Saturday, July 21, 2012
(Blog Post 5)
★ Article
I chose the article "Nuclear Power After Fukushima," under the opinion pages section of The New York Times (no author specified). The author starts the article with a little background on the resignation of the top advocate for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRA), Gregory Jaczko. According to the author, the resignation of Jaczko means "the country is losing a strong advocate for public safety who was always willing to challenge the nuclear energy and its political backers in Congress." The author argues that the replacement of Jaczko, Allison MacFarlene, needs to learn to be independent and aggressive.
I thought that this opinion piece was quite intriguing. The fact that the author knows so much background knowledge about nuclear energy and its advocates, as well as the Fukushima disaster, shows his/her intelligence. The author does not clearly state whether he/she is for or against nuclear energy, but there are a couple sentences that I can pull from the article which can lead the readers in believing that the author is against it. "When it comes to nuclear power, the cost of any mistake is truly unthinkable." and "Although an equally powerful earthquake and tsunami are were deemed unlikely in this country, the disaster was a warning that nuclear plants must do more than to anticipate previously "unthinkable" disasters and plan for ways to mitigate the damage." The authors sentences are very descriptive, and very well knows the facts. The tone of the article stays serious throughout, but it still ended up being a good read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your article seems very interesting because it is dealing with the safely of its people. Even though you've provided basic information on this article it makes me want to read it for sure just from what I've read now.
The author is very visual and descriptive. I liked how he explained what caused the nuclear dysfunction, how he logistically tied it in with the earthquake and Tsunami in Fukushima.
Kristyn,
You articulate the argument really clearly. Looks like you're also alluding to the author's own credibility as established through historical precedence and general knowledge.
I think you're safe in assuming the author's bias shows through. This sentence: "the disaster was a warning that nuclear plants must do more than to anticipate previously "unthinkable" disasters and plan for ways to mitigate the damage" suggests the piece is a cautionary tale (a warning about future action/thought).
Nice response.
Post a Comment