In his opening key argument, Monbiot argues, by means of inductive reasoning, the danger of nuclear power have been overstated. This is not a strong argument, though it is cogent. His premises are that the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant only failed due to extraordinary circumstances and design oversight, that the effects of radiation have been overstated in both the Fukushima and Three Mile Island incident, and lastly that the danger posed by nuclear power is best measured by the number of deaths or casualties caused by radiation.
As mentioned, he corroborates his first key argument by first elaborating on the extraordinary events which led to the Fukushima disaster, and how no one received lethal doses of radiation from this. This premise …show more content…
However, the disastrous consequences that could arise from a nuclear incident are not just limited to humans. There is usually considerable damage done to the environment. According to the World Nuclear Association, it took more than a decade and a billion dollars to clean up after the Three Mile Island incident (WNA, 2001). 30 years on from the Chernobyl disaster, the area around the plant is still considered off limits. Radiation also contaminates the food supply. This phenomenon was observed after the Chernobyl disaster as well (UNSCEAR, 2008). The narrow means of assessing the dangers of nuclear power utilised by Monbiot, while cogent, does not give strength to his argument. As can be seen, the dangers of nuclear power encompass far more than just the possibility of immediate human exposure.
All in all, Monbiot does not provide a compelling case for one to believe that the dangers of nuclear power have been overstated. Though his premises are cogent, they fail to encapsulate the wider range of issues that concern the potential dangers of nuclear power and this is backed up by evidence from various
As mentioned, he corroborates his first key argument by first elaborating on the extraordinary events which led to the Fukushima disaster, and how no one received lethal doses of radiation from this. This premise …show more content…
However, the disastrous consequences that could arise from a nuclear incident are not just limited to humans. There is usually considerable damage done to the environment. According to the World Nuclear Association, it took more than a decade and a billion dollars to clean up after the Three Mile Island incident (WNA, 2001). 30 years on from the Chernobyl disaster, the area around the plant is still considered off limits. Radiation also contaminates the food supply. This phenomenon was observed after the Chernobyl disaster as well (UNSCEAR, 2008). The narrow means of assessing the dangers of nuclear power utilised by Monbiot, while cogent, does not give strength to his argument. As can be seen, the dangers of nuclear power encompass far more than just the possibility of immediate human exposure.
All in all, Monbiot does not provide a compelling case for one to believe that the dangers of nuclear power have been overstated. Though his premises are cogent, they fail to encapsulate the wider range of issues that concern the potential dangers of nuclear power and this is backed up by evidence from various