Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. - Sir Isaac Newton
Saturday, November 7, 2009
2009 Nuclear Power - Group 1
10 comments:
392040
said...
This group talked a lot about nuclear weapons as opposed to nuclear power in my opinion. However, they did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this to exist. Some of the nuclear isotopes are uranium and plutonium. The arguments for this were that it would serve as a protection. For example in WWII, it was good to use these methods, because if we had not, then the war could have gone on for a lot longer and many more people would have died. It is better to have "an up" on other countries and to not look vulnerable so that we are not in danger. On the other hand, there were many arguments against it. The two main ones, in my opinion, were that it leads to death and destruction. Others were hair loss, loss of blood cells, cataracts, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, leukemia, birth defects, and infertility. The prosecution makes more sense to me. There are other ways to fight wars, and it leads to many repercussions.
This group adressed nuclear weapons more so than they did their actual topic, nuclear power. The information they did provide, however, was valid. In defense for this technology, the group said that it is used as a defense mechanism. Even if it never needs to be used, it is there if needed. Also, it serves as a source of intimidation for other countries. No one wants to fight a country with bigger and better weapons. The negatives of this technology are that there are serious side effects; both short and long term. Some short term effects are hair loss, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. In the long run, some effects are death and destruction, birth defects, cancer, and infertility. In my opinion, the prosecution makes much more sense. Wars are pointless to begin with, why add even more deadly weapons into the mix?
This group discussed nuclear weapons. They did mention that the radioisotopes used were plutonium and uranium, and that they were found in fallout, but they did not describe how the specific radioisotopes made the technology possible. The defense explained that the weapons were neccesary for our country to have an advantage over other nations, and used the example of WWII. The prosecution pointed out the death and destruction that accompany the use of such technology. Both long term and short term effects can be observed, including hair loss, birth defects, infertility, and leukemia. They also stated that if many of these weapons were used at the same time, the earth would be virtually a barren wasteland. In my opinion, both arguements have important points. Nonetheless, I agree more with the defense because the threat of these weapons can spare many wars.
This group did a good job because their video was both entertaining and very informative. They addressed nuclear weapons, not as much nuclear power. They pointed out the pros: defense mechanism, protection, advantage over other nations and the cons: the serious health effects and just war attached to nuclear weapons. There were more arguments against than for because of such serious health effects. Plus, WWII has shown what happens with nuclear weaponry and although the war might have gone on longer, less people would have died. And today even, the full effects of nuclear weaponry are not known. In the future scientists may discover that the bomb affected generations and generations.
This group addressed nuclear weaponry more than nuclear power. They explained the basis of nuclear weapons: unstable radioisotopes. However the specific unstable isotopes were unclear. The defense was that nuclear weapons are important for protection, they are a defense mechanism. Without them the US would be vulnerable and with them we are protected. However, the argument for this, as one student pointed out, was that nuclear weapons create extremely unhealthy conditions: short term effects like vomiting and diarrhea, but then long term effects of cancer, birth defects, infertility. Nuclear weapons are very scary; Japan is an example of it. While the war may have gone on longer, less people probably would have died. Also, the health problems that are still in place because of the WWII bombing are not fully known, they are still affecting generations. I agree that without weapons the US would be vulnerable against other countries with weapons, but the health risks are serious. If all countries were to give up nuclear weapons it would be best, but it's not so likely. It's best just to have the weapons and use them as just a threat, so I agree with the claim evidence reasoning.
In my opinion this group did a great job hitting all the points needed to be hit. They addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist.They talked about unstable isotopes which are used in the making of weapons. They also spoke about natural isotopes such as uranium and plutonium. The arguments made in defense are that we have weapons to use as intimidation to other countries, and we only need to use them when needed such as in world war 2. They explain that they are only used for protection. The prosecution states many points going against nuclear weapons. They say things such as death to many, absolute destruction wherever it goes off. Also many side effects such as vomiting, hairloss, nausea, and loss of blood cells. In my opinion the prosecutuon stated a better case. They had many details backing them and stated them well in the video. The cons outnumber the pros in this video.
