WP4 intro

Nuclear power is arguably one of humankind’s greatest achievements.  However, it is also undoubtedly one of our most dangerous and terrifying.  When implemented correctly, nuclear power can provide an efficient and relatively clean source of energy.  However, if something goes wrong, the situation could quickly deteriorate into a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl, or, more recently, Fukushima.  It has often been speculated that technology is a double-edged sword, bringing both benefits and drawbacks, and no technology fits this description better than nuclear reactors.  According to Adam Piore in his article ‘Planning for the Black Swan,’ the major issue revolving around nuclear technology is that of safety versus cost.  Although nuclear power can indeed provide a more efficient source of energy, with less pollution than a conventional fuel like coal, it also carries with it greater risks than these more conventional power sources.  Therefore, the main problem that nuclear engineers must overcome is designing a reactor that strikes the right balance between efficiency and safety.  But can nuclear technology overcome these fundamental problems?  Or are conventional sources of energy a better option?

WP 4 Topic

People seem to be divided over the issue of nuclear power.  On the one hand, there are people who wholeheartedly support it, declaring it as the miracle cure for America's "oil adiction."  On the other, there are those who claim that the radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors is too great a threat to safety.  But just how realistic are these claims?  Are nuclear reactors really as efficient as supporters claim them to be?  And are they really as dangerous as detractors would have you believe?  The purpose of my paper is to analyze the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear technology, and to reach a conclusion as to wether the rewards outweigh the risks.

Sub questions that will be answered include:

Nuclear technology is relatively young, but there have still been a few nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the tsunami that recently damaged the reactor in Japan.  Just how harmful were these accidents?  What is the likelihood that similiar accidents will happen in the future?  And what steps are being taking to reduce the liklihood of nuclear accidents happening again?

How costly are nuclear reactors to build and maintain?  Would it be cheaper to just use conventional sources of energy?

How is nuclear waste being stored, and how effective is this method of storage?  It has been speculated that stored nuclear waste could be a target for terrorists.  What are the odds of this actually happening?

I. A. Richards Findings

I.A. Richards was born on February 26, 1893, and died on September 7, 1979. He was an English critic, poet, and teacher who was highly influential in developing a new way of reading poetry that led to New Criticism, an influential movement in literary theory during the middle 20^th century.  Richards went to Magdalene College in Cambridge and was a lecturer in English and moral sciences there from 1922 to 1929.

I. A. Richards was one of the first professors to make a systematic study of how his students actually read poetry without guidance. He describes the methods he used in his famous book, Practical Criticism, written in 1923.  Richards gave his students lots of poems but no extra information, like the titles or authors, and asked them write commentaries about the poems.  He discovered that many of his students failed to understand the poems.

Zinczenco Summary

                In his article on childhood obesity, David Zinczenco claims that the fast food industry is responsible for the growing number of obese children.  In his view, children are victimized by the fast food industry providing cheap, unhealthy food that fills the void left in the absence of a traditional home-cooked meal.  He argues that with their parents working long hours and unable to provide healthy food, many children have no alternative but to eat at fast food chains.

                However, the way I see it, there are alternatives to fast food for children with parents without the time to cook them a healthy meal.  A turkey, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, for example, takes very little time to prepare, and isn’t too expensive.  Add a glass of milk, and you’ve got something from every major food group.  As for the kids, if they’re old enough to be left alone all day unsupervised, then they should be old enough to make informed decisions about the foods they eat.  Zinczenco makes it sound like its difficult to be able to tell exactly how many calories are in most meals served by fast food chains.  I don’t think kids really need to know the calorie count.  All they need to know is that fast food is bad for you, and you shouldn’t eat too much of it.