SESSION 21: EXERCISES FOR DISCUSSION AND FINAL TASK
2. EXERCISES FOR DISCUSSION
2.1 PLANNING: What measures should the Disaster Management Agency and the Japanese Government take after an ecological disaster of this type? Think of these different fields:
- households
- buildings, city reconstructions
- economy
- water, gas, electricity
- food
- nuclear energy
- going back to the normal
2.2 EARTHQUAKE DISCUSSION: Here are some questions you can try asking yourself before you come to our discussion on Wednesday:
a) What did you think when you read the article?
b) Did you already know all the information given in the article?
c) What other facts do you know about this earthquake that aren´t mentioned in the text?
d) Do you think the Japanese Government is taking the adequate measures?
e) Have you ever been in an earthquake? How did you feel?
f) Almería is in a seismic region. Does this worry you?
g) Has your local government or regional government taken any measures to prevent the effects of ecological disasters like: floods, earthquakes, fires, etc...?
h) Do you think builders and governments are aware of possible future ecological disasters when they plan buildings and the infrastructure of cities in general?
i) What consequences does an earthquake have in a society apart from the fact of thousands of deaths and building and cities devastated?
j) Now the major problem is the nuclear escapes of the nuclear power plants close to the epicenter. What do you know?
k) Is the Japanese government giving clear information about the nuclear escapes?
PREPARING A DISCUSSION IS FUNDAMENTAL:
THIS MUST BE DONE IN TWO DIRECTIONS:
FIRST, YOU NEED TO LEARN NEW VOCABULARY AND EXPRESSIONS THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO USE FOR THE DISCUSSION.
SECONDLY, YOU HAVE TO PREPARE THE TOPIC BY LOOKING UP INFORMATION IN THE INTERNET, BOOKS, ENCYCLOPAEDIAS.
THIS WAY YOU WILL FEEL MUCH MORE CONFIDENT AND AT THE SAME TIME YOU WILL HAVE MUCH MORE TO TALK ABOUT.
FINAL TASK:
HERE IS ONE FINAL TASK THAT YOU MAY DO IN ORDER TO COVER THE FOUR SKILLS YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON WHEN LEARNING A LANGUAGE: LISTENING, READING, SPEAKING AND WRITING.
Write a composition and leave it in the blog as a comment to Session 21, I will edit it in the blog so that everybody can learn from other people´s opinions. Choose one of these two options:
- Plan the cleanup of an earthquake and tsunami. What are the steps a government should follow?
- Nuclear Power, pros and cons.
In today’s world, energy is completely necessary in our life style. There are lots of energy sources like fossil fuels, renewable energies like solar power, wind power, etc, but the most problematic is nuclear power which is being questioned because of the terrified tragedy occurred in Japan last Friday.
ReplyDeleteSome people are concerned by this source of energy. They fear that these plants are not secure at all, especially from the tragedy which has hit Japan for long hours. Firstly with a strong earth-quake and later with a deadly tsunami. They point out the danger that these sort of facilities might cause to the population who live close to them. People do not feel secure because they know that the security protocol can fail and neighbourhoods might finish completely contaminated by nuclear radiation in a short period of time. Furthermore, nuclear waste is another problem to solve, which lead to keep huge number of nuclear cemetery.
However, everybody knows that fossil fuels will have completely disappeared by 2050. The fact that renewable energies are not enough to the necessity that developed countries have, because the energy must be permanent every moment of the day. Renewable energies like solar power or wind power, only produce energy when there are clear days and when there is wind respectively, so they are not useful recently. Although nuclear power are very expensive while they are built, the energy which is generated is very clean and they keep working for long time. Besides, the security that nuclear plants have is very strong and they have to pass lots of tests during all the time they are working. A good example is the nuclear plants in Japan. They have supported an earth-quake of 8.9 on the Ritcher scale. These conditions have been the worst that these sort of facilities nobody could imagine. On the other hand, this terrible tragedy can help to learn how improve the security of nuclear plants
To sum up, we have to be realistic about nuclear power. It is the one power energy capable of producing electricity in a clean way without provoking greenhouse effect and producing energy constantly. But we have to be conscientious about this dangerous energy so we have to take the precautions necessary to population’s security, furthermore, people who live near a nuclear plant have to be taught about how perform in a nuclear accident.
Any of us have chosen to live in a world like this with four billion of people living on it who have necessities which imply a dependence of the energy sources. This is the world we have found and the place where we must live.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power, which was born in the 20th century, was a useful option to get energy in a cheap way but assuming a high risk of having a catastrophe if one of the nuclear plants has an explosion, not to talk about the waste they produce.
The energy we get from nuclear plants helps our world to be better and people to live in better conditions, consequently, to save lives which would be shorter if we had not that energy at homes, hospitals, etc.
Even taking the most strict safety measures, cases as Chernobyl explosion or earthquake in Japan, seem demonstrate that they are not enough and although nuclear power is very important nowadays, we need to find a way to substitute it.
In a global economy as we have today, this change must be follow by all the countries in order to avoid any of them get any advantage and at the same time not to put in dangerous at the rest of the population. For example, it would be useless if Spain bans nuclear plants but many of them still exist in Portugal and France.
As a result of the earthquake in Japan and subsequent tsunami, the revival of nuclear power debate seems to be in everybody's mind or at least in many politicians’ mind. It is interesting to see that in many suggestions, the focus is put on the advantages of nuclear power generation, its disadvantages are rarely mentioned.
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side, nuclear plants does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide, so the emissions of green house gases and the contribution to global warming is therefore relatively little. In addition to that, the energy produced in nuclear fission is about 10 million times the energy obtained by burning same mass of coal. Finally, there are more people died or injured from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal than people died from a nuclear plant accident, that his because there are a number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low.
However, there are few, but very important, arguments against. Firstly, if there is a loss of coolant water in a fission reactor, the temperature would increase with the lack of a cooling source, it could cause a meltdown as has happened in Japan. Secondly, radioactive waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, requiring safe disposal away from society until they lose their significant radiation values or we learn what to do in order to remove the danger. And thirdly, a radioactive exposure, during manipulation of uranium, or a radioactive leak can lead to several diseases like cancer and mutation.
To conclude, nuclear power is not a perfect system to obtain energy, but if Scientifics and Engineers are able to overcome the cons enough, then nuclear power will be the best way to get the energy we need.
The recent events in Japan might be the sign of a dilemma which solution could change human civilization, a crossroad similar to many others faced through history. Contemporary human societies need energy in huge quantities, more and more, in a never-ending craving for energy. Fossil fuels have been the base of the world as we know it right now, but these energy sources are very contaminant and limited. On the other hand there is nuclear energy, cleaner and relatively cheaper than fossil fuels, but it produces long-term toxic waste and could be highly destructive if things go wrong. So, we have tried to find a cheap, clean, reliable and non harmful source yet no other source of energy has been proven as efficient or effective as nuclear and fossil ones (and billions of dollars have been invested in researching this issue). A hard puzzle to solve, isn’t it?
ReplyDeleteThere’s no easy solution to the energy problem and the ones available until now imply major environmental costs and even total destruction but differing on timing: do we destroy our living place gradually or suddenly? When answers to a question lead to the same results, maybe it’s time to make a different question: Is there any other way of living? Only time will tell.
There’s no easy solution to the energy problem and the ones available until now imply major environmental costs and even total destruction but differing on timing: do we destroy our living place gradually or suddenly? When the attempts to solve a problem lead to the same results, maybe it’s time to rethink the problem and make a different question: What if we stop looking for the fountain of eternal energy and try to change how we live? But then,is there any other way of living? At what cost? Only time will tell.