Sources: Text and Video Links
Against plans for nuclear power plant - Ottumwa Courier ...
http://www.ottumwacourier.com/against-plans-for-nuclear-power-plant/article_971ac33a-b444526f-932b-a4d3755175f3.html
Nuclear a cost-effective energy source - Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/3/nuclear-a-cost-effective-energy-source/
The truth about Nuclear Power – Reason.com
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/25/the-truth-about-nuclear-power/
Nuclear power -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
“James Hansen on Nuclear Energy”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyi20kgmhrm4wib/James%20Hansen%20on%20Nuclear%20Energ
y.mp4?dl=0
“Look inside Fukushima’s meltdown…”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfmnkm4hilq34qa/Look%20inside%20Fukushima%27s%20meltdo
wn%20zone%20a%20year%20
later.mp4?dl=0http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/3/nuclear-a-cost-effectiveenergy-source/
Note-Taking Guide
Research
Source
Published by…
infographic
Environmental It’s already being used,
second most popular
Protection
energy source;
Agency,
19.28% or about1/5 of all
2005
U.S. energy comes from
Arguments for
Nuclear Power
nuclear sources.
Opinion
piece by
Rose M.
Christy,
concerned
citizen
Ottumwa
Courier,
March 17,
2012
Opinion piece
by William H.
Miller,
professor of
nuclear
engineering
Washington
Times,
January 3,
2012
He claims nuclear power:
- produces large amounts
of energy;
- low risk;
- more reliable than wind
and solar.
News
article, “The
Truth about
Nuclear
Power,”
By
Veronique
de Rugy
Reason.com,
March 25,
2011
- Nuclear power is
not a safety risk
Arguments
against Nuclear
Power
How reliable is
the evidence
from this
source?
- Coal is used more than
twice as much at 49.61%,
so maybe it should be
used even more than it
already is.
- There are several other
fuel sources such as
hydro, biomass, wind, etc.
that may not be used
enough
It should be reliable
because it is from a
government source;
however, the
information is 10
years old and might be
outdated.
Claims nuclear power
plants are:
-unsafe;
-make companies
rich/people can’t afford;
-wind power is
safer/better.
It is an opinion
based on possible
valid reasoning, but
not backed by
significant evidence.
It is an opinion
based on possible
valid reasoning, but
not backed by
significant evidence.
- More nuclear
power doesn’t mean
we’d use less oil
- No nuclear power
plants have been
built in the past 33
years due to expense
- Nuclear power is
more expensive than
coal and gas, more
conventional energy
Yes, this is
reliable evidence
drawn from
seemingly valid
government
reports and
scientific studies
CNN video,
“Look Inside
Fukushima’s
meltdown one
year later ”
by CNN 2011
Opinion of Dr. YouTube,
James Hansen “Pandora’s
Promises,”
July 23, 2013
While nuclear power
statistically speaking is
safe, when problems
arise the effects can be
long term and
disastrous:
- site not to be
decommissioned for 3040 years
-maintained 24 hours
per day, 7 days per
week
- 78,000 people
evacuated
- contaminated water
constantly accumulated
and needs to be stored
- all people near the site
must wear protective
gear
- There are newer plants
capable of using 99% of
radioactive material for
energy purposes
- Fossil fuels are being
depleted and causing
pollution, but only
produces 1-2% of energy
need
- As long as fossil fuels
are cheaper source of
energy they will continue
to be used unless there’s
a better alternative.
Yes, this seems to
be a valid news
source in which the
reporters film and
focus on facts
related to the
Fukushima disaster
He seems reliable as
a climate change
scientist who
provides seemingly
informed opinions