Yes I believe that the group did dress the unique nature of radioisotopes and how they can be used for power. The arguments used in defense for nuclear power is that is provides alot of power.For example, it provides homes with electricity. It also does not release any carbon. The arguments used in prosecution of nuclear power is that it is radioactive and there are many health effects. For example, it can cause cancer and other diseases and it can also pollute rivers for many years. There is also a problem with radioactive waste management. The arguments of the prosecution made more sense to me because of the major health risks of nuclear power and the large amounts of radioactive waste.
Group 2 addressed the application of radioisotopes in Nuclear Power. The defense argues that Nuclear Power provides a great deal of energy. The opposition however, shows that Nuclear Waste, left unproperly managed, can cause serious health problems to those who live near it. In this case, I would side with the defense, because modern safety procedures can eliminate health risks to the general public.
Yes this group did adress the nature of a radioisotope in nuclear power. The arguments in defense of nuclear power is that it creates a lot of power for many different uses. The prosecution argued that nuclear power can cause many health problems like cancer and produces large amounts of nuclear waste. In this case i would side with the prosecution because of the health risks and the waste. 640640
In my opinion this group did a very nice job adressing the unique nature of a radioisotope. They presented the nuclear power technology in a coherent manner. I specifically liked the demonstration on fussion, using the hair tie. They defended nuclear technology by informing the viewer that it can provide large amounts of power without releasing carbon. Though this seems beneficial I would have to say I tend to agree with the opposition as it shows how nuclear power can have a negative impact on the environment and human health. Without knowing for sure how to get rid of nuclear waste and the effects it can have on humans, like cancer and deformaties, it would not be in our best interest to use this widely.
This group talked about the issue of nuclear power. Over time elements decay. In the case of uranium, they are unstable and the nucleus splits apart and energy is formed. Then that energy warms water which turns to steam which then turns a turbine then turns a generator that creates electricity. Fission is used in nuclear power plants which makes a larger nuclei break into two and it emits energy. However, a downside is that waste is emitted and it is dangerous. The bombs dropped on cities in Japan for example, caused cancer to spread throughout mnay years. if the half-life of the element could be reduced it would be better. A fusion reaction combines two nuclei into one. This is safer, cleaner, but requires a temperature higher than the center of the sun and pressure made by something like magnetic fields to fuse them together. No carbon would be emitted into the air. Nuclear power would be better in my opinion if a way that fusion could be used would become more readily available. Fission is too dangerous. 305900
This group did adress the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear power to exist. There were many points of defense exhibited in this group's presentation of nuclear power along with prosecutions.The defense of nuclear power, as stated in this presentation, seems to be that nuclear power provides a vast amount of energy to the world and is very crucial to everyday life. The downfalls to nuclear power is that the nuclear waste is very harmful to humans and it has caused many illnesses along with some deaths. The defense arguement makes the most sense to me because nuclear power is neeeded in everyday life and with modern technologies, health and safety procedures can be altered to protect indivudals from nuclear waste better.
This group did successfully address the unique nature of radioisotopes that allows nuclear power to exist.
The defenses argument was that nuclear power provies a ton of energy.
The prosecution argues that nuclear waste, if it is not delt with properly, can be hazardous and extremely dangerous to the health of the people around it.
I think the prosecutor's argument makes more sense because it is much more important for the health of the public to be concerned for.
This group did a great job telling all the details of nuclear power plant how they work and some of the effects. There weren't too many arrguments in favor other than they're working on new nuclear power plants that use fusion not fission. The protestors gave facts about the cancers and other chronic diseases caused from nuclear radiation from the power plant waste. Both sides of the arrguement make sence, we may need nuclear power to get away from fossil fuel power but it also has deadly effects and we need better processes to get rid of waste if we keep the power plants going.
I believe tis group did address the unique nature in radioisotopes. Advantages in using nuclear power include more elecricity and power. Dissadvantages are that there is a lot of radiation and can cause many problems to the health of people. The defense makes more sense to me because without nuclear power we wouldnt have all the energy to power our homes.
This group did in fact address the unique nature of a radioisotope in nuclear power. The advantages discussed are the excessive amount of power, as well as not releasing carbon into the atmosphere. However, it does provide nuclear waste, that can be very harmful to people and the environment if not properly taken care of. As a result, people can contract cancer, and other deadly diseases. I believe that nuclear power was represented as being too dangerous, and would need more improvements before using it on a large scale.
