Intro and Bibliography

Nuclear power is an incredible advancement in alternative energy that takes advantage of the fission of the uranium-235 isotope. When the nucleus of this atom collides with slow neutrons, it divides by a process known as nuclear fission, that, once started, is self-propagating. The slow neutrons cause the nucleus to divide, releasing three neutrons and a significant amount of energy in the process. This energy is converted to heat in order to turn water into steam that turns a turbine, and the neutrons slow down with the use of control rods in the reactor so they may collide with more uranium atoms and start the process all over again. The products of nuclear fission continue to divide and release energy until they are no longer useful, and deemed nuclear waste.

The major appeal of nuclear energy is that nuclear fission provides a large energy output while emitting no greenhouse gases. In the past decade, efforts for alternative energies that do not emit harmful gases have increased dramatically, and nuclear power appears to be a solution to that problem. Looking at these facts alone, nuclear power is the most promising source of energy available at the moment, but its disadvantages cannot be ignored.

It is highly debated whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in nuclear technology. The uranium-235 isotope is a fairly limited resource that is not renewable with current technologies, and therefore nuclear power may not be an option for long. In this sense, the efforts to obtain energy from nuclear fission may not be worth the costs. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and maintain, but do not operate long due to the dangerously high levels of radioactivity that build up in the reactor units. The radioactivity associated with nuclear energy provides the basis for the strongest argument against it. People are at risk from the beginning to the end of the process, which consists of mining uranium, converting it to energy, transporting the uranium and the nuclear waste, and storage of the nuclear waste. Nuclear energy can provide people with electricity while emitting no greenhouse gases, but the issue is whether or not that is a strong enough argument to ignore the potentially fatal effects it can have on people.

It is important to understand what nuclear energy can provide for people, and risks associated with it. In Poisoned Power, Senator Mike Gravel addresses his readers directly when he states:

You can challenge professional groups, like your state medical association, your state cancer, heart, and birth defects associations, university and high school biology professors, and your state and national representatives, to take public positions on the nuclear issue. If they plead too much ignorance, insist that they have a responsibility to learn, and help them do so (15).

What Senator Mike Gravel does not mention, though, is that nuclear energy affects everyone, whether they want it to or not. Anyone and everyone should get involved in the nuclear debate, and it is essential that they understand both sides and what is at stake.

Bibliography

Gofman, John W., and Arthur R. Tamplin. Poisoned Power: The Case Against Nuclear Power Plants. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, Inc., 1971.

Golding, Dominic, Jeanne X. Kasperson, and Roger E. Kasperson. Preparing for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc., 1995.

Green Peace. 2010. 20 Jan 2010. .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010. 20 Jan 2010. .

Reinig, William C. Environmental Surveillance in the Vicinity of Nuclear Facilities: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Health Physics Society. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1970.

Sierra Club. 2010. 20 Jan 2010. .

Wald, Matthew L. "Nuclear Power Gets Strong Push from White House." New York Times (2010). 29 Jan 2010. .

World Nuclear Association. 2010. 29 Jan 2010. .

A Forest Returns

The film A Forest Returns opened my eyes to a lot of information I feel like I should have already known. For instance, I did not know that the Wayne National Forest did not exist seventy years ago, or even worse, that there were hardly any trees where they now cover the land.

The narrator, I believe his name was Ora, brought an emotional aspect to the movie that made it more sincere and more interesting for me. Hearing the story told from the perspective of someone who has lived through the entire life of the Wayne National Forest made me feel like I was almost there, experiencing the creation of the forest for myself. Ora seemed to enjoy telling the story, and he seemed to enjoy remembering to good that came from the forest, and that instills a feeling in me that I need to try to protect the forest from the kinds of things David from Buckeye Forest Council talked about.

This film was also a nice break from the negative things we have been hearing about the things people, including the government, have been doing to the environment. The horrible things we have been doing to the environment are a real problem, but it's nice to think that we haven't lost all compassion with nature.

David - BFC

When David of the Buckeye Forest Council came to talk to our class, I became enlightened. I knew clear cutting had its pros and cons, but I didn't know what they were. If everything David said was true, its "pros" are only good for a select few. I remember being told that clear cutting and prescribed burning are good for the trees because it helps them dispense their seeds for germination, but apparently this is not true.

It is a shame to think about all of the homes lost for unsuspecting animals, and even worse to think about all of the animals that couldn't get away from the fires in time. David brought to light a lot of these issues and made me wonder what I could do to help.

