Research Project Final Draft

“Radiation is responsible for only about 1 percent of diseases worldwide, and most of this comes from the natural background and from medical uses.” (Hodgson 8).

Over the past year, coal has more than doubled in price. Today the use of nuclear power is a very controversial topic around the world. The cost of coal, which is primarily used in America, has drastically risen in cost. Nuclear power could create a good alternative to the negative aspects of fossil fuels for energy. Although nuclear power seems like a very scary alternative to many, nuclear power could be better for the envrioment and will create more energy for the country. Their are many environmentalists and politicians that are in support of using nuclear power. It is expected that within the next 30 years nuclear energy will be renewed (Wicks). Although nuclear power plants can stop green house gases, and give out more energy, their can be serious issues because nuclear energy is expensive, can have long term affects on people, and could potentially release large quantities of nuclear waste into the environment.

Since June of 1978 Mineral, Virginia has been receiving their power from North Anna Power Plant. North Anna Power Plant is a nuclear power facility and because a nuclear power plant must use water to function, the plant sits on the bay of Lake Anna. The plant currently has two reactors, and it is being considered to add a third reactor. The plant has caused the temperature in Lake Anna to raise, and by adding a third reactor the temperature of the lake will increase. Many of the residents of Mineral can argue that by building the third reactor they will risk lowering the lake level, and cause the lake to be to warm to enjoy. (Garber). The North Anna Power Plant can prove that America can successfully manage a nuclear power plant. But there is always a price to pay whether it is natural sources or feeling safe.

Over the years nuclear power has been used in other countries. For example, France receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power plants (Petit). As of right now, 85% of the United States electricity comes from fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas (U.S.DOE). Fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and from relying on fossil fuels for such a long time, the source is starting to run out. Not only are they running out, the fuels are emitting greenhouse gases into the air. According to Richard Meserve who wrote “Global Warming and Nuclear Power, states “A realistic response to global warming should involve harnessing a variety of energy options: increased use of renewable energy sources, sequestration of carbon at fossil-fuel plants, enhanced efficiency in energy generation and use, and increased reliance on nuclear power.” (Meserve). The combustion of fossil fuels is also threatening species, who cannot survive in the changing climate. With all the issues that go along with fossil fuel power plants , nuclear power plants are starting to become an alternative for power in the United States. Nuclear power plants give off no green house gases, which is a major focus in drastically reducing the emissions of green house gases, and in the long run cost less for the consumer (Grunwald). But nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build, costing anywhere from $5 billion to $12 billion (Richard). According to Kristen Shrader -Frechette “Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs.” (Sharder).


Nuclear power gives off less waste than fossil fuels, but the radio-active waste has to be properly stored long-term. Although their is less radio-active waste, it stays active for thousands of years, so it has to be carefully watched. Their is nuclear waste repositories which hold the waste safely underground in enclosed areas. Their are two types of waste: low level waste, and high level waste. Low level waste are objects that have been contaminated with radioactive materials. High level waste are highly radioactive materials which are byproducts of reactions that take place in nuclear power. Both of these radioactive waste have designated disposal areas in the United States. Low level waste is sent to Richland, Washington; Barnwell, South Carolina; and Clive, Utah. High level waste is sent to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. High level waste can have up to a 24,000 year half-life, and will remain radioactive even after it is placed in the disposal area. Because the radioactive waste does have a half-life, precautious measures must be put in place to prevent any accidents from happening. Yucca Mountain holds nuclear fuel rods, and solidified high-level radioactive waste, both types of waste are put in underground tunnels. According to Alan Poletti “The simplest and easiest disposal method is to incorporate the waste in glass, seal it in a stainless steal container and bury it (Poletti). Their is always the possibility of a failed disposal, which would contaminate the area and ground water. The nuclear waste sites are made mostly of concrete, and the nuclear waste is put in safe containers. But their can always be a possibility of earthquakes. Although the foundation on the nuclear waste facility would meet standards, an earthquake could have the possibility of damaging the facility.

