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 4
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yes, I think this group addressed the nature of a radioisotope which allows this type of technology to exist. Some arguments in defense of this technology are that nuclear power is renewable and it costs less than fossil fuels. However, a major prosecuting argument is that nuclear power can be dangerous. Also, radioactive waste products can form from nuclear power plants endangering human life. Because of the points brought up in this presentation, I am going to agree with the prosecution's argument and say that I don't believe that nuclear power should be used. 019045
Yes, this group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear power to occur. Fusion, the formation of larger atoms and fission, the splitting of atoms both create energy that boil water to make steam which move the turbines to create elecricity. The pros of nuclear power include the idea that nuclear power, unlike fossil fuels, are renewable. It can be used as a source of alternative energy because it is better for the environment. Nuclear power does not release carbon dioxide into the air. This greatly reduces global warming. Also, nuclear power is inexpensive and is easier to transfer. Unlike waste produced from fossil fuels, waste from nuclear power can be recycled. The cons for nuclear power include the fact that the waste produced is radioactive. Because nuclear power is based on the fission and fusion of nuclei, radioisotopes are produced that release wastes that can be powerful enough to kill. It costs trillions of dollars to store waste released from nuclear power. Because of the large amount of cons to nuclear power, I believe nuclear power should not be used. 026610
This group did a great job of addressing the unique nature of a radioisotope which allows nuclear power to exist. Some arguments in defense of this technology include that nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels, inexpensive, easily transported and can be recycled. The prosecution mainly dealt with the dangers and consequences of using this technology such as radioactive waste, radiation and large scale fatalities. Based on the potential dangers of this technology, I am going to agree with the presecution and say that nuclear power should not be used. 110740
I really think that this group did a great job in stating the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear power plants to exsist. Michelle( the defense) said that all the nuclear power is renewable,that it can be recycled, it is safe for the environment, and global warming would not be an issue, because there would be no co2 in the air. Harrison( the prosecution) said that the waste of nuclear power plants is radioactive, and can harm humans, and animals alike.He also says that terrorists could target nuclear waste and use it as a weapon. Therefore, I agree with the prosecution, and I think that nuclear power should not be used. 496040 :)
This group discussed that a radioisotope is an unstable element. They discussed that nuclear power plants will produce no green house gases, and be helpful to the atmosphere. They also discussed that the fuel rods of the plant could be recycled. The cons of the nuclear plant are hazardous waste materials that could pose a threat to workers and the enviorment. With each of these discussions I believe that the benifits far out way the risks. 244860
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The defense argued that nuclear energy is renewable unlike fossil fuels, and is an alternative energy source. Nuclear power plants do not release carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, into the atmosphere, and are safer for the environment. Nuclear energy is inexpensive and easily transported, and its compact waste can be recycled. The prosecution stated that radioactive energy is very dangerous. The fission and fusion of nuclei forms radioisotopes. When unstable isotopes of an element try to become stable, they release harmful radiation that can kill humans. It would take trillions of dollars to build enough power plants to reduce greenhouse effects, and a Chernobyl-size accident would occur every decade. Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion that left hundreds of acres uninhabitable in Ukraine, killed hundreds, and left many more deformed. There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. There is also the risk of it running into water supplies and contaminating humans' drinking water. Nuclear waste storage sites would become terrorist targets, and give a country the power to create atomic weapons. Personally, the prosecution's argument makes the most sense because of the many dangers that nuclear power plants present. 304540
This group did a good job addressing the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The arguments in favor of using this technology were that it is renewable and cheaper than fossil fuels. Nuclear energy does not release the pollutants that fossil fuels do. The arguments against this technology were that this type of energy can be very dangerous since it creates radioisotopes, which try to become stable, and in the process release harmful radiation. A disaterous Chernobyl type accident would be expected to occur every decade. There is also no safe way to dispose of the waste, and the storage sites where we'd have to put it could become terrorist targets. I believe that the prosecution has stronger arguments because the dangers of this technology outway the benefits, especially when there are other energy options available. 044880
Yes, this group adressed the unique natue of the radioisotope that allows for nuclear power. This feature was fission and fusion which, during their resprective processes create unstable atoms. When these atoms try to become stable, energy is realeased causing the boiling of water and therefore the turning of turbines to create electricity. The pros for the use of nuclear power was that it is renewable, safer for the enviroment and is much cheaper than fossil fuels. The cons of this technology are that the waste products are still radioactive, and can ot be stored safel. Also, accidents such as that at Chernobyl can be devistating to both human life as well as the enviroment. Due to the severity of a possible accident (including the loss of human life), i have to say that this technology should not be used.
