Part 1:

Day 1:  

• Went over roles: 

• Oscar – scribe 
• Surya – Goalkeeper 
• Shawn – Park ranger 

• Brainstormed Potential Topics: 

• Banned books
• Texas/Florida textbooks
• Affirmative Action 
• Civil Rights, particularly the one case where a bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage 
• Gun control
• Minimum wage 
• Felon voting 

• Picked our topic: 

• Banned books (with respect to education) – what is acceptable for children to learn at what age, how does different information affect development, consequences of removing certain information.  

Day 2: 

• Found sources: 

• Yanking Books From School Libraries: What the Supreme Court Has Said, and Why It’s Murky (edweek.org) 
• A Brief History of Banned Books in America | History| Smithsonian Magazine 

• Created a general outline:  

• Comparison to Germany book burning (45s) 
•  Book Burning | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org) 
• History of banned books in US, why do people want to ban books? (1:30) 

• https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/book-banning/  

• Those who wish to ban books cite often: Sexual Content, Offensive Language, Lack of Literary Merit,  

• https://lithub.com/the-history-and-present-of-banning-books-in-america/  
• https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/Top%20Ten%20for%202016.pdf 

• Half of the most contested books for 2016 cited reasons related to LGBTQ+ content 
• 8/10 cited sexual explicitness 
• 1/10 cited the fact that Bill Cosby was the author 

• https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/09/florida-k-12-textbook-publisher-00096000  

• Florida and revised textbooks, textbooks were rejected because of “political indoctrination,” under Ron DeSantis 

• One such revised topic was activities. Such as the activity to ask parents about kneeling during the national anthem and how ti represented the US 
• Is every book considered an important part of the “intellectual freedom search”? (1:30) 

• https://www.procon.org/headlines/banned-books-top-3-pros-and-cons/ 
• Sexually explicit content, offensive language, and “unsuited to any age group” 
• Children should not be exposed to sex, violence, drug use, or other inappropriate topics in school or public libraries. 

• Against: Many frequently challenged books help people get a better idea of the world and their place in it. 

• Keeping books with inappropriate content out of libraries protects kids, but doesn’t stop people from reading those books or prevent authors from writing them. 

• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/30/books/book-ban-us-schools.html  

• At what age should people have access to all information? (1:00) 

• Several Viewpoints (Immediately, other ages) 
• https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors  

• The above source states “article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” 

• The access to this information is a first amendment right according to the opinion of the American Library Association 
• Anyone should have at least access to all information 

• https://opentodebate.org/debate/should-certain-books-ever-be-banned-in-school/  

• Yes: Chris Rufo 
• No:  Yascha Mounk 
• How does censorship affect the education and perspectives of children (45s) 

• What Students Are Saying About Banning Books From School Libraries – The New York Times (nytimes.com) 
• Students feel like if the books are relatable, reading can help them feel supported and understood.  
• Many LGBTQ students feel discriminated against when books are banned just for LGBTQ content 
• To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood – PubMed (nih.gov) 
• Exposure to printed books can explain 34% of the variance in oratory skills of college students/ young adults 
• If students do not have books they can relate to, they won’t read as much and won’t be able to develop their linguistic skills fully 

• What legal precedent is there for banning books in the US (2:00) 

• Yanking Books From School Libraries: What the Supreme Court Has Said, and Why It’s Murky (edweek.org) 

• Island Trees School District v. Pico, students found that school was going to ban books and sued. 

• Banning Books and the Law (findlaw.com) 

• Outcome of previously mentioned case was that librarians cannot ban a book just because they dislike it, but can ban it if it is inappropriate for the children.  

• Does a Florida Law Impose Felony Charges on Educators Using Unapproved Books? | Snopes.com 

• Recently, Florida approved a law that states only books approved by certified media specialists can be included in a library, mainly to focus on excluding sexually explicit material.  

• Conclusion, wrap up and evaluate the similarities and differences between burning books and censorship (45s) 

Day 3:  

• Completed research and reviewed the sources we found 
• Began to write the script, wrote the intro together. 
• Split up tasks for writing remainder of the script as homework.  