This group provided enough information about radioisotopes in order to give the viewer a better grasp of how this technology works. Those defending the use of nuclear power seem to have two main arguments. One is the obvious practicality of nuclear power, in that it creates massive amounts of energy. The other argument was that with reach into fusion technologies, the field of nuclear power will become even cleaner and more efficient. Like many of those opposed to nuclear power, the protestor pointed to some very horrific events in histroy in which nuclear power failed and affected the surrounding communities. The argumentation of the defense of nuclear power appeared to be more sound to me because advancements are being made in nuclear power and the technology used during those meltdowns was different then the technology that is being used today. 233715
this group talked about the nature of radioactive isotopes specific to power. They said that radio isotopes are atoms that decay over time and that we have no control over how each atom decays which creates the problem of nuclear waste management. This group did a good job on explaining how fission and fusion works. Fission is the breaking up of nuclei and fusion is the putting together of nuclei. They explained how Indian Point works: uranium fuel rods have unstable atoms that decay and as they decay energy is released which creates a steam which makes a turbine move which creates power for a lot of homes. The cons of this argument is that it is very dangerous. The protester explained the devastation at hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people recieved cancer from the radiation given off by these two bombs. She also talked about devastation in Russia and how thousands of people were exposed to radiation. She talked about a tragic story of a little girl who was diagnosed with downsyndrome at birth and had to get her fingers seperated. They talked about in France how they are trying to make the future of nuclear power more effective and efficient. I believe that the cons outweigh the pros and nuclear power should not be used until their is a safer way to go about it. Too many people are getting hurt from this method of creating power.
The defense states that nuclear power is good because it provides us with a great deal of power, and doesn't emit any carbon into the air. However, the prosecution shows us that it needs a temperature higher than the sun, and can give people cancer and other health problems. This is similar to nuclear weapons. People are torn on if it is good or bad. Looking at the information given in the video i personally believe that we would be better off without nuclear power simply because it can cause many more health problems than there would be without it.
This group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope.
The defense states that nuclear power has an abundant amount of energy and seems to be more cleaner and not releasing carbon into the atmosphere. The opposing side shows that its very unsafe for the enviorment and can be dangerous for peoples health. I think the opposing side makes more sense to me because nuclear power is dangerous and for the safety off people it shouldn't be used.
17 comments:
This group did address the unique nature if radioisotopes.
Advantages: provides alot of power, releases no carbon,
Disadvantages: radioactive waste management, nuclear waste is radioactive.
The defense of the nuclear power made more sense to me.
Yes I believe that the group did dress the unique nature of radioisotopes and how they can be used for power. The arguments used in defense for nuclear power is that is provides alot of power.For example, it provides homes with electricity. It also does not release any carbon. The arguments used in prosecution of nuclear power is that it is radioactive and there are many health effects. For example, it can cause cancer and other diseases and it can also pollute rivers for many years. There is also a problem with radioactive waste management. The arguments of the prosecution made more sense to me because of the major health risks of nuclear power and the large amounts of radioactive waste.
Group 2 addressed the application of radioisotopes in Nuclear Power.
The defense argues that Nuclear Power provides a great deal of energy. The opposition however, shows that Nuclear Waste, left unproperly managed, can cause serious health problems to those who live near it.
In this case, I would side with the defense, because modern safety procedures can eliminate health risks to the general public.
Yes this group did adress the nature of a radioisotope in nuclear power. The arguments in defense of nuclear power is that it creates a lot of power for many different uses. The prosecution argued that nuclear power can cause many health problems like cancer and produces large amounts of nuclear waste. In this case i would side with the prosecution because of the health risks and the waste. 640640
In my opinion this group did a very nice job adressing the unique nature of a radioisotope. They presented the nuclear power technology in a coherent manner. I specifically liked the demonstration on fussion, using the hair tie. They defended nuclear technology by informing the viewer that it can provide large amounts of power without releasing carbon. Though this seems beneficial I would have to say I tend to agree with the opposition as it shows how nuclear power can have a negative impact on the environment and human health. Without knowing for sure how to get rid of nuclear waste and the effects it can have on humans, like cancer and deformaties, it would not be in our best interest to use this widely.
The group identified the unique nature of radioisotopes.
The defense argued that it can provides a great amount of power and energy, and that it does not release carbon.
The prosecution argued that nuclear waste is created and how it greatly causes health problems. They supported this with examples.
Before watching the video I supported nuclear power, but the prosecution made a few convincing arguments that changed my opinion.
This group talked about the issue of nuclear power. Over time elements decay. In the case of uranium, they are unstable and the nucleus splits apart and energy is formed. Then that energy warms water which turns to steam which then turns a turbine then turns a generator that creates electricity. Fission is used in nuclear power plants which makes a larger nuclei break into two and it emits energy. However, a downside is that waste is emitted and it is dangerous. The bombs dropped on cities in Japan for example, caused cancer to spread throughout mnay years. if the half-life of the element could be reduced it would be better. A fusion reaction combines two nuclei into one. This is safer, cleaner, but requires a temperature higher than the center of the sun and pressure made by something like magnetic fields to fuse them together. No carbon would be emitted into the air. Nuclear power would be better in my opinion if a way that fusion could be used would become more readily available. Fission is too dangerous.
