Energy and Place and Essential Questions
joint_scientific_statement.pdf | |
File Size: | 498 kb |
File Type: |
Opening Statement
Closing Statement
The Debate
Reflection
In the debate I was arguing for increasing the amount of nuclear energy that we use. I actually agreed with this side, so it wasn't difficult for me to prepare. Rather than change my stance like some students did, I just continued to gain more knowledge on the issue of nuclear power and I learned what issues can arise, but issues that cause catastrophic issues like what happened at Chernobyl or at Fukushima have an extremely low chance of happening. The main issue I had prior to my research was the issue with nuclear waste, which I will admit is a huge issue, but through my research I have learned that it doesn't need to be as big of an issue as it is. Up to 97% of nuclear waste can be recycled; 1% into plutonium and 96% into uranium. In the countries where recycling is allowed they typically only recycle the uranium as plutonium can't be used in reactors. The United States doesn't allow recycling of nuclear waste, which is why there is currently a huge issue with nuclear waste.
The piece of evidence that I find to be the most effective for the opposed side was the issue with nuclear waste and how there will always be some that can't be recycled. There isn't a way to dispose of it at the moment that is safe for the environment. On the side arguing for the motion I think the strongest point is that there is no pollution output from the actual production of nuclear power. I would like to continue researching about the recycling of the waste because this was only brought to my attention a few days before the actual exhibition and I would like to know the actual process of how it happens as well as why the United States is opposed to it. During the actual debate I had problems speaking during open debate because the opposing side was asking questions directed at Dylan and he was answering all of them without hesitation. The most I engaged with someone was when the issue of terrorist attacks was brought up. This was engaging because this is part of something that I had researched leading up to the exhibition.
Chemistry actually influenced what my environmental ethic was in humanities because after learning the facts about nuclear power I realized that I believed in sustainability and that what we are doing now isn't sustainable. On top of that it isn't healthy for the environment either, as I more accurately portray in my humanities essay there is an absurd amount of pollution created by coal power plants alone. As I previously stated I didn't do well during open debate because every question was directed towards one person and I didn't have a chance to respond to any questions. If I was able to redo the debate I would form a stronger opening statement because I feel like that may have helped more questions be directed at me.
There were two statements during the debate that I feel like need to be addressed. The first one, when Dalton said that a Nuclear core had a single fuel pellet and the other when Quinn was talking about the potential to ruin the whole ecosystem with a nuclear power accident. I am fact checking Dalton's statement because a nuclear reactor doesn't run on a single fuel pellet, but rather many fuel pellets stacked together. He was correct though in saying that they can last up to 18 months. When Quinn said there was a potential to ruin the whole ecosystem I would like to say that the chances of something that catastrophic happening are smaller than the chances of carbon dioxide pollution causing the average global temperatures to increase and cause a slew of bad events to happen such as ocean acidification. Beyond that I saw few issues with the other statements.
The piece of evidence that I find to be the most effective for the opposed side was the issue with nuclear waste and how there will always be some that can't be recycled. There isn't a way to dispose of it at the moment that is safe for the environment. On the side arguing for the motion I think the strongest point is that there is no pollution output from the actual production of nuclear power. I would like to continue researching about the recycling of the waste because this was only brought to my attention a few days before the actual exhibition and I would like to know the actual process of how it happens as well as why the United States is opposed to it. During the actual debate I had problems speaking during open debate because the opposing side was asking questions directed at Dylan and he was answering all of them without hesitation. The most I engaged with someone was when the issue of terrorist attacks was brought up. This was engaging because this is part of something that I had researched leading up to the exhibition.
Chemistry actually influenced what my environmental ethic was in humanities because after learning the facts about nuclear power I realized that I believed in sustainability and that what we are doing now isn't sustainable. On top of that it isn't healthy for the environment either, as I more accurately portray in my humanities essay there is an absurd amount of pollution created by coal power plants alone. As I previously stated I didn't do well during open debate because every question was directed towards one person and I didn't have a chance to respond to any questions. If I was able to redo the debate I would form a stronger opening statement because I feel like that may have helped more questions be directed at me.
There were two statements during the debate that I feel like need to be addressed. The first one, when Dalton said that a Nuclear core had a single fuel pellet and the other when Quinn was talking about the potential to ruin the whole ecosystem with a nuclear power accident. I am fact checking Dalton's statement because a nuclear reactor doesn't run on a single fuel pellet, but rather many fuel pellets stacked together. He was correct though in saying that they can last up to 18 months. When Quinn said there was a potential to ruin the whole ecosystem I would like to say that the chances of something that catastrophic happening are smaller than the chances of carbon dioxide pollution causing the average global temperatures to increase and cause a slew of bad events to happen such as ocean acidification. Beyond that I saw few issues with the other statements.