Erik Johnson
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2005
Technology is touted as the miracle cure for world hunger when in reality it is hurting third world countries battling hunger. Anuradha Mittal writes in his article titled “Technology Won’t Feed the World’s Hungry” that technological fixes are not the cure for hunger.
Mittal states that the people using the modified seeds and eating the modified food often do not want anything to do with them. Technology has never been the answer. He tells us to look at the past. For example: As part of the 1960’s Green Revolution, Western technology created pesticides and sent them to developing countries for agricultural use. They may have worked to increase food production but at the cost of poisoning the earth, air and water. Mittal says that its not that they can produce enough food, its that they cannot get that food to the people. For example: the International Monetary Fund had to slash its public service and social-safty nets so now the food will not get to the needy. More than 60 million tons of excess, unsold food grain rotted in India last year because the hungry were to poor to buy the food. A higher genetic crop yield would not help the people in India when people are unable to buy two meals a day all ready.
The focus should be on the root causes of the problem not the symptoms. We must help the economic problems in these countries in order install change. It has shown in both America and Europe that when the economy of the country flourishes the threat of malaria and other diseases disappear. The hungry do not need a technological quick fix. They need a social change.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Fashionable Anti-American
Erik Johnson
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2005
Is it true that everyone hates us? Why do they hate us so much? What did we ever do to them? In truth it is not as bad as we think it is. There is a general misconception about the feelings toward America. People have hated our country since the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 says Dominic Hilton. Dominic writes in his article “Fashionable Anti-Americanism” that most of the time, it is not Americas fault that the world hates us so much.
Hilton believes that most America bashing is “pathetically hypocritical, embarrassingly imbecilic, perilously ruinous and, worst of all, as derisorily fashionable as those ludicrous woolly boots everyone is presently sporting.” He states that despite the best efforts of himself, Washington, and the entirety of the Midwestern states it is hard to not notice that we are the subject of global mocking and hatred. It is not that America is perfect, because we know for a fact that we are not.
America is the scapegoat for many people to blame their shortcomings on. For example, people blaming America for all of the world’s inadequacies such as, poverty, war, environmental destruction, and their own personal problems. Hilton uses the example that their houses rot as they drone and complain about American “crimes against humanity.” He says that this is a no win situation for us. That either way we go about our business people will still complain. If we do the right thing, they complain that we should have done more. If we didn’t do anything then they complain that we should have stepped in.
America sells period. Across Europe, gigantic music stores stuffed themselves with American pop, rock, and urban music. Then in the book stores they sell why America is bad books. Hilton explains “It is the kids that lap up on American culture, obese and spotty form diet of MCDonald’s and Coca-Cola, baggily clad in Nike, Gap and Levi’s plugged into their iPods listening to Eminem and 50 Cent that represent the behemoth that is the USA.”
So can America get a break? Tell the other nations to take a spoonful of their own medicine and shut up. It is not always our fault that we do the things we do. We do not try to harm anyone. America is here to help people in need and would appreciate it if you didn’t laugh at us when we screw up trying.
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2005
Is it true that everyone hates us? Why do they hate us so much? What did we ever do to them? In truth it is not as bad as we think it is. There is a general misconception about the feelings toward America. People have hated our country since the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 says Dominic Hilton. Dominic writes in his article “Fashionable Anti-Americanism” that most of the time, it is not Americas fault that the world hates us so much.
Hilton believes that most America bashing is “pathetically hypocritical, embarrassingly imbecilic, perilously ruinous and, worst of all, as derisorily fashionable as those ludicrous woolly boots everyone is presently sporting.” He states that despite the best efforts of himself, Washington, and the entirety of the Midwestern states it is hard to not notice that we are the subject of global mocking and hatred. It is not that America is perfect, because we know for a fact that we are not.
America is the scapegoat for many people to blame their shortcomings on. For example, people blaming America for all of the world’s inadequacies such as, poverty, war, environmental destruction, and their own personal problems. Hilton uses the example that their houses rot as they drone and complain about American “crimes against humanity.” He says that this is a no win situation for us. That either way we go about our business people will still complain. If we do the right thing, they complain that we should have done more. If we didn’t do anything then they complain that we should have stepped in.
