My apologies, this group did a fabulous and artistic job with the prosecution side and somehow in the video translation, the prosecution side was lost. Commenters, just comment with respect to the video shown. Sorry, S. Angell
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This group did discuss the nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist. They talked about uranium, as one example and how it is unstable because the proton to neutron ratio is too high. You can tell if an element is unstable by looking at the belt of stability. They said that nuclear weapons are vital today, because they are a source of protection. It is better to use these and allow the side-effects to occur instead of having no defense at all. They made a valid point when saying, "Other countries won't give up their weapons, so why should we?" It would also lead to unemployment if these were not to be used any more. Many scientists would lose their jobs. However, nuclear weapons are bad because they give off alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. This also makes you "wacko in the brain." I agree with the prosectution. There are many effects of nuclear weapons. Yes, they do serve a good purpose, but the bad effects overrule that, in my opinion.
This group discussed the unique nature of radioisotopes in great detail. They explained that radioactive isotopes are naturally or artificially produced isotopes of an element. Their unstable nuclei cause the emission of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. The belt of stability can be used to detect how unstable a radioactive isotopes is. The defense argued that without nuclear weapons the U.S. would have no defense against other nations in wartime, that other nations will not give up their weapons, so the U.S. has no reason too, and that many people will be unemployed if the U.S. gets rid of its nucear weapons. The prosecution cited the long term health risks that result from the fallout from these weapons, such as cancer. Both arguements have merit, but I believe the defense had more reasons and evidence to support their viewpoint.
Nuclear weapons have deadly effects and this group explained both sides to having nuclear weapons and not having them. The group explained that when an element such as Uranium 92 becomes unstable, it becomes radioactive. That element becomes unstable when the proton to neutron ratio becomes too high,which can be seen by observing the belt of stability. The defense stated that nuclear weapons were useful in order to defend the U.S. It is a defense mechanism that will secure the nation and won't create a weak country. If nuclear weapons were given up the unemployment of scientists who create these weapons would surely go up and during a time of war the country would be defenseless. Also other countries are not giving up their nuclear weapons so why should we. On the other side of the argument, the thick fog of radiation that fills the air after nuclear weapons go off creates health hazards such as cancer for generations to come. Nuclear weapons are deadly and should not be used because they give off gamma rays and other types. I agree more with the prosecution because those nasty weapons are not worth the health risks.
305900
This group discussed the nature of of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weaponry to exist. The group members defined what a radioisotope is and how it can be found naturally or man-made. They discussed the stability of certain elements' nuclei, and how that is based on their proton-neutron ration. The higher the ratio, the more likely an isotope is to be unstable. The belt of stability also shows which elements are stable. Unstable nuclei give off alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, which can be explosive and are harmful to living things. This group addressed the issue of nuclear weapons. They argued that it was nice for a country to have the technology for nuclear weapons for defense purposes, but using them is a different story. Nations need to have this technology in order to be deemed dangerous; because the technology is out there and it does exist, there's no turning back. For a specific country not to have nuclear weapons for a backup is a problem. One of the main reasons countries don't use their nuclear weapons too often is because their enemy will sense them coming and fire one back, and they'll be in trouble too. The field of nuclear weapons also employs many people; if the weapons were abolished, too many scientists would become unemployed. Radiation given off from the weapons is known to cause cancer, leading to the deaths of many innocent people. This group described many positive and negative aspects of nuclear technology, but I think the defense of the nuclear weapons was more in depth. Nuclear weapons have their problems, but overall they serve a very important purpose.
369297
This group started with an explanation of isotopes. Ron explained how different isotopes try to become stable through radioactive decay. He also explained how you can tell if an element is unstable by using the belt of stability. Some cons of using radioisotopes for nuclear technology are that it is harmful to human health. They explained that this radioactive fallout crated a fog filled with radiation. They said people will die from cancer now and in future generations. Pros of this nuclear technology is mainly defense and security. They explained how other nations will not give up their weapons so the United States should not have to either. in case of an attack what wil the United States do without these weapons? They also expanded on how the unemployment rate would increase if we did away with this weaponry. Many scientists would be without a job.
This group discussed very specifically the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist. They started off saying uranium has an unstable nucleus. The nucleus, to become stable, goes through radioactive decay. An element is unstable if the proton to neutron ratio is very high. Also that weapons are bad because they emit harmful alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. In there defense they argue " other countries won't give up their nuclear weapons then why should we." Based on the evidence given, the prosecution argument makes more sense to me in that nuclear weapons are harmful. -147813
The group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear weapons to exist. The group talked about the stability of atoms and how stable they are. They said that alpha, beta, and gamma rays are present and that when an atom is unstable it undergoes radioactive decay. The argument used was to say that without nuclear weapons there would be no defense mechanism for the United States. The defense also stated that without nuclear weapons the United States would look entirely unprepared for any offense against them. The United States is defenseless without nuclear weapons that protect them from others. Cancer and health risks are very fatal to people. The "fog" in the air is built because of radiation. Nuclear weapons seem vital even though people could die from it. Most countries have nuclear weapons and it is made very clear that nuclear weapons are needed for the country. I agree with the defense because even though radiation might physically hurt people its for the whole country's safety that we have a strong defense.
Post a Comment