• Oscar – Censorship effect and legal precedent 
• Surya – History 
• Shawn – Should kids have access / what age 

• Plan to write conclusion and determine visuals in class on Wednesday 

Day 4:  

• Wrote the remainder of the script 
• Planned to add visuals and audio to storyboard on Friday

Day 5:  

• Completed storyboard 
• Plan to split up the rest of the work based on the sections of the script we wrote 

 

Part 2: Our group will be discussing the controversy of banned books in the US school system. First, we will examine the history of banned books, and common reasons for banning books in the past. Then, we will look at different perspectives on book banning: That books in schools must be educational and it is the school board’s responsibility and authority to choose which books remain in schools, or that all books should get to be represented to expose children to diverse perspectives. Then we will look at the legal precedent set in place for book banning, Island Trees School District v. Pico.  

Some framing questions that we will examine will be: “Why do people want books to be (not) banned” “What kinds of people are on each sides?”, “What are the books that people currently want to ban?”, “What is the effect of censoring books for children?”, and “What is the legal precedent surrounding banning books in the US?” 

Our media choices will be mostly relevant to the content that we are discussing. We will use stock footage to generate interest from the viewer, and we will use specific photographs from the events we discuss to emphasize certain points and provide clarity. We will use a variety of tempos and tones of music, in order to audibly break up the video into smaller segments.  

Oral Content: 

Topic: Implications of the Nuclear Renaissance 

Purpose: Promote a view of nuclear energy as a safe energy 

Thesis Statement: Although nuclear energy seems terrifying, this is only due to a media-induced heightened risk perception – nuclear is far less scary than carbon-emitting energy sources and the implications of climate change. It is up to us to change the image of nuclear energy and encourage the nuclear renaissance 

Introduction / Attention Strategy:  

What do you think about when you think of nuclear energy? Maybe it’s the image of a nuclear plant, the two large smokestacks in the distance. Maybe, hopefully it’s the promise of clean energy. But for a lot of people, it may be something darker, like the explosions of Hiroshima.  

The first time I was introduced to the word “nuclear” was in elementary school. There I learned two things about the word “nuclear” – if you call a bomb nuclear, it makes a really large explosion, and nuclear things are radioactive, which is bad (source, “Radioactive” by Imagine Dragons). I also recall the start of high school, watching the HBO Chernobyl documentary — witnessing the destruction of a nuclear disaster; the terror, chaos and uncertainty experienced by the citizens of the area; and the death from radiation poisoning, perhaps the worst way to die. I remember driving past the Limerick Nuclear Plant, not too far from my house, and feeling a deep sense of unease in its towering presence. It may surprise you then to know, that I chose to major in and devote my career to nuclear engineering. Why would I do that? Because there are things much scarier than nuclear energy 

Body:  

• Main Idea: Carbon-emitting sources already kill far more people than nuclear energy 

• This idea of risk perception heavily influences the public view of nuclear energy 
• large scale disasters, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, seem straight out of science fiction. They are noticeable on a global scale and stand out in public memory.  
• But think about it, what other nuclear disasters were there? Out of the 500+ nuclear reactors, only 3 have experienced meltdowns, and only two of those caused any deaths or health effects (TMI caused no deaths and released negligible radiation into the environment) 
• Meanwhile, other forms of energy are far more dangerous, and we don’t even realize it! 
• *Explain chart of deaths per unit energy* 
• Coal plants are 800 times more dangerous than nuclear, and natural gas around 94 times as dangerous! 

• Main Idea: Climate Change is a far greater terror than nuclear energy 

• I believe that there is something that should be feared way more than nuclear energy: climate change 
• We can already see the way climate change is impacting the world: heightened temperatures, droughts, forest fires, severe hurricanes. 
• This will all continue to worsen if we continue using our current energy methods 
• *Explain 2050 Prediction Map* 
• Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, no carbon emissions. Nuclear energy, optimally with help from renewable energy can reverse this change. But we need to accept it.  