After the attack of 9/11, it has been more worrisome that nuclear power plants will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. According to Tyson Slocum who wrote Nuclear Power Play, “9/11 and its aftermath placed nuclear power facilities at-risk as targets, which prompted some to begin writing nuclear's obituary.”(Slocum 1). A terrorist with large explosives has a very good chance to damage a nuclear power plant, and this could lead to thousands of people becoming exposed to radiation, this exposure could lead to cancer and death. In the event of a nuclear reactor meltdown the impact could have no affect, or have a huge affect on the people in the range of the explosion. To prevent a reactor meltdown, the power plant must be safely designed so the core can be cooled if there is any loss of coolant. (Lyman 1)

On March 28th, 1979, the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power plant outside of Middletown, Pennsylvania had a incident, when a feed water pump stopped working. The pump allowed the steam generators the ability to remove heat from the core. After that happened the reactor shut down creating so much pressure that it caused the core of the reactor to overheat. The coolant for the reactor gave confusing readings to the reactor operators. This event gave off radiation, but luckily was not enough to affect the people living nearby. This accident brought attention to what can happen if an accident happens at a nuclear power plant. American citizens had a sense of uneasiness, and it eventually led to stricter regulations.

A more recent incident that took place at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine on April 26th, 1986. One of the plants reactors became unstable and caused a steam explosion. The core was exposed, and large amounts of radiation were emitted in the area. It took over a week to have the reactor fully contained on May 4th. The radiation was at lethal levels, and millions of people were contaminated. About 32 people were killed at the time of the accident, and close to 500 others were immediately hospitalized. The surrounding areas were evacuated. Research showed that thyroid cancer in the surrounding areas drastically increased (McGill). According to Ann McGill “Diseases caused by immunological suppression, known locally as "Chernobyl AIDS," are almost five times as prevalent now as they were before the disaster.” (McGill) .It has been 22 years since the accident, and people in the surrounding areas are still being affected (Chernobyl.info).

Before any nuclear power plants are built today, they must undergo excessive planning and regulations by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This organization was created by congress in 1974 to ensure that people and the environment are protected from radioactive material. The U.S.NRC inspects and reviews performances of all nuclear power plants in the United States. Their goals are to have no nuclear reactor accidents, no deaths resulting from acute radiation exposure from nuclear reactors, no events at nuclear reactors resulting in significant radiation exposure, no radiological sabotages at nuclear reactors, and no events that result in releases of radioactive material from nuclear reactors causing adverse impact on the environment. Although this organization exists, there is still a possibility that dangers of nuclear power plant disasters could be catastrophic.

Nuclear power plants are a logical alternative for power, but their seems to be no completely safe way to build a nuclear power plant. If a nuclear power plant was to have a incident, soil and ground water would become contaminated. The soil would have to be removed, and the radiation would linger for years. Even after years of an incident, just being in the area a person can become exposed to radiation. By putting a nuclear power plant near a town puts civilians at risk, a coal power plant would not do this. In addition the economy today could not risk spending billions of dollars on building a nuclear power plant. This would cost the government billions of dollars that the tax payers could not afford. With the fear of terrorism attacks and nuclear reactor meltdowns, American citizens are not ready to depend on nuclear power plants to receive their power. Only time will tell whether nuclear power plants will be the next big source of energy in the United States.










Works Cited


“Chernobyl Generations .” Chernobyl.info

http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=198039&navID=529&lID=2

“Fossil Fuels.” U.S. Department of Energy. 10 Apr. 2008


Garber, Kent. “A tough Nuclear Decision.” U.S. News and World Report. Vol. 145. Issue 10
(November 2008):44-45. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34982462&site=ehost-live

Giles, Jim. “Nuclear power: Chernobyl and the future: when the price is right.” Nature. Vol. 440. Issue 7087
(April 2006):984-986.

