sorry for posting for the wrong article this Monday, here's the new blog.
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/.
In the blog, one main idea that the author wants to discuss is the question " what level of radiation is safe for the people in Japan to go back home?". One issue which is the long term effect of radiation has appear through out the article.According to the author's example , do you think it's safe for people in Japan to move back? Should they take the risk of radiation poisoning? And please feel free to share you thought.
From the article, I noticed several instances where there was uncertainty in who is who in the Afghan Army. This ended up costing lives!? Ridiculous. Whether its US Military or Afghan Army every person must have some form of identification to be allowed on the bases! Plain and simple. That's the way it is here in America. I can not enter a military base here in America without having a military ID or an escort with US Military affiliation. There is no loss of freedom to the people in the general area. It is a matter of safety for both sides. Why would a civilian of Afghanistan want to go onto a US or UK base? There is no reason for them to. In regards to the uniform issue, again, it does not matter what you wear to the base. I could wear flip-flops, a hawaiian shirt, and vineyard vines shorts to the base entrance and as long as I show a military photo ID I can get access. Who cares what they're wearing.
ReplyDeleteCarson, the article that we had before is not a blog, so I had to change to a new blog. However, thank you for your comment though.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is very evident in this article that the author is putting a strong emphasis on ethos. It is understandable why he would take this approach when writing about such a scientific topic. The very first words of the article are "Government officials". Both the words government and official suggest credability. The author also makes note of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and former chief scientist of the Foreign Relations Committee, UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Once again, this is all an attempt to achieve credability amongst the audience. It seems with as mamy credible sources as this author has, he or she definately has written an accurate blog.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, I do not think it is safe for people in Japan to move back. In the article, the author did not give the final conclusion that whether the radioactive level is safe, and instead, he provided some comments from some experts such as the spokesman from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The writer used these comments to imply that there is no exactly definition of the safe level of the radiation, and as a result, we could not get the conclusion that when people in Japan could move back. For example, he stated that the testing method of the safety level is extremely conservative. The words “extremely conservative” implied that the safety level they got is not the exactly figure which could ensure that people could stay without mortal danger such as cancer. This indication showed that the writer was doubt on the scientific data got by the expert about whether the Japanese people could back home.
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses whether or not Japanese residents should return home based on the levels of radiation after the nuclear meltdown. The author does a good job of bringing up both sides of the argument. I believe it is still not safe for residents to return home because of the lack of research on low exposure radiation. Also some research has shown that exposure to radiation over time can cause cancer. I believe this is enough evidence to encourage the government and residents to wait for levels to go down before returning home.
ReplyDeleteI find one apparent appeal in the featured blog is posing questions to audience. As we can see, the writer asks a question about the safe level of the radiation in the first paragraph. The author posts the mainly leading question and offers different opinions to the question in the first half of the article. Then in the second half of the article, the author repeatedly present another question which has been mentioned in the first paragraph about when can residents return to their homes. Then he provides several examples and research results to respond the question credibly.
ReplyDeleteI think the writer believes the audience is all humans. As we can see, the subject of the appeals is public health. He doesn’t say the subject is limited to Japanese while he does have an emphasis on public which means the subject can be all humans who concern about the safe level of radiation to their own health. And the appeals also suggest that the audience values the radiation effect to their health. The audience need an response from authority and scientists to prove whether it is the real “safe” level to public health or to their own lives. And from what I have mentioned above, the author doesn’t ask for the audience’s opinion while he presents different opinions from authority and science field by using research results and examples to respond the question he posts on the article.
Great feed back from the blog. Now from the readings you have done. How do you feel about the different theories on how much radiation can withstand? Do you think that the government should come together and form a base line for this kind of crisis? Also how do you feel about the Japanese possibly letting people back into the effected areas?
ReplyDeleteI think the resisdents should not go back to their homes if there is radiation there. Radiation is nbothing to mess with it can cause a list of unwanted health problems. In my opinion i would never mve back into a area with radiation.
ReplyDeleteTo address your question Mark, I think the government should come up with some kind of set procedure for this kind of issue, because based on the article it looks as if the decision is fluctuating between letting the people come back to their homes or not. Understandably though, because getting rid of every little bit of radiation is a chore, and it only takes a small amount for people to develop cancer later on in life, so it's important to make sure all of it is clear before letting people return. As far as my personal opinion, I think they should leave it up to the residents to decide if they want to return. Some people might find it worth the risk to come back even if there is some radiation there, and others would rather wait until it is completely clear, it just depends on their situation and belief.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there is no such thing as a safe radiation level, especially if it is coming from a nuclear power plant. I believe that it is still not safe for those individuals to move back to their homes. Also how many of them actually have homes after this tremendous disaster? I think that it is important that the people working on this project take all precautions, and make sure that the levels of radiation are substantial.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Mark's question, I do believe that some sort of agreement should be made on what is a safe amount of radiation. But before this happens, I think more research needs to be done. The NRC says 100 millirem per year is acceptable, but then after these disasters, 25 millirem per 30 days is acceptable. This seems outrageous to me because that is a 200 millirem per year increase. If anything, the safe amount after a disaster should decrease from the 100 millirem per year because that is new, unplanned radiation. The acceptable radiation already taken into account is from x-rays and such, but how can it be that allowing more unplanned radiation is safer than normal radiation that is naturally experienced in the year?
ReplyDeleteIn general, I found that the author of this blog post introduced new ideas that could be slightly controversial by using the credibility of the person he interviewed. One such instance was when Dr. Zzimmerman said that he thinks Japan should build more reactors despite the disaster in order to jump start the economy. The author of this blog post included this in a "flat out" or blunt manner, using the professor's raw authority to persuade the reader to agree that Japan should build more reactors.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the Blog uses several different tools that we have disscused in class. I see clearly the authors use of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. Throughout the entire blog specific people, agency's, and experts are named to prove that everything they were saying was coming from sound sources. This is a direct appeal to Ethos, it makes the blog more credible to the reader. The author also uses facts and numbers to appeal to the readers emotional strings. This plays right into what we talked about in class about the use of Pathos to appeal to the readers emotions.
ReplyDelete