In my opinion this group did a great job hitting all the points needed to be hit. They addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist.They talked about unstable isotopes which are used in the making of weapons. They also spoke about natural isotopes such as uranium and plutonium. The arguments made in defense are that we have weapons to use as intimidation to other countries, and we only need to use them when needed such as in world war 2. They explain that they are only used for protection. The prosecution states many points going against nuclear weapons. They say things such as death to many, absolute destruction wherever it goes off. Also many side effects such as vomiting, hairloss, nausea, and loss of blood cells. In my opinion the prosecutuon stated a better case. They had many details backing them and stated them well in the video. The cons outnumber the pros in this video. 804130
This group addressed the issues of nuclear weaponry and nuclear power. They discussed both the importance of having nuclear weapons for defense and the consequences of their radiation. The threat of nuclear weapons prevents many wars from starting, but they do take their toll on society. The radiation given off from these unstable radioisotopes causes short-term side effects like nausea, vomiting, hair loss, and cataracts. However, radiation can effect generations to come; it has been known to cause life-threatening diseases like cancer, especially leukemia, and birth defects. In making these arguments, this group discussed the specific elements uranium and polotonium. These nuclear isotopes come from the atmosphere. I agree with the defense on nuclear weapons because they prevent many future wars. Yes, they have many horrible side effects, but they aren't used that often so it isn't too much of a problem. 369297
747620- This group address the pros and cons of nuclear power. The video was manily focused on nuclear weapons, which form when an isotope is unstable. The pros of nuclear weapons uinclude defense: for exapmle, if the United States had not dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan, the war could have lasted several years longer. Nuclear weapons are needed in order not to look vulnerable and target-worthy. The cons of nuclear weapson include effects: such as cancer,birth defects, fallout effects, diarrea, nausea,and death itself. However, I believe that nuclear weapons are too deadly with costly effects, effecting many innocent people in the process. There are less destructive to end a war, and if all countries rid of their nuclear weapons, none would seem vulnerable in comparison.
This group strongly addressed the unique nature of radioisotope that allows nuclear power to exist. They explained that in during war the country needed protection and if they were deemed vulnerable that it would be very dangerous. They used Japan as an example of nuclear power and bombing Japan. Nuclear power seemed necessary. There were very bad reasons for nuclear power. It could lead to hair loss, diarrhea, and birth defects. There would be much destruction and death. They discussed long and short term effects as well. They said short team effects were death and destruction but long term effects were the increase of leukemia and birth defects. They also mentioned the radiation for the future and that it was unknown. They talked about if the earth was bombed with nuclear power that the land would just be buried. Agriculture would be horrible and there would be no food. In the end, I agree that nuclear power is horrible technology as we saw in the clip. We saw destruction and people going crazy because of the nuclear power. The long term risks definitely outweigh the short term and the bad evidence of nuclear power is horrible.
10 comments:
This group talked a lot about nuclear weapons as opposed to nuclear power in my opinion. However, they did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this to exist. Some of the nuclear isotopes are uranium and plutonium. The arguments for this were that it would serve as a protection. For example in WWII, it was good to use these methods, because if we had not, then the war could have gone on for a lot longer and many more people would have died. It is better to have "an up" on other countries and to not look vulnerable so that we are not in danger. On the other hand, there were many arguments against it. The two main ones, in my opinion, were that it leads to death and destruction. Others were hair loss, loss of blood cells, cataracts, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, leukemia, birth defects, and infertility. The prosecution makes more sense to me. There are other ways to fight wars, and it leads to many repercussions.
This group adressed nuclear weapons more so than they did their actual topic, nuclear power. The information they did provide, however, was valid. In defense for this technology, the group said that it is used as a defense mechanism. Even if it never needs to be used, it is there if needed. Also, it serves as a source of intimidation for other countries. No one wants to fight a country with bigger and better weapons. The negatives of this technology are that there are serious side effects; both short and long term. Some short term effects are hair loss, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. In the long run, some effects are death and destruction, birth defects, cancer, and infertility. In my opinion, the prosecution makes much more sense. Wars are pointless to begin with, why add even more deadly weapons into the mix?
This group discussed nuclear weapons. They did mention that the radioisotopes used were plutonium and uranium, and that they were found in fallout, but they did not describe how the specific radioisotopes made the technology possible. The defense explained that the weapons were neccesary for our country to have an advantage over other nations, and used the example of WWII. The prosecution pointed out the death and destruction that accompany the use of such technology. Both long term and short term effects can be observed, including hair loss, birth defects, infertility, and leukemia. They also stated that if many of these weapons were used at the same time, the earth would be virtually a barren wasteland. In my opinion, both arguements have important points. Nonetheless, I agree more with the defense because the threat of these weapons can spare many wars.
This group did a good job because their video was both entertaining and very informative. They addressed nuclear weapons, not as much nuclear power. They pointed out the pros: defense mechanism, protection, advantage over other nations and the cons: the serious health effects and just war attached to nuclear weapons. There were more arguments against than for because of such serious health effects. Plus, WWII has shown what happens with nuclear weaponry and although the war might have gone on longer, less people would have died. And today even, the full effects of nuclear weaponry are not known. In the future scientists may discover that the bomb affected generations and generations.
This group addressed nuclear weaponry more than nuclear power. They explained the basis of nuclear weapons: unstable radioisotopes. However the specific unstable isotopes were unclear. The defense was that nuclear weapons are important for protection, they are a defense mechanism. Without them the US would be vulnerable and with them we are protected. However, the argument for this, as one student pointed out, was that nuclear weapons create extremely unhealthy conditions: short term effects like vomiting and diarrhea, but then long term effects of cancer, birth defects, infertility. Nuclear weapons are very scary; Japan is an example of it. While the war may have gone on longer, less people probably would have died. Also, the health problems that are still in place because of the WWII bombing are not fully known, they are still affecting generations. I agree that without weapons the US would be vulnerable against other countries with weapons, but the health risks are serious. If all countries were to give up nuclear weapons it would be best, but it's not so likely. It's best just to have the weapons and use them as just a threat, so I agree with the claim evidence reasoning.
In my opinion this group did a great job hitting all the points needed to be hit. They addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist.They talked about unstable isotopes which are used in the making of weapons. They also spoke about natural isotopes such as uranium and plutonium. The arguments made in defense are that we have weapons to use as intimidation to other countries, and we only need to use them when needed such as in world war 2. They explain that they are only used for protection. The prosecution states many points going against nuclear weapons. They say things such as death to many, absolute destruction wherever it goes off. Also many side effects such as vomiting, hairloss, nausea, and loss of blood cells. In my opinion the prosecutuon stated a better case. They had many details backing them and stated them well in the video. The cons outnumber the pros in this video.
804130
In my opinion this group did a great job hitting all the points needed to be hit. They addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist.They talked about unstable isotopes which are used in the making of weapons. They also spoke about natural isotopes such as uranium and plutonium. The arguments made in defense are that we have weapons to use as intimidation to other countries, and we only need to use them when needed such as in world war 2. They explain that they are only used for protection. The prosecution states many points going against nuclear weapons. They say things such as death to many, absolute destruction wherever it goes off. Also many side effects such as vomiting, hairloss, nausea, and loss of blood cells. In my opinion the prosecutuon stated a better case. They had many details backing them and stated them well in the video. The cons outnumber the pros in this video. 804130
This group addressed the issues of nuclear weaponry and nuclear power. They discussed both the importance of having nuclear weapons for defense and the consequences of their radiation. The threat of nuclear weapons prevents many wars from starting, but they do take their toll on society. The radiation given off from these unstable radioisotopes causes short-term side effects like nausea, vomiting, hair loss, and cataracts. However, radiation can effect generations to come; it has been known to cause life-threatening diseases like cancer, especially leukemia, and birth defects. In making these arguments, this group discussed the specific elements uranium and polotonium. These nuclear isotopes come from the atmosphere. I agree with the defense on nuclear weapons because they prevent many future wars. Yes, they have many horrible side effects, but they aren't used that often so it isn't too much of a problem.
369297
747620-
This group address the pros and cons of nuclear power. The video was manily focused on nuclear weapons, which form when an isotope is unstable. The pros of nuclear weapons uinclude defense: for exapmle, if the United States had not dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan, the war could have lasted several years longer. Nuclear weapons are needed in order not to look vulnerable and target-worthy. The cons of nuclear weapson include effects: such as cancer,birth defects, fallout effects, diarrea, nausea,and death itself. However, I believe that nuclear weapons are too deadly with costly effects, effecting many innocent people in the process. There are less destructive to end a war, and if all countries rid of their nuclear weapons, none would seem vulnerable in comparison.
This group strongly addressed the unique nature of radioisotope that allows nuclear power to exist. They explained that in during war the country needed protection and if they were deemed vulnerable that it would be very dangerous. They used Japan as an example of nuclear power and bombing Japan. Nuclear power seemed necessary. There were very bad reasons for nuclear power. It could lead to hair loss, diarrhea, and birth defects. There would be much destruction and death. They discussed long and short term effects as well. They said short team effects were death and destruction but long term effects were the increase of leukemia and birth defects. They also mentioned the radiation for the future and that it was unknown. They talked about if the earth was bombed with nuclear power that the land would just be buried. Agriculture would be horrible and there would be no food. In the end, I agree that nuclear power is horrible technology as we saw in the clip. We saw destruction and people going crazy because of the nuclear power. The long term risks definitely outweigh the short term and the bad evidence of nuclear power is horrible.
481300
Post a Comment