Grunwald, Michael. “Going Nuclear.” Time Magazine Vol. 173. Issue 1.
(January 2009): 38-39 .Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=35921057&site=ehost-live


Hodgson, P.E. “Nuclear Power and the Energy Crisis.” Modern Age Vol. 50. Issue 3
(Summer 2008): 238-246. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=35045211&site=ehost-live


Lyman, Edwin. “Can nuclear plants be safer?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 64. Issue 4
(October 2008): 34-37. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34043151&site=ehost-live

Mackenzie, Debora. “Is it time for an international nuclear fuel bank?” New Science Vol. 201. Issue 2690
(January 2009): 6-7. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36262177&site=ehost-live


McGill, Ann. “Chernobyl Disaster.” Chernobyl Disaster
(2009): 1-2. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.



Meserve, Richard A. “Global Warming and Nuclear Power.” Science Vol.303. Issue 5657
(January 2004): 433-433. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12186409&site=ehost-live


“Nuclear Power vs. Other Technologies.” Georgia Power 2009


Petit, Charles. “Nuclear Power.” National Geographic. April 2006.



Poletti, Alan. “Nuclear Power Now.” Power Engineer Vol. 18. Issue 2
(April/May 2004):8-8. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13269671&site=ehost-live


Richard, Michael. “New generation of nuclear power plants more expensive than expected.” Science and Technology 14 May. 2008


Rosner, Robert. “Making nuclear energy work.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. Vol. 64. Issue 1
(March/April 2008): 28-57. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32587048&site=ehost-live



Sharpe, Virginia A. “Clean.” Hastings Center Report Vol. 38. Issue 4
(Jul/Aug 2008): 16-18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.




Slocum, Tyson. “Nuclear Power Play.” Multinational Monitor Vol. 29. Issue 2
(September/October 2008): 15-18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34319492&site=ehost-live


Sharder-Frechette, Kristin. “Five myths about nuclear energy.” America Vol. 198. Issue 20.
(June 2008): 12-16. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32625382&site=ehost-live

Talbot, David. “Nuclear Powers Up.” Technology Review Vol. 108. Issue 9 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. (September 2005)




Wicks, Frank. “50 Years of Nuclear Power.” Mechanical Engineering Vol. 129. Issue 11
(November 2007):36-39. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27459914&site=ehost-live

Essay 3 Revised

On any given day in the winter, someone can either pull out of their driveway and hear their car scrape on the road, or run into a pile of snow that was neglected to get cleared completely. Snow removal is a huge deal in Fairbanks. But removal of snow tends to become a headache for locals. Some people believe that there is no problem with snow removal in Fairbanks. Although the city of Fairbanks Public Works Department maintains winter roads by plowing snow, and street sanding , there should be a service that better clears access in and out of housing and businesses because it would allow people to safely leave their house, allow better access into parking lots, and prevent damage to vehicles.

Every year Fairbanks North Star Borough, Public Works Department creates a plan for snow removal. Each winter they approximately maintain 260 lane miles of road. There are many roads that need to be maintained in the winter and Public Works does do well maintaining the roads by sanding and removing a good portion of snow, making the roads less bumpy. Although they manage to somewhat clear the local roads, they manage to make some driving for locals more difficult. I have talked to many friends and co-works, who have complained about not being able to leave/enter their driveway; after their road has been plowed. On numerous occasions I have drove down Cowles to find that half of the lane was not cleared, causing the road to be cut in half. This has made the road dangerous, especially when drivers are not paying attention. In several neighborhoods that have a driveway that is level with the street, there driveway gets blocked with a snow berm. Keeping in mind that a snow berm can easily be shoveled away, there are people who have disabilities or other difficulties that permit them from being able to shovel away the snow berm. I have one friend who’s driveway is level with the road and after they plowed their was a snow berm. My friend was very pregnant with twins, so it made it difficult for her to remove the snow. There were also many businesses in town that had a cliff of snow on there parking lot entrance that was left over from plowing, which would pose difficulties for customers. When snow berms are left as they are, they can block fire hydrants, and block access for a emergency vehicle. There are also spots in town where the turn lane is completely covered, making it dangerous for the driver, and blocking visibility of any cars in the turn lane on the opposite side. As the snow accumulates and gets plowed it creates a cliff of snow that forms between the road and driveway. When this happens any lower profile car is a risk of damage. I also recall one day the public works was removing snow on my street, and left a pile of snow in the middle of the street, as they took a break, thus blocking me from exiting my house. On another occasion they were plowing the street while their was a decent amount of traffic and did not slow down for any traffic.