America sells period. Across Europe, gigantic music stores stuffed themselves with American pop, rock, and urban music. Then in the book stores they sell why America is bad books. Hilton explains “It is the kids that lap up on American culture, obese and spotty form diet of MCDonald’s and Coca-Cola, baggily clad in Nike, Gap and Levi’s plugged into their iPods listening to Eminem and 50 Cent that represent the behemoth that is the USA.”
So can America get a break? Tell the other nations to take a spoonful of their own medicine and shut up. It is not always our fault that we do the things we do. We do not try to harm anyone. America is here to help people in need and would appreciate it if you didn’t laugh at us when we screw up trying.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Bad Luck: Why Americans Exagerate the Terrorist Threat
Erik Johnson
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2009
Media is raking in the ratings with terrorism as their mascot. Most people know that the media will exaggerate anything to get more ratings. They are fawning over the anthrax scares and terrorist threats. This is not a good thing. It creates unneeded stress and anxiety on people. It is like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and then charging admission to leave. Jeffery Rosen’s article titled “Bad Luck: Why Americans Exaggerate the Terrorist Threat” explains the ignorance of Americans exaggeration of the truth.
Rosen says that exaggeration of terrorism is not surprising. Criminologists say that crimes that are unfamiliar, strike at random and cannot be easily avoided are crimes that we worry about the most. Terrorism is the perfect example of that type of crime. Rosen insist that it is Americas ability remain calm in the face of random violence that will win the psychological war against terrorism. But he says that considering our reaction to similar threats in the past it is not looking very good. Rosen looks at academic literature about crime and the human psyche. The literature finds that people worry about being victims of crimes that they are least likely to be victims of. Rosen asks “why are people most afraid of crimes they are least likely to experience?” Wesley Skogan of Northwestern University believes that “it may be the things we feel we cannot control or influence are the ones that make people fearful” Skogan says that “it is why people fear flying more than they fear being hit by a car.” We as a people think that we can protect ourselves by being cautious when we cross the street and that’s why we underestimate the risk. Rosen further states that we as a society over estimate the risk of crimes that they have never experienced.
The media is partially responsible. Rosen found that there is distortion in the newspapers. According to one study that he found forty-five percent of crimes reported in the newspaper involve sex or violence, even though it only accounts for three percent of the crimes. He investigated further and found there were new crimes every few years that seized the public eye in the 80’s and 90’s. Starting in 1987 with freeway violence, wilding in 1989, stalking in 1990, kids and guns in 1991 and the list goes on from there. Rosen found from his source titled “Random Violence” that the media picks out two to three incidents of random but dramatic crime and makes them seem like an everyday occurrence. That way everyone seems vulnerable, increasing the audience.
Rosen’s final question is “how can we minimize panic after an event like September 11th?” He says that instead of the media focusing on the worst case scenarios, they should accurately inform people of the real risk so that they may asses it and take precautions toward it. But most importantly Rosen states that we must learn that there is no insurance against every calamity or compensation for every misfortune. We must emerge out of September 11th a stronger society and a stronger nation.
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2009
Media is raking in the ratings with terrorism as their mascot. Most people know that the media will exaggerate anything to get more ratings. They are fawning over the anthrax scares and terrorist threats. This is not a good thing. It creates unneeded stress and anxiety on people. It is like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and then charging admission to leave. Jeffery Rosen’s article titled “Bad Luck: Why Americans Exaggerate the Terrorist Threat” explains the ignorance of Americans exaggeration of the truth.
Rosen says that exaggeration of terrorism is not surprising. Criminologists say that crimes that are unfamiliar, strike at random and cannot be easily avoided are crimes that we worry about the most. Terrorism is the perfect example of that type of crime. Rosen insist that it is Americas ability remain calm in the face of random violence that will win the psychological war against terrorism. But he says that considering our reaction to similar threats in the past it is not looking very good. Rosen looks at academic literature about crime and the human psyche. The literature finds that people worry about being victims of crimes that they are least likely to be victims of. Rosen asks “why are people most afraid of crimes they are least likely to experience?” Wesley Skogan of Northwestern University believes that “it may be the things we feel we cannot control or influence are the ones that make people fearful” Skogan says that “it is why people fear flying more than they fear being hit by a car.” We as a people think that we can protect ourselves by being cautious when we cross the street and that’s why we underestimate the risk. Rosen further states that we as a society over estimate the risk of crimes that they have never experienced.