Research Prostpectus

I have two ideas in mind and I am struggling to decide between them. I was originally thinking about nuclear power as an alternative energy source because we talked very briefly on how it works in my physics class. I was also thinking about focusing my research on hybrid cars.

Nuclear power interested me because it seems as though we would have to rely heavily on other nations, such as Australia, for sources of the Uranium-235 isotope. Producing this isotope in the lab is possible, but not in the mass quantities we would need it for if we decided to rely more heavily on nuclear power as a source of energy. I was also interested in the risks of working with radioactive materials, and how safe that is as of right now.

If I were to research hybrid cars, I would be interested to see if CO2 emissions from vehicles have been reduced since the cars were commercially introduced. I would also like to look into how they power themselves and what forms of energy most hybrid cars use to do that (this might be intuitive to some people, but I have no idea). From what I understand, hybrid cars are not perfect but they are good for the environment, and I would like to see how they compare with other cars.

Lost Mountain Assignment #3

A. Wendell Berry's idea of a "rational" mind is one that analyzes things from an objective point of view, with the main goal being profit. A "sympathetic" mind is one that values intuition and wilderness, with the main goal being wholeness. One example of Reece's sympathetic mind is on page 210, where he refers to the land as "a badly wounded organism." He is using the word "wounded" to describe the damage done to the mountains due to strip mining, and he refers to the land as an "organism." This is a good indication that Reece believes that the mountains have the ability to do things for themselves, as if all of the parts of the mountain (the land, the plants, the animals) add up to make a whole. He also shows his sympathetic mind when he concludes that same chapter on page 213 with, "It is time we stopped thinking like those who conquer mountains and started thinking like the mountain itself." Here, he continues with the idea that the mountain can sustain itself, but he puts us in the equation as well. We are hurting this organism, and until we start thinking like it, we will continue to do so.

B. There are several quotes from the conclusion chapter that stuck out to me, but one in particular was when he was talking about the poem, "Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front," by Wendell Berry. The quote says:

One thing that doesn't compute within that logic is to 'invest in the millenium'- to think beyond short-term economic interests, to plant trees, as the Menominee Indians do, that someone else will harvest. The mad farmer instructs the reader to reject the linear, industrial model that beings with finite resources and ends with waste, but instead to embrace the forest's cyclical system where rotted leaves turn to natural fertilizer (236).

This is a very long quote, but there are two parts that really appeal to me. The first being the quote from the poem, "invest in the millenium," because it not only suggests that we put back what we take from the earth, but that we stop thinking about just ourselves and demonstrate altruism. This is difficult for most people, including myself, because we are so used to thinking in the "now" and only about our future. What that line suggests we do is set up future generations for success by replenishing the earth. The second part of that quote that I like is when Reece refers to the way we are living off of the planet now as "linear." We have learned about, and become accustomed to, cycles in our science classes, but we haven't applied that to the way we live. I have never thought of what we are doing as "linear," but that's just what it is. There is a beginning and an end, we put nothing back when we are finished.

Lost Mountain Assignment #2

I found the second assignment of Lost Mountain to be slightly less intriguing. I won't say it was not informative, but I did struggle to read it a little more this time and I think that is partly due to how depressing it is. Towards the end of the section, though, Reece has a chapter called "The Ecovillage" where he talks about just that: an environmentally friendly complex at Berea College. This chapter got me engaged in the book again, because it told me that there was hope and that some people are trying.

The Ecovillage was designed to take advantage of natural biological processes in order to filter and clean waste water. The same water that people flush down the toilet is being recycled as their drinking water, which sounds awful, but one man's waste is another's treasure. Of course I have no idea, but it seems like if we could make that filtering process the main process we use, we would save a lot of energy.

The heating and cooling system is interesting as well. A series of underground pipes take advantage of the fairly constant temperature of subsoil, around 57 degrees, to bring the temperature of the apartments down in the summer and up in the winter. The design of the building also contributes to this, by having most windows face south in order to utilize passive solar heat. Apparently a temperature guage can automatically open windows in the summer if it gets too warm, which seems unnecessary to me because most people could open windows on their own if they needed, but there could be a better reason that I just didn't pick up on when I was reading.

I'm sure there are disadvantages to living in such a place, but to me, it seems like an incredible advancement in "living green." If nothing else, the students will learn the importance of their actions on the environment, and getting people to understand is the first step in fixing the problem.