All of the snow removal issues that I have mentioned can create some sort of danger. Some of these issues are just caused from someone not doing their job correctly. The issue of roads not being completely cleared of snow can be corrected by plowing closer to the gutter. The city could also add a sort of utility, where they can offer a choice to have the city remove any berms outside a house. This could be a monthly public utility bill for anyone that chooses to use the service. Their should also be people that routinely drive around checking for any blocked fire hydrants, or entry/exit ways. Another way to help snow removal dangers, is to make detours for the traffic so public works can clear the roads safely. By putting more effort into creating jobs that would help solve snow removal, they would solve many problems for locals and create more jobs for the community. Because not everyone is going to believe that they should pay the city to clear out the snow berms left from plowing the roads, making it a utility can solve that issue of people who would rather correct snow removal issues themselves.

Essay #3Final Draft

On any given day in the winter, someone can either pull out of their driveway and hear their car scrape on the road, or run into a pile of snow that was neglected to get cleared completely. Snow removal is a huge deal in Fairbanks. But removal of snow tends to become a headache for locals. Some people believe that there is no problems with snow removal in Fairbanks. Although the city of Fairbanks Public Works Department maintains winter roads by plowing snow, and street sanding , there should be a service that better clears access in and out of housing and businesses because it would allow people to safely leave their house, allow better access into parking lots, and prevent damage to vehicles.

Every year Fairbanks North Star Borough, Public Works Department creates a plan for snow removal. Each winter they approximately maintain 260 lane miles of road. There are many roads that need to be maintained in the winter and Public Works does do well maintaining the roads by sanding and removing a good portion of snow, making the roads less bumpy. Although they manage to somewhat clear the local roads, they manage to make some driving for locals more difficult. I have talked to many friends and co-works, who have complained about not being able to leave/enter their driveway; after their road has been plowed. On numerous occasions I have drove down the Cowles to find that half of the lane was not cleared, causing the road to be cut in half. This has made the road dangerous, especially when drivers are not paying attention. In several neighborhoods, that have a driveway that is level with the street, there driveway gets blocked with a snow berm. Keeping in mind that a snow berm can easily be shoveled away, there are people who have disabilities or other difficulties that permit them from being able to shovel away the snow berm. I have one friend who’s driveway is level with the road, and after they plowed their was a snow berm. My friend was very pregnant with twins, so it made it difficult for her to remove the snow. When snow berms are left as they are, they can block fire hydrants, and block access for a emergency vehicle. There are also spots in town, where the turn lane is completely covered, making it dangerous for the driver, and blocking visibility of any cars in the turn lane on the opposite side. As the snow accumulates and gets plowed, it creates a cliff of snow, that forms between the road and driveway. When this happens, any lower profile car is a risk of damage. I also recall one day the public works was removing snow on my street, and left a pile of snow in the middle of the street, as they took a break, thus blocking me from exiting my house. On another occasion they were plowing the street while their was a decent amount of traffic and did not slow down for any traffic.

All of the snow removal issues that I have mentioned can create some sort of danger. Some of these issues are just caused from someone not doing their job correctly. The issue of roads not being completely cleared of snow can be corrected by plowing closer to the gutter. The city could also add a sort of utility, where they can offer a choice to have the city remove any berms outside a house. This could be a monthly public utility bill, for anyone that chooses to use the service. Their should also be people that routinely drive around checking for any blocked fire hydrants, or entry/exit ways. Another way to help snow removal dangers, is to make detours for the traffic so public works can clear the roads safely. By putting more effort into creating jobs that would help solve snow removal, they would solve many problems for locals and create more jobs for the community. Because not everyone is going to believe that they should pay the city to clear out the snow berms left from plowing the roads, making it a utility can solve that issue of people who would rather correct snow removal issues themselves.