The media is partially responsible. Rosen found that there is distortion in the newspapers. According to one study that he found forty-five percent of crimes reported in the newspaper involve sex or violence, even though it only accounts for three percent of the crimes. He investigated further and found there were new crimes every few years that seized the public eye in the 80’s and 90’s. Starting in 1987 with freeway violence, wilding in 1989, stalking in 1990, kids and guns in 1991 and the list goes on from there. Rosen found from his source titled “Random Violence” that the media picks out two to three incidents of random but dramatic crime and makes them seem like an everyday occurrence. That way everyone seems vulnerable, increasing the audience.
Rosen’s final question is “how can we minimize panic after an event like September 11th?” He says that instead of the media focusing on the worst case scenarios, they should accurately inform people of the real risk so that they may asses it and take precautions toward it. But most importantly Rosen states that we must learn that there is no insurance against every calamity or compensation for every misfortune. We must emerge out of September 11th a stronger society and a stronger nation.
In Africa, AIDS has a Womens Face
Erik Johnson
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2009
AIDS is a disease destroying Africa. This disease is destroying the most powerful people in Africa, the women. Women control the small rural communities and they are the reason that those communities survive.
Kofi Annan writes about the struggles that these women face in his article titled “In Africa, AIDS Has a Woman’s Face.” Annan states that in every study ever conducted has shown that there is no aspect of African development that women do not play a central role. Today, millions of African women are threatened by two afflictions: AIDS and famine. According to Annana’s article over 30 million people are at risk of starvation in southern Africa. All of the southern agricultural societies are also battling the AIDS epidemic. Annan says that because of AIDS, rural societies are falling apart, agricultural development is disintegrating quickly, and household income is shrinking. AIDS has killed almost 2.5 million Africans the year that this article was published in 2003 and left 11 million African children orphaned sense the start of this epidemic. AIDS is causing a dangerous and ever growing snowball effect according to Annan. A woman will often have to take care of a sick husband, which means that she has a lesser amount of time to plant her fields and harvesting. When her husband dies, she cannot use credit and deprived of the right to own land Annan states. Then when she dies the house will possibly collapse. Which in turn the older children will be taken out of school and deprived a good education to work in the home or farm.
Annan pushes that because this crisis is different from past famines, we must look beyond old relief techniques. He says that we must combine food assistance and new approaches to farming with treatment and prevention of H.I.V. and AIDS. It will require an early warning monitoring system and new agricultural techniques that will work for a hindered work force. Most importantly Annan says that we must inform the people about H.I.V. and AIDS so that we can prevent the spread because of ignorance of the disease.
There is hope. Recent United Nations reports show that H.I.V. infection rates in Uganda continue to decline. In South Africa, infections in women under 20 have begun to decline at a steady pace. Annan encourages that we must build on the successes that we have had and replicate them elsewhere around the world. If we wish to save Africa we must save the women.
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 5, 2009
AIDS is a disease destroying Africa. This disease is destroying the most powerful people in Africa, the women. Women control the small rural communities and they are the reason that those communities survive.
Kofi Annan writes about the struggles that these women face in his article titled “In Africa, AIDS Has a Woman’s Face.” Annan states that in every study ever conducted has shown that there is no aspect of African development that women do not play a central role. Today, millions of African women are threatened by two afflictions: AIDS and famine. According to Annana’s article over 30 million people are at risk of starvation in southern Africa. All of the southern agricultural societies are also battling the AIDS epidemic. Annan says that because of AIDS, rural societies are falling apart, agricultural development is disintegrating quickly, and household income is shrinking. AIDS has killed almost 2.5 million Africans the year that this article was published in 2003 and left 11 million African children orphaned sense the start of this epidemic. AIDS is causing a dangerous and ever growing snowball effect according to Annan. A woman will often have to take care of a sick husband, which means that she has a lesser amount of time to plant her fields and harvesting. When her husband dies, she cannot use credit and deprived of the right to own land Annan states. Then when she dies the house will possibly collapse. Which in turn the older children will be taken out of school and deprived a good education to work in the home or farm.
Annan pushes that because this crisis is different from past famines, we must look beyond old relief techniques. He says that we must combine food assistance and new approaches to farming with treatment and prevention of H.I.V. and AIDS. It will require an early warning monitoring system and new agricultural techniques that will work for a hindered work force. Most importantly Annan says that we must inform the people about H.I.V. and AIDS so that we can prevent the spread because of ignorance of the disease.
