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 5
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They stated the specific elements used and the different types of methods to use their energy. The defense stated that nuclear energy would serve as a good alternative energy source. It produces less greenhouse gasses than fossil fuel burning and would not lead to the increase of global warming. It already produces up to fifteen percent of the worlds energy. The production of a nuclear power plant would also provide numerous new jobs for people. The prosecution stated that the radioactive nuclear waste could make its way into the water supply and contaminate it. The waste lasts for up two hundred forty thousands years and cannot be disposed of easily. Nuclear power plants would also be targets of terrorism and would lead to the loss of thousands of lives. The risk of another catastrophic event such as Chernobyl could happen again. To me, the prosecutions arguements make the most sense
The group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They discussed the elements involved and the processes needed in order to release that energy. The prosecution said that the nuclear waste created by the plants would be extremely radioactive and dangerous to people and animals if not contained. The prosecution was afraid that the waste would get into the ground which would contaminate the drinking water. It also stated that the waste takes about two hundred forty thousand years to go away. On top of this evidence, the prosecution stated that the nuclear power plants would be targeted by terrorists which would lead to the deaths of thousands of people. Another concern was the fact that another catastrophic nuclear plant melt down would occur such as Chernobyl and hurt the surrounding area. The defense stated that the nuclear power plants would serve as a source of alternative energy. Nuclear power does not release greenhouses gasses so it would not add to global warming; it is beneficial to the environment. Nuclear power is already supplying fifteen percent of the world’s energy. This production of a power plant would also provide many jobs for people. To me, the prosecution’s arguments make the most sense.
In this video the group directly discusses the radioisotope; Uranium 235 that is used in nuclear power plants. The aarguments that are fore the making of the nuclear power plant are the making of new jobs, no release of fossil fuels, and no release of green house gases, which cause global warming. The arguments against the making of the nuclear power plants are that the radioactivity could kill the workers at the power plant, the nuclear waste will stay dangerous for 240000 years, the disposal of the nuckear waste could pose as a target for terrorist activity, and damge to the ecosystem. The evidence proposed by both parties pose good arguments, however, I believe the possibility of a green power plant out ways the risks. 244860
The group did address the unique nature of the radioisotope, Uranium 235, that allows this technology to exist. The prosecution stated that the nuclear power plants could become target for terrorist attacks, could damage the ecosystem, and the nuclear waste could stay around for many many years. The defense stated that the making of these nuclear power plants could reduce the affects of global warming, provide more jobs, and become an alternative energy source. I agree more with the porsecution because of the risks involved with the making of the nuclear power plants. 734980
This group clearly addressed how a radioisotope can allow nuclear power to exist by explaining radiation like gamma radiation and by discussing different elements and radioactivity. They defended nuclear power by saying it is more efficient than using fossil fuels, it reduces hazardous emissions like pollution, it produces no greenhouse gas, it could solve the energy crisis and save future generations, and it could create jobs by causing the development of new power plants. In prosecution, the group said the nuclear waste is difficult and dangerous to store and dispose of and it will be hazardous for 240,000 years. Also, it pollutes drinking water and can cause cancer as well as catastrophic events like Chernobyl. Power plants could also be terrorist targets. Now I understand the debate on nuclear power after the way this group clearly presented the defense and prosecution. Both sides made strong points by explaining the reasons behind the arguments. 398715
*end of essay response for 398715* I support the use of nuclear power because the outcomes can be very beneficial and fossil fuels will run out eventually, so we need a new alternative. Also, experimenting with nuclear power may lead to more efficient and less dangerous uses. Without any experimentation, we will never know.
