Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Donnell-1

Peyton Donnell

Dr. Reid Makowsky

English 1302

31 January 2017

The Danger of Toasters and Nuclear Power

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

sources and it appeals greatly to logos.

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

support nuclear power.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi