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 3
10 comments:
692130
said...
The group briefly discussed the nature of a radiioisotope and its decay. On the negative side, waste can take a long time to decay- as much as thousands of years. The storage sites are a terrorist attraction, and nuclear powerplants are built near cities. What would happen if there were a leak? The group concludes that nuclear power is a viable alternative to gas and electric power, with no greenhouse gas emissions, less fuel used, and more energy produced than compared to coal. The group convinced me of the positives of nuclear power, with little significant side effects.
Although this group clearly defined what a radioisotope is, the did not explain how it allowed their technology to work. They did provide many arguments in defense of nuclear power. For example, it can produce electricity after oil becomes scarce. Also, nuclear power plants need less fuel than those that burn fossil fuels, allowing them to produce more energy while releasing little to no greenhouse gases. Therefore, nuclear power has much less of an impact on global warming. It is also possible to create a large amount of energy in a single plant. There are many negative affects as well. These plants are highly radioactive and give off harmful radiation. Many of these plants are built near cities, and a leak could allow radiation to leak into cities, causing death, cancer and birth defects. These plants are also very expensive to manufacture and produce nuclear waste that decays very slowly. So, the radioisotopes remain active in the earth for many years and are very hard to dispose of. Still, there are many pros to nuclear power and if we discover a better way to dispose of nuclear waste, i agree with the defense.
This group appears to do a great job for addressing the unique nature of the radioisotopes. They stated both the process and result of creating nuclear power, as well saying how to dispose of the waste that is created. The leading argument for the prosecution was the waste. No only is it hard to dispose of, it is also a target for terrorists. The defense argument consisted of how nuclear energy produced large amounts of energy, and doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, which are a major cause in global warming. In this argument I feel that the argument that the defense made, made more sense to me.
This group did address the nature of radioisotopes that allows nuclear power plants to exist. The group defined radioisotopes as isotopes that decay into different atoms by releasing energy. Radioisotopes are unstable, but want to become more stable, and in the process emit radiation. Their main argument in defense of using nuclear power was that power plants produce vast amounts of energy, without contributing to global warming. The arguments used in the prosecution of nuclear power plants included negative effects of nuclear waste on humans and the possibility of a terrorist attack on the lone storage site of nuclear waste located in Nevada. The group also mentioned that radioisotopes remain active for thousands of years and could cause cancer and birth defects. The arguments in prosecution of this case made more sense to me. Although nuclear power plants emit very small amounts of greenhouse gases, the thought of a terrorist attack and development of cancer seem to be significant side effects to the use of nuclear power.
This group addresses the nature of nuclear power very well. They clearly explained it and how it is used. There were many arguments for and against nuclear power. The For arguments included the need for less fuel, and no greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide is produced. The Against argument includes the substances are highly radioactive, harmful and dangerous to humans, very expensive, and the waste it produces is ard to get rid of. I feel that the against argument makes more sense to me.
This group explains the nature of radioisotopes well and describes how they relate to nuclear waste but doesn’t explain how they facilitate nuclear power. The arguments in defense of nuclear power are that it requires less fuel than burning fossil fuels, produces energy efficiently, and does not release greenhouse gases. The arguments against nuclear power are that it releases radiation which is harmful to humans, the waste is hard to dispose of safely, it is expensive, and can be dangerous in the case of a leak or explosion. I found the arguments defending nuclear power more convincing, although the arguments against it were valid as well.
This group was able to discuss how radioisotopes are used tocreate nuclear power, which is used to provide electricty for various appliances we use in our daily lives. Their supporting argument for nucelar power was based on its availability after coal and oil runs out. They also emit low amounts of carbon dioxide, is readiliy available and can develop high amounts of electricty in one plant. Their arguments for prosecution include the harmful effects of nuclear waste developed by this technology, its affordability, its location (a leak might be hazardous to the surrounding cities), and its vulnerability to terrorists. The arguments presented by this grouped helped make nuclear power make more sense to me. Although there are certain risks to this procedure for energy, the chance of some drastic event happening seem little unless the required safety precautions are not met. Therefore, I believe it is better to keep nuclear power going unless there is more evidence proclaiming its harmfulness
This group adressed the unique nature of a raioisotope that allows nuclear power to exist. The defense was basically about how nuclear energy produces a lot of needed energy without the greenhouse gasses like many other forms of energy create adding to global warming. The prosecution stated that there was waste that is hard to get rid of and may be an attraction for terrorists to get their hands on. To me the defense made more sense because of the stronger argument. 567342
The group clearly defines the positive and negative outcomes of using nuclear power. Using nuclear power allows there to be a great reduce in greenhouse gases and allows there to be an alternative way of producing power without the worry of running out soon. There are negative effects such as the fact that handling nuclear chemicals is dangerous and there is not a completely safe way of managing the chemicals currently. It also create nuclear waste which can lead to cancer and other problems. With important facts on both sides the group has a very persuasive argument, which allows there to be more room to choice a side.
The group did discuss the the radioisotope used in nuclear power technologies. The defense discussed how nuclear power plants were able to produce quite a bit of power with out harming the environment in most cases. They said that on a whole, nuclear power plants contribute very little to globale warming. The prosecutor also brought up some very good points. The prosecution brought up the fact that it is hard to store nuclear waste for a very long time and that while transporting waste drums to storage facilities, they make ideal terrorist targets. I felt that in this video it was actually a tie because both sides presented arguments that were applicable to nuclear power technologies as they are today as opposed to just referring to past events that occurred with antiquated technologies or with what the future might hold for nuclear technology. 233715
10 comments:
The group briefly discussed the nature of a radiioisotope and its decay. On the negative side, waste can take a long time to decay- as much as thousands of years. The storage sites are a terrorist attraction, and nuclear powerplants are built near cities. What would happen if there were a leak? The group concludes that nuclear power is a viable alternative to gas and electric power, with no greenhouse gas emissions, less fuel used, and more energy produced than compared to coal. The group convinced me of the positives of nuclear power, with little significant side effects.