The group presented all the the facts neccesary about the radio isotopes involved in the nuclear power process. The one speaking on behalf of general nuclear brought up very good points of how the building of nuclear power plants would create much needed jobs. He also described how the waste from nuclear power was much more manageable than that from a fossil fuel powered plant. He summed up his argument by presenting facts about the efficiency of nuclear power which no one can disagree with. The speaker against building a nuclear power plant in Poughquag also provided some excellent points. She felt that nuclear waste was very harmful to the environment because of how difficult it is to store it. She felt that too mmuch could go wrong in the operation of a nuclear power plant and that things could be catastrophic if they did. The only thing she did not mention is how Poughquag would seem like a very unusual place to put a nuclear power plant. The defense's case makes more sense to me because historically, nuclear power plants have fairly clean track records and people who talk against them only have two historical incidents to point to whilst there have been many more successful nuclear power plants which go unmentioned by many environmentalists although many of them actually support nuclear power. 233715
The group addressed the unique nature of the radioisotope Uranium 235, which allows nuclear power technology to exist. In defense, General Nuclear has claimed that the new plant would provide new jobs in the community, and would not contribute to the green house gases produced in other energy methods. The defense also argues that the waste created is compact and containable, unlike greenhouse gasses. The prosecution describes in detail the dangers of nuclear power, and is concerned about intoxication of the water supply. A nuclear plant would also pose as a terrorist target, and would damage the ecosystems surrounding it. I am more convinced with the prosecution, because it explains that nuclear power created more damage than good. 279460
8 comments:
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They stated the specific elements used and the different types of methods to use their energy. The defense stated that nuclear energy would serve as a good alternative energy source. It produces less greenhouse gasses than fossil fuel burning and would not lead to the increase of global warming. It already produces up to fifteen percent of the worlds energy. The production of a nuclear power plant would also provide numerous new jobs for people. The prosecution stated that the radioactive nuclear waste could make its way into the water supply and contaminate it. The waste lasts for up two hundred forty thousands years and cannot be disposed of easily. Nuclear power plants would also be targets of terrorism and would lead to the loss of thousands of lives. The risk of another catastrophic event such as Chernobyl could happen again. To me, the prosecutions arguements make the most sense
The group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They discussed the elements involved and the processes needed in order to release that energy. The prosecution said that the nuclear waste created by the plants would be extremely radioactive and dangerous to people and animals if not contained. The prosecution was afraid that the waste would get into the ground which would contaminate the drinking water. It also stated that the waste takes about two hundred forty thousand years to go away. On top of this evidence, the prosecution stated that the nuclear power plants would be targeted by terrorists which would lead to the deaths of thousands of people. Another concern was the fact that another catastrophic nuclear plant melt down would occur such as Chernobyl and hurt the surrounding area. The defense stated that the nuclear power plants would serve as a source of alternative energy. Nuclear power does not release greenhouses gasses so it would not add to global warming; it is beneficial to the environment. Nuclear power is already supplying fifteen percent of the world’s energy. This production of a power plant would also provide many jobs for people. To me, the prosecution’s arguments make the most sense.
In this video the group directly discusses the radioisotope; Uranium 235 that is used in nuclear power plants. The aarguments that are fore the making of the nuclear power plant are the making of new jobs, no release of fossil fuels, and no release of green house gases, which cause global warming. The arguments against the making of the nuclear power plants are that the radioactivity could kill the workers at the power plant, the nuclear waste will stay dangerous for 240000 years, the disposal of the nuckear waste could pose as a target for terrorist activity, and damge to the ecosystem. The evidence proposed by both parties pose good arguments, however, I believe the possibility of a green power plant out ways the risks.
244860
The group did address the unique nature of the radioisotope, Uranium 235, that allows this technology to exist. The prosecution stated that the nuclear power plants could become target for terrorist attacks, could damage the ecosystem, and the nuclear waste could stay around for many many years. The defense stated that the making of these nuclear power plants could reduce the affects of global warming, provide more jobs, and become an alternative energy source. I agree more with the porsecution because of the risks involved with the making of the nuclear power plants. 734980
This group clearly addressed how a radioisotope can allow nuclear power to exist by explaining radiation like gamma radiation and by discussing different elements and radioactivity. They defended nuclear power by saying it is more efficient than using fossil fuels, it reduces hazardous emissions like pollution, it produces no greenhouse gas, it could solve the energy crisis and save future generations, and it could create jobs by causing the development of new power plants. In prosecution, the group said the nuclear waste is difficult and dangerous to store and dispose of and it will be hazardous for 240,000 years. Also, it pollutes drinking water and can cause cancer as well as catastrophic events like Chernobyl. Power plants could also be terrorist targets. Now I understand the debate on nuclear power after the way this group clearly presented the defense and prosecution. Both sides made strong points by explaining the reasons behind the arguments. 398715
*end of essay response for 398715*
I support the use of nuclear power because the outcomes can be very beneficial and fossil fuels will run out eventually, so we need a new alternative. Also, experimenting with nuclear power may lead to more efficient and less dangerous uses. Without any experimentation, we will never know.
The group presented all the the facts neccesary about the radio isotopes involved in the nuclear power process. The one speaking on behalf of general nuclear brought up very good points of how the building of nuclear power plants would create much needed jobs. He also described how the waste from nuclear power was much more manageable than that from a fossil fuel powered plant. He summed up his argument by presenting facts about the efficiency of nuclear power which no one can disagree with. The speaker against building a nuclear power plant in Poughquag also provided some excellent points. She felt that nuclear waste was very harmful to the environment because of how difficult it is to store it. She felt that too mmuch could go wrong in the operation of a nuclear power plant and that things could be catastrophic if they did. The only thing she did not mention is how Poughquag would seem like a very unusual place to put a nuclear power plant. The defense's case makes more sense to me because historically, nuclear power plants have fairly clean track records and people who talk against them only have two historical incidents to point to whilst there have been many more successful nuclear power plants which go unmentioned by many environmentalists although many of them actually support nuclear power.
233715
The group addressed the unique nature of the radioisotope Uranium 235, which allows nuclear power technology to exist. In defense, General Nuclear has claimed that the new plant would provide new jobs in the community, and would not contribute to the green house gases produced in other energy methods. The defense also argues that the waste created is compact and containable, unlike greenhouse gasses. The prosecution describes in detail the dangers of nuclear power, and is concerned about intoxication of the water supply. A nuclear plant would also pose as a terrorist target, and would damage the ecosystems surrounding it. I am more convinced with the prosecution, because it explains that nuclear power created more damage than good. 279460
Post a Comment