305900
The group addressed the unique nature of the radioisotopes by explaining the release of energy during fission and fusion.
advantages: releases an abundant amount of energy, releases no carbon into the atmosphere, and is relatively safe
disadvantages: creates nuclear waste which must then be managed, nuclear waste is radioactive, so it poses a potential threat to human health
The defense is much more logical and has a greater argument.
This group did adress the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear power to exist. There were many points of defense exhibited in this group's presentation of nuclear power along with prosecutions.The defense of nuclear power, as stated in this presentation, seems to be that nuclear power provides a vast amount of energy to the world and is very crucial to everyday life. The downfalls to nuclear power is that the nuclear waste is very harmful to humans and it has caused many illnesses along with some deaths. The defense arguement makes the most sense to me because nuclear power is neeeded in everyday life and with modern technologies, health and safety procedures can be altered to protect indivudals from nuclear waste better.
492400
This group did successfully address the unique nature of radioisotopes that allows nuclear power to exist.
The defenses argument was that nuclear power provies a ton of energy.
The prosecution argues that nuclear waste, if it is not delt with properly, can be hazardous and extremely dangerous to the health of the people around it.
I think the prosecutor's argument makes more sense because it is much more important for the health of the public to be concerned for.
This group did a great job telling all the details of nuclear power plant how they work and some of the effects. There weren't too many arrguments in favor other than they're working on new nuclear power plants that use fusion not fission. The protestors gave facts about the cancers and other chronic diseases caused from nuclear radiation from the power plant waste. Both sides of the arrguement make sence, we may need nuclear power to get away from fossil fuel power but it also has deadly effects and we need better processes to get rid of waste if we keep the power plants going.
I believe tis group did address the unique nature in radioisotopes. Advantages in using nuclear power include more elecricity and power. Dissadvantages are that there is a lot of radiation and can cause many problems to the health of people. The defense makes more sense to me because without nuclear power we wouldnt have all the energy to power our homes.
This group did in fact address the unique nature of a radioisotope in nuclear power. The advantages discussed are the excessive amount of power, as well as not releasing carbon into the atmosphere. However, it does provide nuclear waste, that can be very harmful to people and the environment if not properly taken care of. As a result, people can contract cancer, and other deadly diseases. I believe that nuclear power was represented as being too dangerous, and would need more improvements before using it on a large scale.
This group provided enough information about radioisotopes in order to give the viewer a better grasp of how this technology works. Those defending the use of nuclear power seem to have two main arguments. One is the obvious practicality of nuclear power, in that it creates massive amounts of energy. The other argument was that with reach into fusion technologies, the field of nuclear power will become even cleaner and more efficient. Like many of those opposed to nuclear power, the protestor pointed to some very horrific events in histroy in which nuclear power failed and affected the surrounding communities. The argumentation of the defense of nuclear power appeared to be more sound to me because advancements are being made in nuclear power and the technology used during those meltdowns was different then the technology that is being used today.
233715
this group talked about the nature of radioactive isotopes specific to power. They said that radio isotopes are atoms that decay over time and that we have no control over how each atom decays which creates the problem of nuclear waste management. This group did a good job on explaining how fission and fusion works. Fission is the breaking up of nuclei and fusion is the putting together of nuclei. They explained how Indian Point works: uranium fuel rods have unstable atoms that decay and as they decay energy is released which creates a steam which makes a turbine move which creates power for a lot of homes. The cons of this argument is that it is very dangerous. The protester explained the devastation at hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people recieved cancer from the radiation given off by these two bombs. She also talked about devastation in Russia and how thousands of people were exposed to radiation. She talked about a tragic story of a little girl who was diagnosed with downsyndrome at birth and had to get her fingers seperated. They talked about in France how they are trying to make the future of nuclear power more effective and efficient. I believe that the cons outweigh the pros and nuclear power should not be used until their is a safer way to go about it. Too many people are getting hurt from this method of creating power.
228938
The defense states that nuclear power is good because it provides us with a great deal of power, and doesn't emit any carbon into the air. However, the prosecution shows us that it needs a temperature higher than the sun, and can give people cancer and other health problems. This is similar to nuclear weapons. People are torn on if it is good or bad. Looking at the information given in the video i personally believe that we would be better off without nuclear power simply because it can cause many more health problems than there would be without it.
This group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope.
The defense states that nuclear power has an abundant amount of energy and seems to be more cleaner and not releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
The opposing side shows that its very unsafe for the enviorment and can be dangerous for peoples health.
I think the opposing side makes more sense to me because nuclear power is dangerous and for the safety off people it shouldn't be used.
Post a Comment