Lost Mountain Assignment #1

In Lost Mountain, Eric Reece stresses the importance of the diverse forests in the mountains of Northeast America. He gives examples of the diversity, such as the different kinds of trees and the wood rats, which are things that only live in those conditions. Although wildlife does come back to the areas after "reclamation," it's never fully restored because those trees and those creatures have history there that has been destroyed. The diversity is also greatly reduced in these areas, sometimes down from thousands of species to just a few animals like deer and elk. He also states that reclaiming those areas only fixes the problem for a short time, because the land is so loosely packed that it slides downhill during rain, so the trees and plants and, therefore, the habitats of many animals never last.

While those reasons are all great examples of the importance of those forests, I am most convinced by his reference to the streams. Reece refers to a statement made by Bill Caylor of the Kentucky Coal Association, saying a stream without fish is not a stream at all. I had to read that statement over again to really believe that anyone could say that. Reece's argument that liverworts, seemingly insignificant plants, reside in these streams and contribute to richer soil and better water downstream, is a great argument that can be applied to the broader category of any life form in the water. As a biology major, maybe I am biased, but I find it difficult to ignore the impact of every living thing in an environment. Mountaintop removal is destroying life in the forests it occurs in, but it is affecting life in areas miles away as well.

I don't consider myself to be any kind of activist, as I usually take on a laissez-faire attitude towards most major issues, but to ignore such blatant harmful effects on the historically rich and diverse forests of Appalachia is criminal.

Clean Coal

Upon entering the two main sites, I was more attracted to the "America's Power" website because it opens up with easy to navigate tabs and it seems to appeal to the everyday person. The "This is Reality" website was not difficult to navigate, but I found that, in order to find more information, I had to click several tabs before I could read what I was after. Though the intro to the "This is Reality" website was amusing, I did not like how they referred to the facts they were presenting as "realities," implying that we are all unaware of the facts.

Both sites are addressing the issue of clean coal technology, which is any technology that works toward minimizing or completely eliminating pollution due to the use of coal. They agree that the gases that are released need to be captured, but "America's Power" presents the information as if pollution has already been drastically reduced whereas "This is Reality" presents the information as if the coal industry has done nothing to solve the problem. "This is Reality" says there is no such thing as clean coal, and unless companies start capturing and storing the carbon dioxide they produce, America should start using other sources for energy. Basically, "This is Reality" implies that coal is not necessary to run our homes. This site appeals to a younger population, which can be seen through the appearance of the website, the blunt, straight forward way it addresses the public, and it's humorous but non factual advertisements. "America's Power" acknowledges other energy sources, but points out the disadvantages, such as the expensive price or the dependency on other nations to get those resources. This website's target audience - middle class working people - is a little more obvious, with pictures, videos, and statements from people on the home page.

The sites are both sponsored by companies who would be very interested in their message. For example, "America's Power" is sponsored by a company that is partnered with coal based industries. "This is Reality" is sponsored by companies that advocate conservation and preservation, such as The Alliance for Climate Protection and the National Wildlife Federation, so both sites are supported by groups that are exploiting their interests, which gives neither site credibility over the other.

"America's Power" appeals to the emotions of the middle class population by making it very clear that coal is the most affordable energy option and providing video testimonies from a few fellow middle class workers. This is effective because they are reaching a broad audience that most people can fit in. "This is Reality" appeals to activists and a seemingly younger crowd trying to "make a difference" and stop global warming. This is effective because, as of late, the number of people supporting cleaner air and less waste is ever increasing. "America's Power" uses simple visuals on their site, providing lots of graphs and pictures of everyday people doing their job. "This is Reality" uses more complex visuals, such as a canary that reminds people that the days of toxic gases from coal are not over, and it is a very straightforward way of saying coal is not safe.

I find "America's Power" to be more persuasive because it appeals to me as a person who is trying to save money while still living comfortably. It provides graphs and data from reputable sources that say coal is getting cleaner. "This is Reality" provides several redundant quotes, while attacking coal companies, but rarely backing up their information. I was more convinced by the "America's Power" website, but which site is right is another story.

Intro Blog

Hey, my name is Becca and I'm a junior studying biology. Um... I'm from Milford, which is just outside of Cincinnati. I have dog named Chubbs, and he is the best. My roommate, Shawna, is in this class as well. I used to snowboard, but I haven't done it in a while (I miss it) and I don't know if I still could. I like food, and I LOVE to bake (my roommates hate me for that.. they're all "trying" to go on diets!) Um... I'm taking French and I love it but I'm not very good at it. Okay, see you in class! Bye!