Energy and the Environment
Critical Consumer of Science
I only cited one source on my infographic, but I looked to some others for help as well, though I didn’t use any information from them. The sources are listed as follows, in order from least biased to most:
2. Scientific American Article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-generation-nuclear/
This was published in one of the most reputable scientific journals you can find. It has some opinions but they tend to be well supported with facts and evidence, so I don’t think it is very biased, and it is certainly very reliable. This was the most helpful source for me, since it told a similar story to what I told. This is one of the big reasons that I cited it on my infographic.
3. Wikipedia Page for Nuclear Power Plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant
Wikipedia is not a bad source on this topic per se, but it just isn’t as good as my other two sources, which is why it appears at the bottom of my list. It was also very informative, but not as tailored toward my project as some others.
Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary Sources
The Department of Homeland Security site and the Scientific American article are both great examples of primary sources. They meet the two requirements easily, with both being either a government site or scientific journal. The Wikipedia page is a secondary source. It directly references scientific journals, but obviously is not one itself.
Primary Source Abstract Questions
- Department of Homeland Security: https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plants
2. Scientific American Article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-generation-nuclear/
This was published in one of the most reputable scientific journals you can find. It has some opinions but they tend to be well supported with facts and evidence, so I don’t think it is very biased, and it is certainly very reliable. This was the most helpful source for me, since it told a similar story to what I told. This is one of the big reasons that I cited it on my infographic.
3. Wikipedia Page for Nuclear Power Plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant
Wikipedia is not a bad source on this topic per se, but it just isn’t as good as my other two sources, which is why it appears at the bottom of my list. It was also very informative, but not as tailored toward my project as some others.
Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary Sources
The Department of Homeland Security site and the Scientific American article are both great examples of primary sources. They meet the two requirements easily, with both being either a government site or scientific journal. The Wikipedia page is a secondary source. It directly references scientific journals, but obviously is not one itself.
Primary Source Abstract Questions
- This paper was written by James A. Lake, Ralph G. Bennett, and John F. Kotek, and published in Scientific American on January 26, 2009.
- The abstract first states the need for new plants by explaining our current global warming crisis and when it will start affecting our everyday lives. It then goes on to say that no new nuclear power plants have been commissioned since the 70’s. Then it describes the measures taken since Chernobyl to prevent nuclear accidents from happening in the foreseeable future. It concludes by stating that nuclear power would be a substantial upgrade over the current methods of producing energy.
- The goal of an abstract is to convey information quickly, clearly, and unbiasedly, in order to set a firm foundation for the rest of the paper. I would expect to find all these factors, plus some reasoning behind the research and perhaps a few extra components to round it all out and clarify further.
Project Reflection
In my first draft of my infographic, I was very thorough about gathering as much information as possible to portray as complete an image as I could of what exactly went wrong in multiple nuclear accidents. I looked to several prominent scientific journals and put all the information I could into my infographic. While this sounds like a good thing, it was actually the wrong thing to be doing in this specific project. An infographic is meant to be clear and concise. My infographic was certainly clear, but it felt more like an essay than a giver of information. This was the main problem with my infographic after the first draft, and the main thing I fixed in the second. I condensed the paragraphs I had written into short bulletpoints with icons next to them to tell the story more than the technical aspects. This was a far better way to do it. I think the reason I didn’t originally use the bulletpoints was because I thought that I had to go in depth and do a lot of research, and without large paragraphs that wouldn’t be reflected. The truth is that you need to have a good understanding of the topic a t hand to produce a good infographic, so lots of research is necessary. Even if every last detail isn’t explained, the general feel of someone who knows what they’re talking about will be present in a quality infographic.
Combusting fossil fuels create several different greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane. These gases are unable to get out of our atmosphere and are trapped, creating an effect similar to a greenhouse, which is where they get their nickname. This creates a higher average temperature around the world. This creates many problems for us, among which is the rise of the ocean threatening costal communities.
Scientists and engineers are very important to the world we live in today for a variety of reasons. I think life is made better for the vast majority, if not everyone, as a result of their work. All of our technology and infrastructure is possible because people devote their lives to science and engineering work. I cannot imagine what today's world would look like without the contributions of the scientific community. Disease would be a much larger problem than it is now. Cars and highways would be but a dream. It's simply amazing what science has been able to do. We went from the simplest of airplanes to the moon in 66 years. By comparison, it took us thousands of years to move from bows and arrows to firearms. Science is an essential factor of our society that a lot of people take for granted. It is impossible to look at the history of our world without noting the scientific and engineering achievements along the way. From the Pyramids to the sailing ship to the compass, science has undoubtably shaped the world we live in.
I didn't really try to draw attention to a problem, but rather a mentality against nuclear power from the general public. Common misconceptions are that nuclear power plants are dangerous. Sure, this was true in the past, but by following the guidelines I portrayed in my infographic, everyone can sleep at night knowing that there is no danger from nuclear power plants in the foreseeable future. I feel that there is a need to educate people on this form of clean energy. It's more efficient than wind or solar, and not as hazardous to the environment as coal or gas, yet still gets overlooked because of accidents that happened 30 years ago. It's to bad that we don't use more nuclear energy, now that it is safe. I fell that if this information were to become common knowledge, we would perhaps not solve, but work towards a solution, for our current energy crisis.
Combusting fossil fuels create several different greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane. These gases are unable to get out of our atmosphere and are trapped, creating an effect similar to a greenhouse, which is where they get their nickname. This creates a higher average temperature around the world. This creates many problems for us, among which is the rise of the ocean threatening costal communities.
Scientists and engineers are very important to the world we live in today for a variety of reasons. I think life is made better for the vast majority, if not everyone, as a result of their work. All of our technology and infrastructure is possible because people devote their lives to science and engineering work. I cannot imagine what today's world would look like without the contributions of the scientific community. Disease would be a much larger problem than it is now. Cars and highways would be but a dream. It's simply amazing what science has been able to do. We went from the simplest of airplanes to the moon in 66 years. By comparison, it took us thousands of years to move from bows and arrows to firearms. Science is an essential factor of our society that a lot of people take for granted. It is impossible to look at the history of our world without noting the scientific and engineering achievements along the way. From the Pyramids to the sailing ship to the compass, science has undoubtably shaped the world we live in.
I didn't really try to draw attention to a problem, but rather a mentality against nuclear power from the general public. Common misconceptions are that nuclear power plants are dangerous. Sure, this was true in the past, but by following the guidelines I portrayed in my infographic, everyone can sleep at night knowing that there is no danger from nuclear power plants in the foreseeable future. I feel that there is a need to educate people on this form of clean energy. It's more efficient than wind or solar, and not as hazardous to the environment as coal or gas, yet still gets overlooked because of accidents that happened 30 years ago. It's to bad that we don't use more nuclear energy, now that it is safe. I fell that if this information were to become common knowledge, we would perhaps not solve, but work towards a solution, for our current energy crisis.