Helen Cadicott Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer Summary

662 Words3 Pages

Helen Caldicott’s “Nuclear Power is Not the Answer” In the book-introduction “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer,” Helen Caldicott argues that the government should stop developing nuclear power as an energy source. Supporting her point, she gives the following reasons: the nuclear energy is not efficient, not safe, not renewable and not environment-friendly. The author explains that in the process of nuclear electricity production, a lot of greenhouse gas and other pollutants are released. Besides this, the author talks about the fact that nuclear power relies on a huge amount of investment and government subsidies. Additionally, Caldicott asserts that nuclear energy is dangerous since terrorists could easily attack reactors to disable a city; …show more content…

The article uses words mainly denotatively. For most parts of the introduction, the author presents facts and data rather than figurative language. For instance, she writes, “For most of the remaining 93%, coal (50%), natural gas (18%), nuclear power (20%), and oil (2%) are used to produce immense amounts of heat.” This sentence is an example of how the author uses data to support her arguments. In the article, however, the author also oftenly uses persuasive language. For example, she uses words like “myths,” “tragically,” and “lulled.” These words, which are used for their connotation, convey a negative message about nuclear energy. Providing evidence in different areas, the author uses induction to draw to the conclusion that government should stop propagating nuclear energy. She provides evidence that nuclear energy is not safe, not environmental-friendly, and not economical to prove her …show more content…

First of all, the author asserts certain opinions without giving any substantial proof. She says that the government “lies frequently” about nuclear power; she, however, fails to give enough logical support to this assertion. For example, she writes that “The British Department of Trade and Industry also viewed the 2005 election as an opportunity to promote nuclear power.” The author fails to provide any facts to back this assertion up. The fact that the government is promoting nuclear energy does not mean they are lying. She also gives an example of how different people like “former Greenpeace Canada leader,” “dean of Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,” and “founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue” all “seemed to have accepted the nuclear industry’s propaganda as fact.” These people are experts in their field and therefore their testimonies should be taken as reliable. The author, on the contrary, is questioning them simply because she presumes that nuclear energy is

Open Document