Works Cited

City of Fairbanks Public Works Department.

Research Project Rough Draft 2

“Radiation is responsible for only about 1 percent of diseases worldwide, and most of this comes from the natural background and from medical uses.” (Hodgson 8)

Over the past year, coal has more than doubled in price. Today the use of nuclear power is a very controversial topic around the world. The cost of coal, which is primarily used in America, has drastically risen in cost. Nuclear power could create a good alternative to the negative aspects of fossil fuels for energy. Although nuclear power seems like a very scary alternative to many , nuclear power could be better for the envrioment and will create more energy for the country. There are many environmentalists and politicians that are in support of using nuclear power. It is expected that within the next 30 years nuclear energy will be renewed (Wicks.) Although Nuclear Power Plants can stop green house gases, and give out more energy, are a good alternative for decreasing fossil fuel, there can be serious issues because nuclear energy is expensive, can have long term affects on people, and could potentially release large quantities of nuclear waste into the environment.

Since June of 1978 Mineral, Virginia has been receiving their power from North Anna Power Plant. North Anna Power Plant is a nuclear power facility and because a nuclear power plant must use water to function, the plant sits on the bay of Lake Anna. The plant currently has two reactors, and it is being considered to add a third reactor. The plant has caused the temperature in Lake Anna to raise, and by adding a third reactor the temperature of the lake will be even hotter. Many of the residents of Mineral can argue that by building the third reactor they will risk lowering the lake level, and cause the lake to be to warm to enjoy. (Garber) The North Anna Power Plant can prove that America can successfully manage a nuclear power plant. But there is always a price to pay whether it is natural sources or feeling safe.

Over the years nuclear power has been used in other countries. For example, France receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power plants (Petit). As of right now, 85% of the United States electricity comes from fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas (U.S.DOE). Fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and from relying on fossil fuels for such a long time, the source is starting to run out. Not only are they running out, the fuels are emitting greenhouse gases into the air. According to Richard Meserve “A realistic response to global warming should involve harnessing a variety of energy options: increased use of renewable energy sources, sequestration of carbon at fossil-fuel plants, enhanced efficiency in energy generation and use, and increased reliance on nuclear power.” (Meserve) The combustion of fossil fuels is also threatening species, who cannot survive in the changing climate. With all the issues that go along with fossil fuel power plants , nuclear power plants are starting to become an alternative for power in the United States. Nuclear power plants give off no green house gases, which is a major focus in drastically reducing the emissions of green house gases, and in the long run cost less for the consumer (Grunwald.) But nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build, costing anywhere from $5 billion to $12 billion (Richard). According to Kristen Shrader -Frechette “Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies
to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs.” (Sharder)


Nuclear power gives off less waste than fossil fuels, but the radio-active waste has to be properly stored long-term. Although there is less radio-active waste, it stays active for thousands of years, so it has to be carefully watched. There is nuclear waste repositories which hold the waste safely underground in enclosed areas. There are two types of waste: low level waste, and high level waste. Low level waste are objects that have been contaminated with radioactive materials. High level waste are highly radioactive materials which are byproducts of reactions that take place in nuclear power. Both of these radioactive waste have designated disposal areas in the United States. Low level waste is sent to Richland, Washington; Barnwell, South Carolina; and Clive, Utah. High level waste is sent to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. High level waste can have up to a 24,000 year half-life, and will remain radioactive even after it is placed in the disposal area. Because the radioactive waste does have a half-life, precautious measures must be put in place to prevent any accidents from happening. Yucca Mountain holds nuclear fuel rods, and solidified high-level radioactive waste, both types of waste are put in underground tunnels. According to Alan Poletti “The simplest and easiest disposal method is to incorporate the waste in glass, seal it in a stainless steal container and bury it (Poletti.) There is always the possibility of a failed disposal, which would contaminate the area and ground water. The nuclear waste sites are made mostly of concrete, and the nuclear waste is put in safe containers. But their can always be a possibility of earthquakes. Although the foundation on the nuclear waste facility would meet standards, an earthquake could have the possibility of damaging the facility.

