ways to help the people of the U.S. I don't know if they would be wrong, and the nuclear watse would spread a disease(probably cancer), but we are going to have to find out for sure. So these are the reasons why I agree with both siddes of the situation.
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy is the most convenient option for America. I say this because it has less concerns versus oil and coal which emits air pollution.Also it produces mass energy in greater volumes. The cons of this situation is that radiation from reactor could cause cancer for all humans and it would spread. Then the radiation could cause harm to humans and we would all be gone due to this.
ReplyDeleteEnia Gregory
2.) I think that nuclear energy is not the best option for America's needs. i think that because Japan used nuclear energy from the nuclear power plant and once it was damaged it spread radiation. I think it's a bad idea because unless we want to end up like Japan we shouldn't use the nuclear power plant. Once it is damaged it coyld spread and cause all types of diseases. If I had to decide, I would leave everything exactly the same as it is today. Nuclear power would be a bad idea.
ReplyDelete1. Well this is a whole different problem. This generates many levels of pollution and can harm people. Unlike solar energy and wind energy their aren't a lot of problems. Just because the expenses are low doesn't mean they're not a risk. obama says (quote)"if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we're going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them. We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas, instead of here in the United States of America." We cannot afford be be behind and we must increase our employment rate we have to get a budget plan so america must minus harmful things like this.
ReplyDeleteBrennan Wamble
ReplyDeleteIt is irresponsible of the U.S. to support nuclear power. It is bad because we need to use our money in good ways. Such as the examples that Ms. Sullivan like solar power and wind energy. I find these resources of technology more useful in the cases of modern day technology. The only thing nuclear bombs are useful for is in the case of war. Now as Kai said these nuclear bombs can cause terrorists attacks. Now til what extent? Are you trying to say that having these nuclear bombs will make other countries like China be afraid of us because we have these nuclear bombs and they think we will strike them.
I also like Kai's comment on how money is going to be used in this theory. I mean nuclear bombs have got to cost alot of money. What if something tragic happend and the nuclear bomb would have just happened to spill and spread out across the country. When Kai said this I thought that the economy would not be affected all by itself. We people would be put in harms way too. As we all know if something like a nuclear bomb were to spill we would all die of a disease. I am not positive of what disease it might cause. Now just listing these examples do you see all the problems a nuclear bomb can cause.
Now I am interpreting this information with Japan. Now you know something bad happened in Japan with the nuclear reactors. Although it was not as bad as the earthquake it hurt some citizens in Japan. One guy stepped in the liquid the nuclear reactors poured out and had to go to the hospital. See now look how much damage thses nuclear reactors have caused. Now the United States is choosing to be apart of this. Now it is up to them to support it, but listening to my reasoning wouldn't you think it would be sort of a bad idea to have these nuclear reactors here in the United States possibly damaging many materials in the United States.
AmariBrown-playnogames
ReplyDelete1. I think it is very irresponsible of the U.S. to have nuclear power. What will happen if there is a horrible earthquake like in Japan? What happens if this make a nuclear power plant meltdown? There will possibly be a chance for radiation to get into our food and water. This can cause horrible and slow deaths around that place. Then we are low on important materials needed to live and grow. Then without what we need, we can die. Not just people but our country. Our lives, our babies. My just had a baby the other day. You don't know how painful it would be if she died. Not just to my aunt but the entire family. This would be the same for all families. We need to do what is best for all people. This is why it is so irresponsible, dangerous, and horrible for these nuclear power plants.
1.) I do and don't believe that the United States is being irresponsible for using the nuclear plants. I do believe they are being irresponsible because, not to be against to the US, but usually, situations don't come out right. The outcome sometimes backfires in the United States. I believe that something to Japan may happen similarly to the United States. The only difference is that the United States hasn’t had an earthquake and then a tsunami right after another. I believe will lose millions of dollars. I say this because we will do what we did to Japan-excluding some products made in Japan. The U.S.’s government is already bad. Although we are recovering, it is still bad.
ReplyDeleteI believe that more people will be effected and more animals will become endangered. I believe this because if something were to happen to the power plant, then the population around it would have to move. Then, the cities would get more crowded, resources would cost more, tax would get higher.
I believe that more animals would be endangered because if the humans move, then something else has to move. Humans are worried about animals and other living things after worrying about themselves. So, if human things need space, something else will have to move. Whether that is property, animals, or whatever is in their way. Speaking of animals, many animals will die from the RADIATION.RADIATION will be the #1 thing that cause deaths and endangering of something happens. It will endanger more animals and humans.
The good part of the United States is it's trying to make a change. It is using different methods to keep the United States stable. We are past jobs and health more about how we are going to keep stable throughout this year and (hopefully) the years to come.