Yes, I believe that this group addressed the nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They stated that radioisotopes are created because of the fission and fusion of nuclei. Radioisotopes are unstable nuclei and when they try to become stable, they release harmful radiation. The defense stated that the use of nuclear power would be beneficial because it is a renewable resource and is safe for the environment because it would not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is believed by many to be the cause of global warming. It is inexpensive and easily transported. Also, the waste is compact and can be recycled. The prosecution stated that in order to built a plant, it would cost trillions of dollars. ALso, it may lead to more accidents like what happened in Chernobyl. This could harm hundreds of thousands of people. If people have the power to create nuclear energy, then they can create nuclear weapons as well. The defense makes more sense to me personally because it has more factual evidence than the prosecution which is mainly based on what could possibly happen.
The defendant has good arguments when describe the advantages of Nuclear Energy, such as cost efficiency, no CO2 admissions, and that it can be recycled unlike fossil fuels. The prosecutor has many good countering points such as Chernobyl, storage (terrorist threats), and the power to create weapons. Radioisotopes are addressed when discussing Nuclear Waste they are unstable and leave too many dangers to man kind. I would agree with the prosecution of Nuclear Power because the cons in this process, as well as the decommissioning, are too unstable. 064337
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The defense argued that nuclear energy is renewable, unlike fossil fuels. It also states that it is an alternate energy source which doesn't expose the environment to Co2, and also prevents global warming. It is also inexpensive and easily transported, and the compact waste can be recycled. The prosecution argued that nuclear technology is very dangerous in that it is radioactive. The harmful radiation may potentially kill numerous amounts of people,animals,and plants. The prosecution convinced me more than the defense because they supplied more information. 375740
The group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The defense argued that nuclear power is renewable unlike fossil fuel, it can be used as an alternative energy source, and that it is much safer for the environment because it does not release carbon dioxide so global warming would not occur. They also argued that nuclear power is inexpensive and is easily transported. The prosecution argues that nuclear power is very dangerous and that the waste products are radioactive. They also argue that the radiation that is emitted as the nucleus tries to become stable are harmful and would kill humans. Nuclear power is also bad in that storing the wastes from nuclear power would cost trillions of dollars. I would agree with the prosecution because it makes more sense to me.
This group properly addresses the task at hand by stating the unique behavior of a radio isotope which allows nuclear power plants to subsist. The defensive side argued that nuclear power is renewable, can be recycled, and safe for the environment. Since this process does not emit CO2 into the atmosphere, so it would contribute to the slow down of global warming. The prosecutor pointed out that nuclear power plants leave behind a waster that is radioactive. This means it is harmful to humans and animals. He also says that this nuclear waste could be used as a target by terrorists. From the points presented, I have to agree with the side of the prosecutor because the dangers presented weigh out those that of the positive.
Yes, this group most definitly addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular type of technology to exist. The major arguments that were used in the defense were that nuclear power is a renewable source, unlike fossil fuels. A pro-Nuclear power supporter might argue that Nuclear power does not release carbon dioxide into the air which is great considering the main creator of global warming is CO2. The major defects or downsides for nuclear power include the fact that the waste produced is radioactive. Radioisotopes are produced during the processes of Fission and Fusion and therefore they release different radioactive wastes that can be very deadly to the environment. The cost to store and make sure wastes do not exit the given containers is very expensive. Although the cons seem large, i believe the pros outweigh the cons and Nuclear Power could be a very useful alternative energy source. 241250
I think that Group 4 did a good job of addressing the nature of a radioisotope that allows Nuclear Power to exist. In the defense of Nuclear Power, Group 4 said that it is renewable and easy to recycle. It is also relatively cheap, compared to fossil fuels. They also mentioned that Nuclear Power doesn't emit carbon dioxide into the air, and therefore will not contribute to Global Warming. On the flip side, the prosecutor said that the waste from Nuclear Power was dangerous; there is no safe way to get rid of it. The waste is radioactive and harmful to humans. I'd say that the prosecution was stronger because Nuclear Power Plants can be dangerous to humans. Any threat to living things on the planet should not be purposely continued, especially when there are other options for energy. 140860
15 comments:
Yes, I think this group addressed the nature of a radioisotope which allows this type of technology to exist. Some arguments in defense of this technology are that nuclear power is renewable and it costs less than fossil fuels. However, a major prosecuting argument is that nuclear power can be dangerous. Also, radioactive waste products can form from nuclear power plants endangering human life. Because of the points brought up in this presentation, I am going to agree with the prosecution's argument and say that I don't believe that nuclear power should be used.
