My topic that i am going to write my issues paper on is about the positive and negative effects having nuclear power become the new dominant energy source in the US.
Here the differing view points on this subject:
1. Many look down on nuclear power because of the potentially harmful radioactive materials Nuclear power subsequently employs. (Abrahamson, Cooper, Hanson, Mossman, Whitford
2. Some people are just completely skeptical that increasing nuclear power will really help the American economy. They think it is hoax that corporate companies are making to increase revenue in yet another alternative energy source. Also it may be just a ploy to make lots of nuclear weapons.(Bryce, Solon)
3. Other people pronounce that such nuclear increases will vastly improve electricity in cities and will become much cleaner and more powerful energy source. (Cooper, Griffin, Lake, Mossman, "Nuclear Hot Streak", Rusher, Sjoberg Weeks, Whitford, Wheeler)
4. Even more people think that beyond the potential hazard of nuclear power, that having a plant near a city causes deep psychological effects on people. (Levi, Schoberg)
5. Some people are very pro-nuclear power because it is a lot more efficient and creating usable energy, but are leery about employing it on a large scale because of the impact it could have on ozone. (Olwell)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
1. I think you gave a pretty balanced argument from both sides of this issue.
2. If you have an argument, just make it more clear to the reader. Right now you do a good job explaining the pros and cons of nuclear power, but no side on whether or not you think it is good.
From the given arguments, it is likely that you might argue that because of the education provided in the United States on AIDS, the US is better prepared for handling the crisis. If other countries had the same opportunities/resources as the US, they would not be hit as hard with the epidemic of AIDS.
1. I agree - you seem to be taking a very neutral stance that looks at both sides of the issue.
This is good if you want to propose the possibility of modifying the approach to overcome the negatives and enhance the positives.
2. To do this you'll have to cite equally balanced sources, and compare them. You might also have to get extra creative to propose a balanced thesis that isn't confusing.
I think you need to come up with an opinion on the matter to make it more effective. Being neutral it seems like your paper will just be giving us facts about nuclear energy.
Post a Comment