http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/asia/29japan.html?_r=1&hp
An earthquake with the magnitude of 9.0 is a disaster in itself. But what disasters ensue in the reconstructing of a country? More specifically, of a country with damaged nuclear facilities? This article addresses those very questions. My first reaction when reading this article was concern for the people of Japan, for the contamination of the surrounding water and whether or not this could happen again for another country with nuclear power plants. What I found to be most interesting about this article is that it examines the workers who's job it is to piece back together this nuclear reactor and how it affects them. Surely, it is not the safest job. According to the article, "two workers were burned around their feet and ankles after they stepped in highly radioactive water". To put the amount of radiation that the workers are exposed to the article states that,"The radiation is so potent that those who live within a 12-mile radius of the Fukushima plant are unable to return to their homes". This article leaves me questioning, what measures will be taken to help these radiative exposed workers, if any?
The two very apparent questions the article posses for his audience are: what is a "safe" level of radiation? When can residents return to their homes? These questions are very clearly stated in the first few sentences of the article. I think the author posed these questions, and formatted them in rhetorical context. By his framing them as "rhetorical" questions he is making a point that there is no right answer. This help reiterates his point throughout the article and makes it more thought provoking for the reader.
ReplyDelete