019045
Yes, this group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear power to occur. Fusion, the formation of larger atoms and fission, the splitting of atoms both create energy that boil water to make steam which move the turbines to create elecricity.
The pros of nuclear power include the idea that nuclear power, unlike fossil fuels, are renewable. It can be used as a source of alternative energy because it is better for the environment. Nuclear power does not release carbon dioxide into the air. This greatly reduces global warming. Also, nuclear power is inexpensive and is easier to transfer. Unlike waste produced from fossil fuels, waste from nuclear power can be recycled.
The cons for nuclear power include the fact that the waste produced is radioactive. Because nuclear power is based on the fission and fusion of nuclei, radioisotopes are produced that release wastes that can be powerful enough to kill. It costs trillions of dollars to store waste released from nuclear power.
Because of the large amount of cons to nuclear power, I believe nuclear power should not be used.
026610
This group did a great job of addressing the unique nature of a radioisotope which allows nuclear power to exist. Some arguments in defense of this technology include that nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels, inexpensive, easily transported and can be recycled. The prosecution mainly dealt with the dangers and consequences of using this technology such as radioactive waste, radiation and large scale fatalities. Based on the potential dangers of this technology, I am going to agree with the presecution and say that nuclear power should not be used.
110740
I really think that this group did a great job in stating the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear power plants to exsist. Michelle( the defense) said that all the nuclear power is renewable,that it can be recycled, it is safe for the environment, and global warming would not be an issue, because there would be no co2 in the air. Harrison( the prosecution) said that the waste of nuclear power plants is radioactive, and can harm humans, and animals alike.He also says that terrorists could target nuclear waste and use it as a weapon. Therefore, I agree with the prosecution, and I think that nuclear power should not be used.
496040 :)
This group discussed that a radioisotope is an unstable element. They discussed that nuclear power plants will produce no green house gases, and be helpful to the atmosphere. They also discussed that the fuel rods of the plant could be recycled. The cons of the nuclear plant are hazardous waste materials that could pose a threat to workers and the enviorment. With each of these discussions I believe that the benifits far out way the risks.
244860
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The defense argued that nuclear energy is renewable unlike fossil fuels, and is an alternative energy source. Nuclear power plants do not release carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, into the atmosphere, and are safer for the environment. Nuclear energy is inexpensive and easily transported, and its compact waste can be recycled. The prosecution stated that radioactive energy is very dangerous. The fission and fusion of nuclei forms radioisotopes. When unstable isotopes of an element try to become stable, they release harmful radiation that can kill humans. It would take trillions of dollars to build enough power plants to reduce greenhouse effects, and a Chernobyl-size accident would occur every decade. Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion that left hundreds of acres uninhabitable in Ukraine, killed hundreds, and left many more deformed. There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. There is also the risk of it running into water supplies and contaminating humans' drinking water. Nuclear waste storage sites would become terrorist targets, and give a country the power to create atomic weapons. Personally, the prosecution's argument makes the most sense because of the many dangers that nuclear power plants present. 304540
This group did a good job addressing the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist.
The arguments in favor of using this technology were that it is renewable and cheaper than fossil fuels. Nuclear energy does not release the pollutants that fossil fuels do. The arguments against this technology were that this type of energy can be very dangerous since it creates radioisotopes, which try to become stable, and in the process release harmful radiation. A disaterous Chernobyl type accident would be expected to occur every decade. There is also no safe way to dispose of the waste, and the storage sites where we'd have to put it could become terrorist targets. I believe that the prosecution has stronger arguments because the dangers of this technology outway the benefits, especially when there are other energy options available. 044880
Yes, this group adressed the unique natue of the radioisotope that allows for nuclear power. This feature was fission and fusion which, during their resprective processes create unstable atoms. When these atoms try to become stable, energy is realeased causing the boiling of water and therefore the turning of turbines to create electricity. The pros for the use of nuclear power was that it is renewable, safer for the enviroment and is much cheaper than fossil fuels. The cons of this technology are that the waste products are still radioactive, and can ot be stored safel. Also, accidents such as that at Chernobyl can be devistating to both human life as well as the enviroment. Due to the severity of a possible accident (including the loss of human life), i have to say that this technology should not be used.