1) Yes it is irresponsible of the government to support nuclear power. Simple things like a miscalculation could lead to a nuclear disaster. Also something as large scale as an earthquake could take place. I really do not think that the government is thinking about the dangers of nuclear power. The government needs to take the unspoken advice being broadcasted through Japan. This crisis is saying that nuclear power is not safe. Not only is the government not being safe but is also being dangerous and extremely risky with the citizens of the U.S and the people of the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the government is going to use nuclear power the people who supported it do not need to be in office. Including President Obama. I am glad that he made a great achievement becoming the first black president and all but he is not making good decisions. We have our own reason not to use nuclear power. Our very own disaster. The Chernobyl crisis. This is a prime example of a miscalculation. I hope the government decides to make better decisions.
Amber G.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Enia. Although nuclear power is more convineint we will have to pay for the use of it in the future. Not only will these lead to a cancer outbreaks,but future genarations will have to clean up radio actvity.As far as pollution, global warming is already a major topic and though we should stop our impact on global warming,nuclear energy is not the way to go about it. I also wanted to say about Micheal's comment nuclear energy is not the only way to meet the worlds energy needs. Solar energy is another safe and available energy source. Although it is expensive its less then the ending cost of years of use of nuclear energy. I feel taking a risk with more nuclear power plants is costy because there is a big chance we end up like the situation in Japan. That would only leave the US in debt we can already not pay and a raplidy plummuting population. This will later in turn take the US from its so-called #1 government position in the world. I also want to disagree with Gaquise's comment that this is dumb. If the government needs more time we should allow it. However, they don't have 28 years to think about it. I guess my over all comment is with all the problems in the US and other countries nuclear energy is not a subject to think lightly on, for this will effect the future and is certainly not balderdash.However there are better options such as solar power. Solar power has its own pros and cons. Nuclear energy is one topic that is unbictious and certainly not picayune and is not a lillipute figure in todays politics.
1. I think that it is irresponsible to support nuclear power which produces dangerous nuclear waste, instead of sustainable technologies, like solar power and wind energy.I agree with Gaquise that it can also cause pollution. I think this because if the government support it, it will become more dangerous.I think this because if they keep supporting it,more people will get hurt. Also, because solar power and wind energy are more important. I think this because the nuclear waste is harming everything. Also because there will be a lot of more things happening if the people keep supporting the nuclear plant.Finally, because it will hurt the people and people will leave.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the arguments made against nuclear power, I would have to agree that the ones more expensive should be the strongest. This is the same thing with gas. The gas that costs more should be the one that keeps your car running the longest. If nuclear power is stronger when being expensive, I would say it would be better to use it in tasks that would be more expensive, like war. Nuclear power should be used in war. If it kills nearly 70,000 or 20,000 people at a time, then yes, it absolutely should be used in wars. Considering how much radition it could put on people, it would make more sense to use it in wars, or to show domination. I would always agree that it make more sense to use the strongest nuclear power in war, using the most expensive nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteI think that they should not support and reduce nuclear waste.If the Government support it then that will provide more nuclear waste.They should cut back on nuclear power and go to focus on Solar energy because there is no end to the sun.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power is most effective to all Americans. They shouldn't support nuclear waste. They need to stop nuclear waste then that starts pollution. They should use more solar energy.
ReplyDeleteBy,Nyaree P.
I say that is is irresponsible of the US to use nuclear power. It is dangerous. If solar energy and wind could have the same effect then it is irresponsible. Sometimes the US does not think things through. Sometimes they do not think at all. In this case I think they are not thinking at all. At least Germany knew to think about the situation. We are here being happy the Japan incident didn't happen to us. Next time it could be the other way around. People being sorry for us because we were too stupid to think this nuclear situation through. If these people have brains they should use them and their degrees.
ReplyDeleteI think the United States should not set nuclear power plants. The U.S. would be like another Japan. If we do decide to set up nuclear plants and a country like Japan drops an atomic bomb near the plants, things will not be pretty good. It will be radiation in the air and the water. (There will be no bright side) I totally disagree with Mr. Obama. I really hope the plants don't get set up. It might be hard to cool down the reactors and something else bad may happen. If a bomb was dropped near the plants, water would be needed to cool down the plants when they over heat. After that step, that certain plant can never be used again. I also think we should go green and stop using energy sources that can hurt the planet. We should use solar power to light everything because it is renewable, while others are not.
ReplyDeleteThe book I read was titled Extra Credit. This was about a girl named Abby, and a boy named Sadeed. Both of these kids were the same age, but had different stories. Abby was failing the sixth grade. Sadeed felt trapped, due to the unfairness of his city, which was that only girls were able to send letters and have pen pals. So, their two worlds collided as they both became part of a system, where you had to have a pen pal. With this program, Abby could get enough extra credit to pass the sixth grade, and Sadeed was able to have fairness [secretly].
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, story I had a lot of questions. For example, I was curious about what was going on in Sadeed’s home in Kabul, Afghanistan. Also, did she ever get any pictures of her pen pal? Plus, did Abby ever wonder about Sadeed beyond the letters. As I read on, many of my questions were answered, and the answers weren’t what I expected.