After the attack of 9/11, it has been more worrisome that nuclear power plants will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. According to Tyson Slocum “9/11 and its aftermath placed nuclear power facilities at-risk as targets, which prompted some to begin writing nuclear's obituary.”(Slocum 1) .A terrorist with large explosives has a very good chance to damage a nuclear power plant, and this could lead to thousands of people becoming exposed to radiation, this exposure could lead to cancer and death. In the event of a nuclear reactor meltdown the impact could have no affect, or have a huge affect on the people in the range of the explosion. To prevent a reactor meltdown, the power plant must be safely designed so the core can be cooled if there is any loss of coolant. (Lyman 1)

On March 28th, 1979, the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power plant outside of Middletown, Pennsylvania had a incident, when a feed water pump stopped working. The pump allowed the steam generators remove heat from the core. After that happened the reactor shut down creating so much pressure, leading to much pressure that it caused the core of the reactor to overheat. The coolant for the reactor gave confusing readings to the reactor operators. This event gave off radiation, but luckily was not enough to affect the people living nearby. This accident brought attention to what can happen if an accident happens at a nuclear power plant. American citizens had a sense of uneasiness, and it eventually led to stricter regulations.

A more recent incident that took place at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine on April 26th, 1986. A reactor became unstable and caused a steam explosion. The core was exposed, and large amounts of radiation were emitted in the area. It took over a week to have reactor fully contained on May 4th. The radiation was at lethal levels, and millions of people were contaminated. About 32 people were killed at the time of the accident, and close to 500 others were immediately hospitalized. The surrounding areas were evacuated. Research showed that thyroid cancer in the surrounding areas drastically increased. (McGill) According to Ann McGill “Diseases caused by immunological suppression, known locally as "Chernobyl AIDS," are almost five times as prevalent now as they were before the disaster.” (McGill) It has been 22 years since the accident, and people in the surrounding areas are still being affected. (Chernobyl.info)

Before any nuclear power plants are built today, they must undergo excessive planning and regulations by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This organization was created by congress in 1974 to ensure that people and the environment are protected from radioactive material. The U.S.NRC inspects and reviews performances of all nuclear power plants in the United States. Their goals are to have no nuclear reactor accidents, no deaths resulting from acute radiation exposure from nuclear reactors, no events at nuclear reactors resulting in significant radiation exposure, no radiological sabotages at nuclear reactors, and no events that result in releases of radioactive material from nuclear reactors causing adverse impact on the environment. Although this organization exists, there is still a possibility that dangers of nuclear power plant disasters could be catastrophic.

Nuclear power plants are a logical alternative for power, but their seems to be no completely safe way to build a nuclear power plant. If a nuclear power plant was to have a incident, soil and ground water would become contaminated. The soil would have to be removed, and the radiation would linger for years. Even after years of an incident, just being in the area a person can become exposed to radiation. By putting a nuclear power plant near a town puts civilians at risk, a coal power plant would not do this. In addition the economy today could not risk spending billions of dollars on building a nuclear power plant. This would cost the government billions of dollars that the tax payers could not afford. With the fear of terrorism attacks and nuclear reactor meltdowns, American citizens are not ready to depend on nuclear power plants to receive their power. Only time will tell whether nuclear power plants will be the next big source of energy in the United States.










