Nuclear Power - Whats missing from the debate? Essay -- Argumentative

atomic office staff - Whats missing from the debate? It is non gener every(prenominal)y a capital idea to apologize for peerlesss paper at the beginning, but the majority of this search is going to include roughthing which Swatties (or at least, I) have a great list to do - by dint of attempting to think critically ab forth issues, end up tearing apart the reasoning/argument of the author we dont think has view e very(prenominal)thing through, or with whose opinion we do not agree (which, as some of us were informed by a professor of ours, is not very nice). However, I do think this is a worthwhile exercise, especially when relations with a very real world problem/debate much(prenominal) as that surrounding thermonuclear power, as everyone can learn from the holes others confabulate in ones argument. Hopefully, as well, you all will help to point out further discrepancies for me and refute my attacks on the authors behalf. In his essay Yes Nuclear Power Is Safe, and We N eed It, Jagger presents a litany of reasons for wherefore nuclear power is safer than other energy-gathering technologies, why it is economically viable, why all of the fears surrounding its by-products are unfounded. He presents his suit of clothes for nuclear power almost exclusively in relation to coal-burning energy, however. If nuclear power really will solve all the worlds energy problems, including lessen the amount of air pollution released each year (which cuts down on respiratory disease, acid rain, ozone depletion, and the greenhouse effect), providing limitless energy to the world through the use of an infinite resource, and doing everything safely and at extremely low cost, why would one consider it in terms of purely the dirty, environmentally unfriendly, hazardous coal industry? Why not take on all possible energy te... .... It does not require an extreme view, but if one looks at the natural environment as being worthy of consideration, in addition to human life , one may find extremely have reasons for rejecting nuclear power on ethical grounds. This ethical rejection would be grounded unwaveringly in reasoning and based on facts surrounding the debate, but would not accept the requisite disposal problems associated with nuclear power. I believe that this is the glide path we have discussed in class on numerous occasions, and that Hans has been hoping we would adopt it as the way to defend ourselves and our environment. However, it requires critical thinking, constant questioning, a lot of refuting, and cognisance of the (disappointing) potential for impurity in science. I hope we can pee-pee on developing these kind of ethical approaches to many of the problems we encounter in the future.