There is hope. Recent United Nations reports show that H.I.V. infection rates in Uganda continue to decline. In South Africa, infections in women under 20 have begun to decline at a steady pace. Annan encourages that we must build on the successes that we have had and replicate them elsewhere around the world. If we wish to save Africa we must save the women.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Noble Feat of Nike
Erik Johnson
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 23, 2009
“Nike. It means victory.” Nike, the athletic shoe giant, is brought up in many outsourcing debates around the world. Nike is one of the largest companies to kick most if not all of its western workers out of their jobs and then move those jobs overseas. Then to sell those shoes for one hundred times more than the pay of the sweetshop workers that made them. But what if someone were to tell you that Nike was doing good in the world?
Johan Norberg’s article addresses the misconception about Nike. Nike has four times the workers in Vietnam than in the U.S. Norberg traveled to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam to investigate Nike from the workers perspective. He says that the work looks tough if we compare Vietnamese factories to what we have in America. But the workers do not mind. They compare their work in the Nike factory to what they did before. Working in an air conditioned factory from nine to five is much more appealing than working out in the sweltering heat, the harsh sun, and insects in your face for fourteen hours. The workers earn three times the Vietnamese national minimum wage on top of that. Norberg states that most important things that Nike factory workers receive are job security, a regular wage, subsidized meals, free medical services, training and education. But, Norberg states, that Nike and companies like it do not do these things because they are generous. They do it because their investments bring in new equipment, new management skills and production ideas, a larger market, and education of their workers. All of this raises productivity for the company. Norberg jokes that it is hard to call this exploitation with these types of investments in countries like Vietnam. Because of these investments made by these companies the countries exports have doubled and the poverty is half of what it was. Norberg interviewed a Vietnamese worker and asked her what hopes she had for her son’s future. A generation ago she would have had to put him to work on the farm at an early age. But instead she stated that she wants to give him a good education, so that he will become a doctor. In the last ten years child labor has is almost non-existent now that families are able to send their children to school instead of the fields. So if you are an anit-globalist then go ahead and protest but know that you are protesting a better present and future for third world countries.
English 250 FD
Mr. Perez
April 23, 2009
“Nike. It means victory.” Nike, the athletic shoe giant, is brought up in many outsourcing debates around the world. Nike is one of the largest companies to kick most if not all of its western workers out of their jobs and then move those jobs overseas. Then to sell those shoes for one hundred times more than the pay of the sweetshop workers that made them. But what if someone were to tell you that Nike was doing good in the world?
Johan Norberg’s article addresses the misconception about Nike. Nike has four times the workers in Vietnam than in the U.S. Norberg traveled to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam to investigate Nike from the workers perspective. He says that the work looks tough if we compare Vietnamese factories to what we have in America. But the workers do not mind. They compare their work in the Nike factory to what they did before. Working in an air conditioned factory from nine to five is much more appealing than working out in the sweltering heat, the harsh sun, and insects in your face for fourteen hours. The workers earn three times the Vietnamese national minimum wage on top of that. Norberg states that most important things that Nike factory workers receive are job security, a regular wage, subsidized meals, free medical services, training and education. But, Norberg states, that Nike and companies like it do not do these things because they are generous. They do it because their investments bring in new equipment, new management skills and production ideas, a larger market, and education of their workers. All of this raises productivity for the company. Norberg jokes that it is hard to call this exploitation with these types of investments in countries like Vietnam. Because of these investments made by these companies the countries exports have doubled and the poverty is half of what it was. Norberg interviewed a Vietnamese worker and asked her what hopes she had for her son’s future. A generation ago she would have had to put him to work on the farm at an early age. But instead she stated that she wants to give him a good education, so that he will become a doctor. In the last ten years child labor has is almost non-existent now that families are able to send their children to school instead of the fields. So if you are an anit-globalist then go ahead and protest but know that you are protesting a better present and future for third world countries.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Research paper
Erik Johnson
English 250
Mr. Perez
April 17, 2009
Looking to the Past for a Better Future
In our nation there is an ever-growing concern about the use of fossil fuels for energy production. Between both our over-reliance on foreign fossil fuels and the need to preserve our world, in the future we may be looking at a difficult solution. The need for an alternative energy source is apparent and the solution may be just as obvious. Through the use of nuclear energy we can create a clean renewable energy that produces no carbon dioxide emissions. Many people may be skeptical about nuclear energy because of possible disasters and the potential for waste production. There is also the problem of government interaction in the 1970’s making breeder reactors illegal eliminating the ability to reuse the waste. However, this law is out-of-date because the threat that government officials were worried about is a thing of the past. Despite these problems there are solutions that, with time, can lead to a safer and more reliable energy source that is both clean and renewable. Through the use of nuclear energy, we can create a greener world and wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
Nuclear energy may seem like a complicated process, but it is actually very simple. Heat is produced by the process of fission using radioactive materials such as uranium and plutonium. The released heat is used to warm the water enough to produce steam. From there, it propels a turbine which creates power that is transferred to what is essentially a giant battery. Simply put, it is a fancy way to boil water. Due to the materials being used and the process through which energy is produced, nuclear energy production does not affect air quality in the slightest (Fromm).