Works Cited


“Chernobyl Generations .” Chernobyl.info

http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=198039&navID=529&lID=2

“Fossil Fuels.” U.S. Department of Energy. 10 Apr. 2008


Garber, Kent. “A Tough Nuclear Decision.” U.S. News and World Report. Vol. 145 Issue 10
(November 2008):44-45 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34982462&site=ehost-live

Giles, Jim. “Nuclear power: Chernobyl and the future: when the price is right.” Nature. Vol. 440 Issue 7087
(April 2006):984-986

Grunwald, Michael. “Going Nuclear.” Time Magazine Vol. 173 Issue 1.
(January 2009): 38-39 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=35921057&site=ehost-live


Hodgson, P.E. “Nuclear Power and The Energy Crisis.” Modern Age Vol. 50 Issue 3
(Summer 2008): 238-246 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=35045211&site=ehost-live


Lyman, Edwin. “Can nuclear plants be safer?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 64 Issue 4
(October 2008): 34-37 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34043151&site=ehost-live

Mackenzie, Debora. “Is it time for an international nuclear fuel bank?” New Science Vol. 201 Issue 2690
(January 2009): 6-7 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36262177&site=ehost-live


McGill, Ann. “Chernobyl Disaster.” Chernobyl Disaster
(2009): 1-2 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.



Meserve, Richard A. “Global Warming and Nuclear Power.” Science Vol.303 Issue 5657
(January 2004): 433-433 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12186409&site=ehost-live


“Nuclear Power vs. Other Technologies.” Georgia Power 2009


Petit, Charles. “Nuclear Power.” National Geographic. April 2006.



Poletti, Alan. “Nuclear Power Now.” Power Engineer Vol. 18 Issue 2
(April/May 2004):8-8 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13269671&site=ehost-live


Richard, Michael. “New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected.” Science and Technology 14 May. 2008


Rosner, Robert. “Making nuclear energy work.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. Vol. 64 Issue 1
(March/April 2008): 28-57 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32587048&site=ehost-live



Sharpe, Virginia A. “Clean.” Hastings Center Report Vol. 38 Issue 4
(Jul/Aug 2008): 16-18 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.




Slocum, Tyson. “Nuclear Power Play.” Multinational Monitor Vol. 29 Issue 2
(September/October 2008): 15-18 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34319492&site=ehost-live


Sharder-Frechette, Kristin. “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy.” America Vol. 198 Issue 20.
(June 2008): 12-16 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32625382&site=ehost-live

Talbot, David. “Nuclear Powers Up.” Technology Review Vol. 108 Issue 9 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. (September 2005)




Wicks, Frank. “50 Years of Nuclear Power.” Mechanical Engineering Vol. 129 Issue 11
(November 2007):36-39 Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27459914&site=ehost-live

Week 11 Step 4 Workshop for Amber Anderson

Workshop for Part 4
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? The research. I learned a lot that I didn’t know.
2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions. Ambers concerns were how she cited her sources.

Thesis
3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make? Yes she did. She supports funding for early childhood programs.
4. What group of people agrees with the author? Groups that agree with funding childhood programs. What group disagrees with the author? Groups that do not feel that children need early tools to be successful in later life.
5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE? Yes

Content
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? 10
7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”). I found that everything was well developed. I would like to see some examples of children that went through those types of programs as a child and how they are doing at an older age, if possible.
8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3. Someone could say that they do not believe that early childhood programs benefit the children and how would the programs get funded as much as they need to be successful. How would it create more jobs?
9.Has the author dealt with these objections? sort of
10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? Yes

Style
11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic? Yes she did a very good job at transitioning
12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? Yes How so? The quote and when she said, “Our nation is making a tragic mistake,” is a great way to make the reader wonder what she is talking about.
13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? Yes

Research
14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited; look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.) Seven
15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis? I found that she equally used her sources.
16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion? I believe so
17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no) No
18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers). I believe so. I wondered about some sentences in paragraph five. But overall everything seemed cited correctly
19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? Yes.

What about the kids that are orphaned?

