English 122: Brief Essay (Revised)

Nuclear Power

   
    It is rather clear from the outset, the purpose of these two essays. Vice-President Cheney's task force advocates nuclear power, and Marianne Means sets herself firmly against it. This much is easy to see; what is truly fascinating, is analyzing the two divergent processes that the two separate parties used, in order to convince their respective audiences.

    The first essay, for example, was written, not by an individual, but by a collective. What's more, it was written by a collective in the employ of the government. Hence, they were obviously very limited in their methods of persuasion. They are very, very careful, avoiding any emotionally charged, or subjective words, that might upset the delicate balance of their report.

    Instead, they have had to use fare more subtle techniques. First, notice carefully how they brought up other nations, like France, and Japan. Though they do not say so outright, they make it relatively clear, that these two world powers, have a dependable energy source, with minimal supervision, no monopoly by oil barons, and no carbon emissions. Given that their audience is a group of weathered generals, with a flair for international paranoia, this is actually a very prudent course of action. To any of the military leaders who read this report, the message is clear; these countries possess an advantage that America does not possess. Cleverly, they do not give the actual percentages of these nations' nuclear energy ratios. They simply leave them as vague, undefined numbers, willing to tell us that America is lagging in the nuclear power race, but unwilling to tell us to margin by which we are behind.

    Also present, though slightly less prevalent, is the omission of facts. Though this first essay expounds the benefits of nuclear energy, citing lack of greenhouse gases, and safety and efficiency, not once does it raise a single caveat. In fact, the only negative point of the entire article, was a brief, almost passing mention of nuclear waste, in the overview. No doubt, nuclear energy is very efficient, and carbon-free, but unless facts are presented in their entirety, choices will be made from emotion, not from reason.

    Now Ms. Means, on the other hand, is a different case entirely. She relies almost completely on the subjective to have her way, and wields her editorial like an opinionated hammer, inflaming her readers, rather than informing them.

    Signs of her subjectivity crop up often, for one, with the usage of broad, generalized statements. For example, in the second paragraph, she cites that--"The Industry has become moribund since the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island nearly three decades ago." This is inaccurate; to say that an industry is moribund, implies that it is completely dead. However, nuclear power continues to provide a fifth of this country's energy, and is scheduled for an expansion soon, which makes it, if anything, a thriving industry.

    The omission of facts is strong here as well, since Marianne Means fails to give a single positive aspect of nuclear power. She is very eloquent on the subject of nuclear waste, but apparently, that is the only caveat she knows. She does not, for example, complain about the potential for depleted uranium to be renewed as weapons-grade plutonium. Nor does she bring up the fact that uranium as well, is a limited resource, and that given time, it will run out, just as surely as oil. No, the only knowledge she seems to display is a laywoman's knowledge, a single fact, around which she based an editorial.

    But, the cherry at the top of her delectably deceptive sundae, is her use of hypothetical situations. No state, she says, wants to host forty-thousand tons of nuclear waste, which when leaked in conjunction, could poison the whole of the Midwest. Now, this is a fairly obvious hypothetical situation. In what circumstances, one must ask, might all the receptacles of every single nuclear waste plant leak simultaneously? Marianne gives no answers.

    In the end, there is no unbiased way to debate nuclear power. One can only hope, that while countless thousands of politicians spar semantically in their publicized arenas, the men of science will quietly finish their work in the background.