One of the major concerns with nuclear energy is the potential danger of leaks and spills. It has been a significant amount of time sense the last nuclear reactor meltdown. The two most recent power plant incidents were Three Mile Island, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in 1986 (Sewell). Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen (Moore par 12). The Chernobyl reactor was an old plant built to poor specifications and did not have anywhere close to the safety precautions that exist today. The Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine was caused by a malfunction during a testing on one of the four reactors. A misjudgment by the scientist running the test caused the core to reach super-criticality (Sewell par 2). This caused the water around the fuel to vaporize very quickly into steam. The pressure had nowhere to go and caused a steam explosion making the reactor impossible to control (Sewell par 3). Many believe that the Three Mile Island incident was a disaster when, in fact, it was a successful example of averting a major nuclear disaster (Moore par 12). There was no loss of life and very little radiation emission from the plant. Though it is unlikely, if a nuclear spill were to occur there would be a large environmental impact and loss of life.
In comparison to the negative impact of possible nuclear mishaps, there is a larger concern in the coal and oil industries. There were sixty-nine deaths in 2007 from coal mining accidents and collapses (Mine). As for environmental impact, both oil drilling and coal power plants should be considered. Although oil spills have caused catastrophic environmental damage in the past, millions of barrels of oil are drilled each year. Coal plants produce large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses which are proven to damage the Earth’s atmosphere. Despite the obvious problems, coal is still a major source of power in the United States today.
During the 1970’s, for fear of the enrichment of nuclear rods being sold to terrorist organizations, Breeder reactors were banned from being made in the US (Tucker par 10). Normally, in nuclear reactors, the process calls for uranium-235, which accounts for 1% of the Earth’s crust, instead of the more common uranium-238, which undergoes fission differently than uranium-235, so it cannot be used in conventional reactors, which means that, at the moment it can only be placed back into the ground (Tucker). With a breeder reactor, the power plant could use the uranium-238 and causes it to spontaneously release neutrons to create plutonium-239 (Fromm). When the process is done, all of the uranium will have transformed into plutonium. This process is much more dangerous, but the abundance of the uranium -238 allows for many more years of power. The government’s main problem with Breeder reactors is the production of plutonium it could be used to create nuclear weapons. In all reality if a foreign government wants to build a bomb, they would build their own facilities, and it would be very difficult for any terrorist organization to extract plutonium from the radioactive material and build a bomb (Tucker par 11). We should not ban something that could change our planet and economy in the way that nuclear energy could.
If the government were to lift the ban on breeder reactors, nuclear energy would be the answer that the US has long been seeking. It is both a clean and renewable source that can provide much of the energy needed by the ever-growing population. Through an old process with modern day innovations, nuclear reactors will allow us to wean ourselves from the evils of fossil fuels. There may still be a few bugs that need to be worked out, but nuclear energy is a good alternative in the years to come. With the ever-growing need for energy comes the astonishing supply of uranium and plutonium needed to provide the energy the United States is craving.
Works Cited
Fromm, James R. "The Breeder Reactor." The Breeder Reactor. 1997. 6 Apr. 2009
.
Mine Safety and Heath Administration. Injury Trends in Mining. 16 April 2009
Moore, Patrick. “Going Nuclear.” The Washington Post 16 April 2006. 12 April 2009
Nuclear Energy: The Basics. Digital image. Http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/. 2005. 6
Apr. 2009.
Sewell, Linda, and Edward N. Lazo. "Nuclear Power & Nuclear Accidents."
