Can You Say, "Revive Nuclear Power"?

Last week the topic of my Science in Society class discussion was, "Is it time to revive nuclear power?" Before I expound on my position, I just want to say that I really love the concept behind this book series from which our professor selected our text book. It's called Taking Sides. It presents opposing viewpoints in all sorts of topics from history, politics, science, and economics. There's 50 of them! However, I'm not sure how optimistic I am about the quality of the content chosen for the compilations. For instance, the YES side for the nuclear power debate is basically just a letter from the head of a nuclear plant facility to the chairman of the Department of Energy for more money and extended liscensure. So...perhaps that's why I didn't find it too compelling. We joked in class that we wanted to compile our own book for the class, and call it Taking Better Sides.

I think that the only arguments that I felt really warranted a renewed look to nuclear power would be the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere, and a greater variety of fuel sources so that our dependence on natural gas doesn't leave us vulnerable to price spikes (which we are quite familar with). Beyond that...? Do we have anyone that is very informed on nuclear power reading? Care to argue the point? If not, I'll simply direct readers to these enlightening comic books on the subject. ---->

On the NO side, I find myself very concerned about the inevitability of some human error, the transfer and ultimate storage of nuclear waste, and the terrorist threats from reprocessing facilities. While some of the students in my class felt that the example presented about the reactor that exploded in Ukraine decades ago was an isolated incident, and that our safety regulations and staff training are much better now, and in this country, I'm still concerned very concerned about safety issues. The possibilities of catastophes bear enough weight that their slim probabilities don't phase me as a sufficient argument.

The opponent to nuclear power also brought up the fact that dealing with nuclear waste is, at present, an unsuccessful effort. If we can't deal with it now, why add to the problem? A U.S. storage site at Yucca Mountain, for example, is a completely unsuitable place for nuclear waste. First of all, it is in the third highest region in the country for seismic activity. The rock is also extremely porous, so much so that radioactive material from past bomb testing is already reaching the aquifers below. Now, scientists aren't stupid. This was a political decision. I'm convinced that if nuclear power suddenly gains speed, that politcal interests could pose additions threats. Again, this is just another kind of human error.

Also, some of the reprocessing plants for nuclear waste, aimed at recycling it basically, have been postulated to attract terrorists. The waste has plenty of plutonium that can be used for making nuclear weapons. In the 70s, India created its first nuclear weapon this way. This is pretty disturbing. In fact, because the Bush administration was worried about this kind of threat, they invested in a technology that would make this plutonium even more radioactive, to deterr terrorists from attempting to handle it. That disturbs me too. There are just too many dangers here that I don't think we should choose to risk. So, can you say, "Revive nuclear power"? Former President Bush can't ;)

Anyway, while I walked away from these readings very much convinced that nuclear power is not the best answer to the energy crisis...I'm not sure what is. I felt that the con position here would have been even stronger if better alternatives were explored, and not just mentioned. Renewable resources and simply be more prudent in our use of energy were suggested. While I don't have that much confidence in the amount of energy we are currently getting from renewables, I think it is worth a lot of effort and funding to explore. I would love to see solar energy technologies take off.

In other news, I found out that Rocky is doing well. He didn't have to get surgery after all! I'm pretty happy about that. I also wrote a letter to my legislators yesterday in opposition to the 19% budget cuts proposed for higher education in Utah. There is a rally at the capital tomorrow that I wanted to go to, but I've got student teaching applications due this weekend, and I need to get signatures and such for them. I watched four documentaries this week: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Super Size Me, Super High Me, and A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash. Those were interesting. I'll have more to say about at least that first one later on.

Eye of the Tiger

Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being held,especially since the charge against him had been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong but he thought he could break it. He knew, however, that his timing would have to be perfect. Rocky was aware that it was because of his early roughness that he had been penalized so severely--much too severely from his point of view. The situation was becoming frustrating; the pressure had been grinding on him for too long. He was being ridden unmercifully. Rocky was getting angry now. He felt he was ready to make his move. He knew that his success or failure would depend on what he did in the next few seconds.

