Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Peyton Donnell
English 1302
31 January 2017
In Taylor Pearsons essay, Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear
Power, he attempts to explain the benefits of nuclear power and how safe it is in comparison to
the history of the unexpectedly dangerous toaster. Pearson builds upon the topic in four
subchapters labeled Death Toll, Radiation, Waste, and Meeting Our Energy Demands. Death
Toll unquestionably covers the history of deaths between nuclear power and that of the toaster.
In the second subchapter, Radiation, Pearson provides the readers with information regarding
radiation and how common activities, like traveling in a plane, and common objects, like a brick
wall, will emit more or less radiation respectively compare to what is released by a nuclear
power plant. In Waste, he covers the controversial topic of what should be done with all that
radioactive material after it has been used because it remains so harmful. He brings up that the
amount of waste produced is relatively small and very manageable and counter with facts about
the enormous amounts of waste produced by fossil fuels. Finally, in Meeting Our Energy
Demands he confronts us with the reality that many of the clean and renewable sources of
energy, such as wind and solar, are very difficult to implement due to fiscal and space problems.
Pearson believes that nuclear power is the most efficient and safest route to meeting modern
Donnell-2
electrical needs and the reason it hasnt caught on is the current business with fossil fuels, which
will not just disappear, and the persistent fear of all things nuclear.
Beginning with the title Pearson grips the readers attention with an interesting title that leaves
the reader questioning how a toaster could be so dangerous. He starts off his essay with a
mention of a recent event showing that he will be up-to-date on his argument. Within the first
paragraph it can be concluded that his targeted audience is any who view nuclear power in
opposition and by the way he writes in a first-person point of view he is attempting to connect to
them. The next thing to be seen is the use of subchapters which Pearson uses throughout the
essay to help keep the reader on track and by doing so he answers questions that come in the
readers mind. His first subchapter, Death Toll, he attempts to extinguish the immediate fears
that come with the word nuclear by showing the statistics of death by nuclear power compared to
toasters. He also compares it to other forms of energy production to show the reader that what
they may view as the safer route is actually more dangerous. Next in Radiation, he uses facts and
statistics with the use of measurements to inform the reader on the topic of radiation and once
again relieving fear by showing us that radiation from a plant is no more dangerous than even the
most common activities and objects. All this information seems to come from trustworthy
After using a bulk of facts Pearson admits to a downside of nuclear power by presenting
to us the subject of Waste. He concedes to the unavoidable negative product and shows that he is
not completely biased to his argument by exclaiming a fault in what he supports. Then in the
concluding paragraphs Pearson confronts the readers with the question of why wont other
sources of energy work and goes on to explain that the feasibility for those alternatives is not
Donnell-3
there claiming nuclear power as the only realistic choice. After that he explains the reason we
dont use nuclear energy if it is as good as he claims it to be by asserting that is the big business
of fossil fuels and the fear of everything nuclear that drives positive attention away from nuclear
power. Finally, Pearson ends his argument requesting that his readers recognize that their fear of
nuclear power does not stem from facts and we can see that he wants his readers to make their
own decision rather than just taking the word from journalist.
While I read the essay, I was delighted that much of Pearsons argument on the
controversial subject of nuclear power was based on logos. Not only that, I could almost
sympathize with his use of those facts. For a little while my freshmen year I was, and with
continued interests, researching nuclear power and its danger and uses because I was pondering
on the idea to become a nuclear engineer. And the facts and comparisons used by Pearson
coincided with what I had found. When he looked at the Chernobyl incident which only killed
the few that were closest to the meltdown immediately while others would later die of radiation
and compared it to the toasters 3,000 deaths the year it was introduced his point was made clear.
Then with the other questions raised when talking about nuclear incidents, such as radiation and
waste, he was able to counter those fears using fact, furthering his stance and eliminating those
concerns. While under waste he even admitted to the fault of nuclear power showing he had
researched his argument and was trying to fair on both sides. It was his use of clear factual
explanation that struck me most and in the end I could trust him and agree with him completely.
I support the prospect of nuclear power in the future for an efficient, clean, and lasting solution
for our need for electricity and hope, just like Pearson, that people will put aside their fears and