Week 11 Grammar Girl Response

In Episode 111 of Grammar Girl, she talks about “Everybody: Singular or Plural.” Grammar Girl goes over the use of the words everybody versus everyone. Both words mean every person, so she says that to use what one sounds better to the writer. She says that the word everyone can be both one word or two words, but normally its used as one word. One of the biggest issues that Grammar Girl talked about was if the word are plural or singular. She says that you should not pair a singular noun, with a plural verb. Such as “ Everyone are happy.” American grammarians don’t agree that plural pronouns should be used with the words everyone and everybody. Grammar Girl says that the root of this problem boils down to the fact that English does not have a word to refer to a undetermined gender. It was said to use the words, he or she to solve the problem. I never knew that this was such a big issue. I believe that it is so simple to rewrite a sentence correctly be avoiding the use of singular nouns, with plural verbs. In school I was always taught that if you use those type of words together, that it was a incorrect sentence. That made perfect sense to me. Why would you say “Everyone are mad.” ? That just doesn’t sound right, no matter who’s saying it, or where it is written. I am glad that Grammar Girl covered this issue, it was a good refreshment course of plural verbs, and singular nouns.

Proposal Rough Draft

On any given day in the winter, someone can either pull out of their driveway and hear their car scrape on the road, or run into a pile of snow that was neglected to get cleared completely. Snow removal is a huge deal in Fairbanks. But removal of snow tends to become a headache for locals. Some people believe that there is no problems with snow removal in Fairbanks. Although the city of Fairbanks Public Works Department maintains winter roads by plowing snow, and street sanding , there should be a service that better clears access in and out of housing and businesses because it would allow people to safely leave their house, allow better access into parking lots, and prevent damage to vehicles.

Every year Fairbanks North Star Borough, Public Works Department creates a plan for snow removal. Each winter they approximately maintain 260 lane miles of road. There are many roads that need to be maintained in the winter and Public Works does do well maintaining the roads by sanding and removing a good portion of snow, making the roads less bumpy. Although they manage to somewhat clear the local roads, they manage to make some driving for locals more difficult. I have talked to many friends and co-works, who have complained about not being able to leave/enter their driveway; after their road has been plowed. On numerous occasions I have drove down the Cowles to find that half of the lane was not cleared, causing the road to be cut in half. This has made the road dangerous, especially when drivers are not paying attention. In several neighborhoods, that have a driveway that is level with the street, there driveway gets blocked with a snow berm. Keeping in mind that a snow berm can easily be shoveled away, there are people who have disabilities or other difficulties that permit them from being able to shovel away the snow berm. I have one friend who’s driveway is level with the road, and after they plowed their was a snow berm. My friend was very pregnant with twins, so it made it difficult for her to remove the snow. When snow berms are left as they are, they can block fire hydrants, and block access for a emergency vehicle. There are also spots in town, where the turn lane is completely covered, making it dangerous for the driver, and blocking visibility of any cars in the turn lane on the opposite side. As the snow accumulates and gets plowed, it creates a cliff of snow, that forms between the road and driveway. When this happens, any lower profile car is a risk of damage. I also recall one day the public works was removing snow on my street, and left a pile of snow in the middle of the street, as they took a break, thus blocking me from exiting my house. On another occasion they were plowing the street while their was a decent amount of traffic and did not slow down for any traffic.

All of the snow removal issues that I have mentioned can create some sort of danger. Some of these issues are just caused from someone not doing their job correctly. The issue of roads not being completely cleared of snow can be corrected by plowing closer to the gutter. The city could also add a sort of utility, where they can offer a choice to have the city remove any berms outside a house. This could be a monthly public utility bill, for anyone that chooses to use the service. Their should also be people that routinely drive around checking for any blocked fire hydrants, or entry/exit ways. Another way to help snow removal dangers, is to make detours for the traffic so public works can clear the roads safely. By putting more effort into creating jobs that would help solve snow removal, they would solve many problems for locals and create more jobs for the community. Because not everyone is going to believe that they should pay the city to clear out the snow berms left from plowing the roads, making it a utility can solve that issue of people who would rather correct snow removal issues themselves.

Works Cited

City of Fairbanks Public Works Department.