Yeah, sorry, that intro. was probably more confusing than those talks from youth speakers where they just launch into reading something out of New Era without even telling you what, or why. So, I read this passage in my textbook today as an example of...constructionism, I think (I guess I'll have to review that before quiz time). Apparently there are two perspectives here that you can take. Rocky is a fighter or a prisoner.

Now the intention of this example was to clue us pre-service teachers into the fact that students interpret and learn new things based on prior knowledge. If there is little or no prior knowledge on the context or relevance of the reading, you can expect minimal comprehension. La de da, quite obvious and boring. However, what I found interesting is that this passage, from both the perspective of a fighter and a prisoner, describes the recent events in the life of my brother's little kitty...whose very name happens to BE Rocky.

A few days back Rocky developed a very red and goupy eye. I happened to be at my brother's house this weekend and got to take a look at it for myself. We didn't suspect that it had been too serious. Perhaps it was just an infection that an antibiotic eye cream could cure. So we took him to the vet on Monday and it appeared that trauma and not an infection was the cause, and that we had to see a specialist. Upon taking Rocky to the specialist, it was determined that the cut in his cornea was very likely caused by, none other than his favorite sparring partner Apollo. I don't think I need to tell you who is who:



They do so like to playfully gnaw at each other, and roll around with the occasional swipe of the paw to the jaw. And thus there came to be this claw shaped wound to Rocky's eye. Ouch. But Mr. Rocky is a tough Italian Stallion. He hasn't shown any behavior that would indicate that he is having pain, not even when the lab tech. administered these eye drops which she warned us would cause him to violently foam at the mouth. Luckily, that didn't happen, and he purred and played with us as usual.

The good news was that the blow did not puncture his lens. That would have actually guaranteed the removal of his entire eye. In this case though, there was the option of surgery, or medical treatment (with unknown success expected). Matt decided to just get the medicine for now and see what happens. If the eye doesn't heal enough by tomorrow morning, I'm pretty sure that surgery will be highly recommended so he won't have to lose the eye.

It turns out that the medication and visit alone were over $500, so it obviously becomes a question of money where surgery is concerned. Suddenly the idea of pet insurance that we so readily scoffed on the way to the vet didn't seem like that bad of an idea anymore. Anyone without any sort of savings really wouldn't be able to make these sorts of decisions, and would be confined to...even putting the animal to sleep over an injured eye. This just reminds me that the more assets we have in any sense (money, knowledge, etc.) the more choices and ethical responsibility we have.

Anyway, right now Rocky is separated from Apollo, and he can't go outside. He also has one of those cones around his neck so that he doesn't touch that eye of his. So sad to see it. His meals are supposed to be portioned too, like rations. Poor little prisoner. I hope that his eye will heal, and that surgery won't be necessary. If it is though, I hope it works out all right. He is a sweet, loving kitty, and deserves it.

Having said all that, I can't resist the impulse to post this:

Surprise Paradise!

This one's for you, Brother!
But remember to pause the music first. :)

The Price of Damned Lies

So, I was back in Business Ethics today. Guilt trip. First of all, Mr. Bearded Democratic Philosopher with a First Name That Sounds Like a Last Name (Harrison), not to be confused with "Mr. Harrison," is pretty nice (he said goodbye to me today), and good-looking as well I might add (he smiled too). Second of all, the slides that I stole, as it turns out, aren't accessible to even his students. Third, Immanuel Kant, who I supposedly like so much, would be of the opinion that stealing bread even if you are starving is still (and not any less) wrong. Setting aside my own petty theft for one moment, let's focus on the real issue. I can't like Kant AND Les Miserables?! Yes, that fact alone is truly the full extent of my guilt.