Although this group clearly defined what a radioisotope is, the did not explain how it allowed their technology to work.
They did provide many arguments in defense of nuclear power. For example, it can produce electricity after oil becomes scarce. Also, nuclear power plants need less fuel than those that burn fossil fuels, allowing them to produce more energy while releasing little to no greenhouse gases. Therefore, nuclear power has much less of an impact on global warming. It is also possible to create a large amount of energy in a single plant.
There are many negative affects as well. These plants are highly radioactive and give off harmful radiation. Many of these plants are built near cities, and a leak could allow radiation to leak into cities, causing death, cancer and birth defects. These plants are also very expensive to manufacture and produce nuclear waste that decays very slowly. So, the radioisotopes remain active in the earth for many years and are very hard to dispose of.
Still, there are many pros to nuclear power and if we discover a better way to dispose of nuclear waste, i agree with the defense.
This group appears to do a great job for addressing the unique nature of the radioisotopes. They stated both the process and result of creating nuclear power, as well saying how to dispose of the waste that is created. The leading argument for the prosecution was the waste. No only is it hard to dispose of, it is also a target for terrorists. The defense argument consisted of how nuclear energy produced large amounts of energy, and doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, which are a major cause in global warming. In this argument I feel that the argument that the defense made, made more sense to me.
This group did address the nature of radioisotopes that allows nuclear power plants to exist. The group defined radioisotopes as isotopes that decay into different atoms by releasing energy. Radioisotopes are unstable, but want to become more stable, and in the process emit radiation. Their main argument in defense of using nuclear power was that power plants produce vast amounts of energy, without contributing to global warming. The arguments used in the prosecution of nuclear power plants included negative effects of nuclear waste on humans and the possibility of a terrorist attack on the lone storage site of nuclear waste located in Nevada. The group also mentioned that radioisotopes remain active for thousands of years and could cause cancer and birth defects. The arguments in prosecution of this case made more sense to me. Although nuclear power plants emit very small amounts of greenhouse gases, the thought of a terrorist attack and development of cancer seem to be significant side effects to the use of nuclear power.
459380
This group addresses the nature of nuclear power very well. They clearly explained it and how it is used. There were many arguments for and against nuclear power. The For arguments included the need for less fuel, and no greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide is produced. The Against argument includes the substances are highly radioactive, harmful and dangerous to humans, very expensive, and the waste it produces is ard to get rid of. I feel that the against argument makes more sense to me.
This group explains the nature of radioisotopes well and describes how they relate to nuclear waste but doesn’t explain how they facilitate nuclear power.
The arguments in defense of nuclear power are that it requires less fuel than burning fossil fuels, produces energy efficiently, and does not release greenhouse gases. The arguments against nuclear power are that it releases radiation which is harmful to humans, the waste is hard to dispose of safely, it is expensive, and can be dangerous in the case of a leak or explosion.
I found the arguments defending nuclear power more convincing, although the arguments against it were valid as well.
407862
This group was able to discuss how radioisotopes are used tocreate nuclear power, which is used to provide electricty for various appliances we use in our daily lives.
Their supporting argument for nucelar power was based on its availability after coal and oil runs out. They also emit low amounts of carbon dioxide, is readiliy available and can develop high amounts of electricty in one plant.
Their arguments for prosecution include the harmful effects of nuclear waste developed by this technology, its affordability, its location (a leak might be hazardous to the surrounding cities), and its vulnerability to terrorists.
The arguments presented by this grouped helped make nuclear power make more sense to me. Although there are certain risks to this procedure for energy, the chance of some drastic event happening seem little unless the required safety precautions are not met. Therefore, I believe it is better to keep nuclear power going unless there is more evidence proclaiming its harmfulness
This group adressed the unique nature of a raioisotope that allows nuclear power to exist.
The defense was basically about how nuclear energy produces a lot of needed energy without the greenhouse gasses like many other forms of energy create adding to global warming.
The prosecution stated that there was waste that is hard to get rid of and may be an attraction for terrorists to get their hands on.
To me the defense made more sense because of the stronger argument. 567342
The group clearly defines the positive and negative outcomes of using nuclear power. Using nuclear power allows there to be a great reduce in greenhouse gases and allows there to be an alternative way of producing power without the worry of running out soon. There are negative effects such as the fact that handling nuclear chemicals is dangerous and there is not a completely safe way of managing the chemicals currently. It also create nuclear waste which can lead to cancer and other problems. With important facts on both sides the group has a very persuasive argument, which allows there to be more room to choice a side.
509855
The group did discuss the the radioisotope used in nuclear power technologies. The defense discussed how nuclear power plants were able to produce quite a bit of power with out harming the environment in most cases. They said that on a whole, nuclear power plants contribute very little to globale warming. The prosecutor also brought up some very good points. The prosecution brought up the fact that it is hard to store nuclear waste for a very long time and that while transporting waste drums to storage facilities, they make ideal terrorist targets. I felt that in this video it was actually a tie because both sides presented arguments that were applicable to nuclear power technologies as they are today as opposed to just referring to past events that occurred with antiquated technologies or with what the future might hold for nuclear technology.
233715
Post a Comment