Yes, I believe that this group addressed the nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They stated that radioisotopes are created because of the fission and fusion of nuclei. Radioisotopes are unstable nuclei and when they try to become stable, they release harmful radiation. The defense stated that the use of nuclear power would be beneficial because it is a renewable resource and is safe for the environment because it would not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is believed by many to be the cause of global warming. It is inexpensive and easily transported. Also, the waste is compact and can be recycled. The prosecution stated that in order to built a plant, it would cost trillions of dollars. ALso, it may lead to more accidents like what happened in Chernobyl. This could harm hundreds of thousands of people. If people have the power to create nuclear energy, then they can create nuclear weapons as well. The defense makes more sense to me personally because it has more factual evidence than the prosecution which is mainly based on what could possibly happen.
233470
The defendant has good arguments when describe the advantages of Nuclear Energy, such as cost efficiency, no CO2 admissions, and that it can be recycled unlike fossil fuels. The prosecutor has many good countering points such as Chernobyl, storage (terrorist threats), and the power to create weapons. Radioisotopes are addressed when discussing Nuclear Waste they are unstable and leave too many dangers to man kind. I would agree with the prosecution of Nuclear Power because the cons in this process, as well as the decommissioning, are too unstable.
064337
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The defense argued that nuclear energy is renewable, unlike fossil fuels. It also states that it is an alternate energy source which doesn't expose the environment to Co2, and also prevents global warming. It is also inexpensive and easily transported, and the compact waste can be recycled. The prosecution argued that nuclear technology is very dangerous in that it is radioactive. The harmful radiation may potentially kill numerous amounts of people,animals,and plants. The prosecution convinced me more than the defense because they supplied more information. 375740
The group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The defense argued that nuclear power is renewable unlike fossil fuel, it can be used as an alternative energy source, and that it is much safer for the environment because it does not release carbon dioxide so global warming would not occur. They also argued that nuclear power is inexpensive and is easily transported. The prosecution argues that nuclear power is very dangerous and that the waste products are radioactive. They also argue that the radiation that is emitted as the nucleus tries to become stable are harmful and would kill humans. Nuclear power is also bad in that storing the wastes from nuclear power would cost trillions of dollars. I would agree with the prosecution because it makes more sense to me.
This group properly addresses the task at hand by stating the unique behavior of a radio isotope which allows nuclear power plants to subsist. The defensive side argued that nuclear power is renewable, can be recycled, and safe for the environment. Since this process does not emit CO2 into the atmosphere, so it would contribute to the slow down of global warming. The prosecutor pointed out that nuclear power plants leave behind a waster that is radioactive. This means it is harmful to humans and animals. He also says that this nuclear waste could be used as a target by terrorists. From the points presented, I have to agree with the side of the prosecutor because the dangers presented weigh out those that of the positive.
704120
Yes, this group most definitly addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular type of technology to exist.
The major arguments that were used in the defense were that nuclear power is a renewable source, unlike fossil fuels. A pro-Nuclear power supporter might argue that Nuclear power does not release carbon dioxide into the air which is great considering the main creator of global warming is CO2.
The major defects or downsides for nuclear power include the fact that the waste produced is radioactive. Radioisotopes are produced during the processes of Fission and Fusion and therefore they release different radioactive wastes that can be very deadly to the environment. The cost to store and make sure wastes do not exit the given containers is very expensive.
Although the cons seem large, i believe the pros outweigh the cons and Nuclear Power could be a very useful alternative energy source.
241250
I think that Group 4 did a good job of addressing the nature of a radioisotope that allows Nuclear Power to exist. In the defense of Nuclear Power, Group 4 said that it is renewable and easy to recycle. It is also relatively cheap, compared to fossil fuels. They also mentioned that Nuclear Power doesn't emit carbon dioxide into the air, and therefore will not contribute to Global Warming. On the flip side, the prosecutor said that the waste from Nuclear Power was dangerous; there is no safe way to get rid of it. The waste is radioactive and harmful to humans. I'd say that the prosecution was stronger because Nuclear Power Plants can be dangerous to humans. Any threat to living things on the planet should not be purposely continued, especially when there are other options for energy. 140860
Post a Comment