Now, on to the damned lies. You see, I'm reading this book called More Damned Lies and Statistics for my stats class. And it just so happens that my assignment due Friday ties into my little gripe against business, and my little horrah-horray for philosophy. I chose this situation that I heard about just a couple days ago as an example of what the author refers to as "missing numbers" in statistical estimations. And it involves this car:

The Ford Pinto. Now forgive me if you've heard about it before. Anyway, the story here is that back in the 70s the Ford company wanted to compete with other car manufacturers from Japan and the like, and so they made a goal that the Pinto must not be "an ounce over 2,000 lb., and not a penny over $2,000." They reached this goal, but unfortunately there was a major safety flaw in the design. The fuel tank was located behind the rear axel, which upon just over a 30 mph hit to the back of the car would cause some serious gas leakage, prone to burst the car into flames at the first spark. With rear blows of even greater forces, the doors would crush shut, and it would almost certainly lead to burn fatalities for crash victims.

Two things could have corrected the problem. One, the tank could have been put above the rear axel. Although they knew this was much safer, the reason they didn't do it was because it would drastically decrease trunk space. Apparently, trunk space was an important marketable feature. The second thing that could have been done (even after production) would have been to add a fire-prevention device in the gas tank that would cost an extra $11/vehicle. What to do?

Well, using the cost-benefit analysis they determined that the benefit of installing the device amounted to 49.5 million dollars. The cost of installing the device for each car would be 137 million dollars. So, from there the choice was obvious. But then again, how did they calculate the benefit. Did they seriously have the audacity to put a price on a human life? Well, so it would seem. And that price per individual was in the ball park of only $200,000. That's not to say that's really what they thought a life was worth, per say. The amount was calculated in reference to how much money they expected to be sued for, as well as the amount of money that the deceased victims would have earned throughout the rest of their lifetime.

At first our repulsion may be over the fact that the estimate per individual is only $200,000. But if you consider that only real dollars and cents values were considered here, we might let that go. But then an even grimmer repulsion settles in with the fact that the value of a human life didn't come into the picture AT ALL. So much for business ethics and cost-benefit analyses.

On the flip side, the parting thought of Business Ethics today was how fanatical Kant really was in defending his ethics. So much that perhaps even lying to spare a person's life is unacceptable. I find that ridiculous. Just a heavy price for another sort of damned lie.

Business Ethics?

So, I'm actually really pleased with the classes I'm facilitating so far for work this semester. Today I was excited that for the first time ever I had a philosophy class. And I also had a psychology class, a subject which I usually find very interesting. I was also thrilled that I wasn't facilitating any business classes, which I have always hated.

In fact, one time in driving by Thermal Fisher I happened to shout, very seriously, "Oh, I hate Thermal Fisher!" My sister was in the car and started laughing at the random and irrational protest. I then explained that a business professor I worked with happened to work at Thermal Fisher as well, and was always mentioning it. Every week. Several times a lecture. I guess it irritated me quite a bit.

Anyway, when I found out that the philosophy class was actually Business Ethics, I kinda groaned inside myself, "No, I thought I had gotten away." However, the professor stressed that although the students were primarily business students, that it was indeed a philosophy class, and so it would delve deeper into moral theories than they may feel is relevant. Horrah! Next week happens to be a lecture on Immanuel Kant, who I have read a bit of and learned SO much from. Even with the very little I read. So, I'm thrilled that I will be paid to go to this class!

Actually, as the professor was leaving I was about to be so lame as to ask him what exactly they were reading from Kant for the discussion next week so that I could possibly join in too, but he left without saying anything to me (which I generally consider a little rude...but since I like the class, no harm). In fact, he left without closing his slides on the computer, so I actually emailed them to myself. Yes, I am very nerdy, aren't I? Then I noticed that all of the files for all of his classes were available in an open window...so I, now don't judge me, STOLE a bunch of them. Yep, while at work I stole documents on moral theories. How ironic. It seems I just might need a business ethics course myself. How convenient! :)