Http://www.hps.org/. 2 Jan. 2002. 6 Apr. 2009.
Sutcliffe, W. G., and T. J. Trapp. "Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear
Explosives." Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear Explosives. Jan. 1997. 6 Apr. 2009.
Tucker, William. "There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste." The Wall Street Journal 13 Mar.
2009. 13 April 2009
English 250
Mr. Perez
April 17, 2009
Looking to the Past for a Better Future
In our nation there is an ever-growing concern about the use of fossil fuels for energy production. Between both our over-reliance on foreign fossil fuels and the need to preserve our world, in the future we may be looking at a difficult solution. The need for an alternative energy source is apparent and the solution may be just as obvious. Through the use of nuclear energy we can create a clean renewable energy that produces no carbon dioxide emissions. Many people may be skeptical about nuclear energy because of possible disasters and the potential for waste production. There is also the problem of government interaction in the 1970’s making breeder reactors illegal eliminating the ability to reuse the waste. However, this law is out-of-date because the threat that government officials were worried about is a thing of the past. Despite these problems there are solutions that, with time, can lead to a safer and more reliable energy source that is both clean and renewable. Through the use of nuclear energy, we can create a greener world and wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
Nuclear energy may seem like a complicated process, but it is actually very simple. Heat is produced by the process of fission using radioactive materials such as uranium and plutonium. The released heat is used to warm the water enough to produce steam. From there, it propels a turbine which creates power that is transferred to what is essentially a giant battery. Simply put, it is a fancy way to boil water. Due to the materials being used and the process through which energy is produced, nuclear energy production does not affect air quality in the slightest (Fromm).
One of the major concerns with nuclear energy is the potential danger of leaks and spills. It has been a significant amount of time sense the last nuclear reactor meltdown. The two most recent power plant incidents were Three Mile Island, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in 1986 (Sewell). Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen (Moore par 12). The Chernobyl reactor was an old plant built to poor specifications and did not have anywhere close to the safety precautions that exist today. The Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine was caused by a malfunction during a testing on one of the four reactors. A misjudgment by the scientist running the test caused the core to reach super-criticality (Sewell par 2). This caused the water around the fuel to vaporize very quickly into steam. The pressure had nowhere to go and caused a steam explosion making the reactor impossible to control (Sewell par 3). Many believe that the Three Mile Island incident was a disaster when, in fact, it was a successful example of averting a major nuclear disaster (Moore par 12). There was no loss of life and very little radiation emission from the plant. Though it is unlikely, if a nuclear spill were to occur there would be a large environmental impact and loss of life.
In comparison to the negative impact of possible nuclear mishaps, there is a larger concern in the coal and oil industries. There were sixty-nine deaths in 2007 from coal mining accidents and collapses (Mine). As for environmental impact, both oil drilling and coal power plants should be considered. Although oil spills have caused catastrophic environmental damage in the past, millions of barrels of oil are drilled each year. Coal plants produce large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses which are proven to damage the Earth’s atmosphere. Despite the obvious problems, coal is still a major source of power in the United States today.
During the 1970’s, for fear of the enrichment of nuclear rods being sold to terrorist organizations, Breeder reactors were banned from being made in the US (Tucker par 10). Normally, in nuclear reactors, the process calls for uranium-235, which accounts for 1% of the Earth’s crust, instead of the more common uranium-238, which undergoes fission differently than uranium-235, so it cannot be used in conventional reactors, which means that, at the moment it can only be placed back into the ground (Tucker). With a breeder reactor, the power plant could use the uranium-238 and causes it to spontaneously release neutrons to create plutonium-239 (Fromm). When the process is done, all of the uranium will have transformed into plutonium. This process is much more dangerous, but the abundance of the uranium -238 allows for many more years of power. The government’s main problem with Breeder reactors is the production of plutonium it could be used to create nuclear weapons. In all reality if a foreign government wants to build a bomb, they would build their own facilities, and it would be very difficult for any terrorist organization to extract plutonium from the radioactive material and build a bomb (Tucker par 11). We should not ban something that could change our planet and economy in the way that nuclear energy could.
If the government were to lift the ban on breeder reactors, nuclear energy would be the answer that the US has long been seeking. It is both a clean and renewable source that can provide much of the energy needed by the ever-growing population. Through an old process with modern day innovations, nuclear reactors will allow us to wean ourselves from the evils of fossil fuels. There may still be a few bugs that need to be worked out, but nuclear energy is a good alternative in the years to come. With the ever-growing need for energy comes the astonishing supply of uranium and plutonium needed to provide the energy the United States is craving.
