           Since mankind discovered in the 1930's and 40's that by splitting atoms it is possible to unlock enormous quantities of energy, our world has irrevocably changed. As a member of this society, my life is intertwined with the existence of this technology. For instance, in 2012 I learned of the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster -- the largest nuclear mishap since Chernobyl in 1986. It could be pointed out that this took place nearly on the other of the globe from where we are in America. But consider that within South Carolina's borders there exists the Savannah River Site. Also, a world leading corporation in the field of nuclear power production operates a facility in the Columbia area. As fossil fuels become more and more unpopular for environmental reasons, we as individuals must decide if we are to accept nuclear energy as a legitimate solution to our need for energy. Although I am found lacking in formal qualifications in physics or political science, I nevertheless assert my ability to discuss this topic. I am enabled to in this endeavor by the citation of the work of more qualified individuals. In addition to this, I will be the first one to admit my own limitations.

            Now, I will consider some sources that comment on this issue. In "The Promise of Nuclear Energy", James T. Ramey elaborates on the benefits of nuclear energy, pointing out that its usage is able to free up great quantities of coal and oil resources so that these might be better used in industries which call for them specifically. The development of nuclear energy technology also contributes to American independence from foreign energy sources, presents itself as a positive element of foreign trade, and displays certain environmental benefits (e.g. reduction of air pollution). This article's author, James T. Ramey served as Commissioner of the United States Atomic Energy Commission during the 60's and 70's. He has also served as Executive Director of a congressional committee on atomic energy. These facts seem to indicate that he was very well-informed on this topic. His article does, however, make clear that he is enthusiastic proponent of nuclear energy. He makes an effort to address opposition by responding to the following issues relating to nuclear energy production: thermal effects resulting from the discharge of cooling-plant water into nearby aquatic habitats, the controlled release of radioactive effluents, the potential release of large amounts of radiation in the event of an accident, and the "necessary storage of high-level radioactive wastes". However, owing to the scope of his article he does not delve very deeply into these issues.

           The second article I will consider is "A Skeptic's View of Nuclear Energy" by Harold A. Feiveson, a professor at Princeton who holds degrees in public affairs and theoretical physics. This article provides a nice contrast to the previous in that it was published much later (2009) and begins with title expressing doubt rather than optimism.  However, Feiveson goes on to explain his purpose more specifically: he is penning a cautionary note to those who would believe that nuclear power is heading towards an inevitable renaissance. With this goal in mind he points out that nuclear power is on a level or decline in most countries outside of Asia. He also states that gas reserves a proving to be more productive than previously predicted and that wind power, while still showing some kinks in its development, is also looking promising for the future. Regarding the interests at stake, it seems to me that Feiveson was counteracting pro-nuclear analysts who may have been exaggerating some new development in this field. I find Feiveson's approach to be just and well-rounded. 

        Finally, let us look at "Strategists, Philosophers, and the Nuclear Question" by Marc Trachtenberg, a professor of Political Science at UCLA who holds a Ph. D in History. This article deals especially with the moral and ethical problems associated with nuclear technology. I feel that what this article does best is to explain the discrepancy between the viewpoints of moral philosophers and military strategists. Trachtenberg, using analogies taken from everyday life, explains that philosophers are accustomed to looking at issues as being either black or white, good or bad, morally acceptable or unacceptable. This is completely at odds with the techniques of the military strategist: using mathematical models to assess the risk of an event in terms of degrees. 

              I believe that I have chosen a good research question for the following reasons: With the onset of ever greater concerns about the environment, there must necessarily be a change in the way developed countries produce energy. We must decide if nuclear power will help us protect the environment or instead contribute to its destruction. Nuclear disasters have the potential to affect many people both short and long-term. This issue has no clear answer; and it is something that will, most likely be on the table for many years to come. 

           While researching this topic, I found that there are many different viewpoints. This may be due to the many layers that are presented by nuclear technology. One example of this consists of how difficult it is to separate the development of nuclear technology for energy production from that of military armament. I may need to revise my research question and sources to focus more specifically on one of these issues.