Works Cited
Fromm, James R. "The Breeder Reactor." The Breeder Reactor. 1997. 6 Apr. 2009
Mine Safety and Heath Administration. Injury Trends in Mining. 16 April 2009
Moore, Patrick. “Going Nuclear.” The Washington Post 16 April 2006. 12 April 2009
Nuclear Energy: The Basics. Digital image. Http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/. 2005. 6
Apr. 2009
Sewell, Linda, and Edward N. Lazo. "Nuclear Power & Nuclear Accidents."
Http://www.hps.org/. 2 Jan. 2002. 6 Apr. 2009
Sutcliffe, W. G., and T. J. Trapp. "Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear
Explosives." Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear Explosives. Jan. 1997. 6 Apr. 2009
Tucker, William. "There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste." The Wall Street Journal 13 Mar.
2009. 13 April 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Driving Global Warming
My family owns two gas guzzling monsters. A SUV and a Ford F-150. They are both really nice vehicles and we have never had any problems with them except when we fill up the tanks. Bill McKIbbs article Driving Global Warming elaborates on the fact that we are digging our planets grave with the cars that we drive.
McKibben begins his article that the fact that we did not begin buying gigantic gas guzzling machines until a decade ago. He jokes that if you look at a parking lot in suburban Boston that you would think that all the people there had to cross flooded rivers and climb through uncharted terrain. Looking at the cars with the eighteen inch clearance, four wheel drive and step up bumpers. Because of these behemoths Mckibbens comments that the international panel on climate change has concluded that our planet will warm four to five degrees before the end of the century. He further states that this is because the SUV burns much more gas than that of the usual compact car and because of this warming people in Bangladesh had to live in thigh deep water for three months. This flooding is because the Bay of Bengal was a couple of inches higher than usual from the melting of the ice caps. McKibben wants people not to immediately throw away their $40,000 car, but to stop purchasing the fuel inefficient vehicles.
I see McKibbens point in the fact that global warming is a big threat to our existence and yet we are doing very little to slow or stop the process. I don’t believe that the cars that we drive need to be as big and powerful as they are right now. We could defiantly downsize the cars that we have. I believe that the government should step in way more than they have or at least give a little more incentive for auto makers to build better vehicles. Although in a way we as a people can start the movement. We just need to stop buying these useless cars and trucks and instead buy better fuel efficient vehicles. I also want to point out that I agree that SUV’s are a good contributor to the world problem but there is much more than that. A couple of other contributors are Industry, residential and agriculture emissions. All of these things create CO2 emissions that damage our environment and we need to control this for not only the betterment of our lives but also for our children’s and our children’s children.
McKibben begins his article that the fact that we did not begin buying gigantic gas guzzling machines until a decade ago. He jokes that if you look at a parking lot in suburban Boston that you would think that all the people there had to cross flooded rivers and climb through uncharted terrain. Looking at the cars with the eighteen inch clearance, four wheel drive and step up bumpers. Because of these behemoths Mckibbens comments that the international panel on climate change has concluded that our planet will warm four to five degrees before the end of the century. He further states that this is because the SUV burns much more gas than that of the usual compact car and because of this warming people in Bangladesh had to live in thigh deep water for three months. This flooding is because the Bay of Bengal was a couple of inches higher than usual from the melting of the ice caps. McKibben wants people not to immediately throw away their $40,000 car, but to stop purchasing the fuel inefficient vehicles.
I see McKibbens point in the fact that global warming is a big threat to our existence and yet we are doing very little to slow or stop the process. I don’t believe that the cars that we drive need to be as big and powerful as they are right now. We could defiantly downsize the cars that we have. I believe that the government should step in way more than they have or at least give a little more incentive for auto makers to build better vehicles. Although in a way we as a people can start the movement. We just need to stop buying these useless cars and trucks and instead buy better fuel efficient vehicles. I also want to point out that I agree that SUV’s are a good contributor to the world problem but there is much more than that. A couple of other contributors are Industry, residential and agriculture emissions. All of these things create CO2 emissions that damage our environment and we need to control this for not only the betterment of our lives but also for our children’s and our children’s children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)