• Main Idea: The nuclear energy industry is adjusting to help achieve these benefits to human life 

• Right now, there is a change happening.  
• Over the past fifteen years, the world has seen a doubling in the amount of reactor projects under construction. 
• *Show graph of reactor startups* here we can see a continual increase in the amount of new nuclear plant startups 
• In fact earlier this year, reactor unit 3 at the Vogtle unit plant in Georgia was brought online, the first new US reactor to do so in twenty years. Reactor unit 4 is currently being fueled and tested, and set to come online and generate commercial power by the end of this year 
• In 2019, a survey from American Nuclear Society saw this distribution of opinions on nuclear energy *Show pie chart* 

Conclusion: Right now, we can see a shift in public acceptance of nuclear energy. Data from last year shows that majority of Americans are in favor of nuclear energy, for the first time in the past thirty years. This growth in the nuclear industry, the nuclear renaissance can save lives. But it is up to all of us to continue this momentum. We must all work together to promote a factual view of nuclear energy. We must work together to stop climate change and carbon pollution. We must save the world.  

References: 

Nuclear Energy – Our World in Data 

Climate world map | Special reports | guardian.co.uk (theguardian.com) 

World Nuclear Power Reactors 1951–2023 (worldnuclearreport.org) 

Visual Content: 

• Slide one – gif of nuclear bomb, radioactive by imagine dragons song cover, Chernobyl, limerick nuclear plant – to show examples of my personal anecdote 
• Slide 2,3,4,5 – Chart of deaths per unit energy 
• Slide 6 – Climate change predictions 
• Slide 7 – Chart of nuclear reactor startups 
• Slide 8 – Chart of public opinion 
• Slide 9 – Vogtle 3 Reactor 
• Slide 10 – Slide contrasting the first one, portraying nuclear as helpful 

1. The most helpful feedback I received was to condense my information. Brevity is not a strength of mine, so this feedback was very necessary. I don’t think I was able to condense as much as I should have, however I did remove some extraneous information which I think improved the clarity of my essay.
2. I think the most interesting thing that I discovered was the argument against proof of my shift. Since the nuclear renaissance impacts a lot of what I do as a nuclear engineering student, I kind of thought that the shift was way bigger and more obvious than it actually is. I discovered that while there still has been a shift, it is not to the extent that I initially imagined.
3. I think the most important thing about the nuclear renaissance is understanding its benefits. Some of the statistics I found for my paper stated that nuclear energy causes 94 times less deaths per unit of energy production than natural gas, nuclear energy’s main economic competitor. This means that as nuclear energy becomes more widespread once again, thousands of people’s lives could be saved from the devastating effects of carbon pollution and climate change.
4. One of the main benefits of this project was conducting a lot of research. I ended up drawing evidence from around ten sources, which was quite a bit more than I have used in previous projects. Using this many sources taught me how to synthesize evidence to construct a cohesive argument for my thesis while not relying too heavily on one individual source.

The Nuclear Renaissance

Intro: 

• *Imagery about perceived notions of nuclear energy and radiation, particularly with respect to Chernobyl, then talk about nuclear energy as a clean zero carbon source* 
• This dichotomy inherent in the perception of nuclear energy has posed the industry as a volatile one, fluctuating along with public opinion.  
• *Talk about initial “atoms for peace” idea and how nuclear was initially proposed as a safe and reliable energy source* 
• However, this view of nuclear energy as a peaceful source of power was fell out of favor in 1979 and 1986 with the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  
• *Explain what happened at these disasters* 
• The beginning of public distrust in nuclear resulting from the terrifying evacuation of Middletown Pennsylvania, coupled with the horrific deaths, injuries, sickness, and displacement from Chernobyl, brought the nuclear energy industry to a standstill.  
• Public pressures amounted to a decrease in both new reactor proposals and an increase in abandonment of ongoing reactor construction projects.  
• Before these incidents, in 1979, the world saw 234 reactor projects under construction. By 1995, this number had plateaued around twenty. (“World”) 
• It seemed as though the nuclear industry would be doomed to stagnation from its reputation gained from widely reported disasters.  
• However, in the recent years (2007 to present) nuclear energy has appeared to once again be on the rise, in terms of public perception, reactor construction, and government policy.  
• Although growth in the nuclear industry has not reattained its peak of the 1970s, its current shift towards improvement qualifies as a nuclear renaissance, as the previous 15 years have seen a re-framing of nuclear energy as clean energy, a significant increase in reactor construction projects, and a resurgence in public favor of nuclear energy.  

Causes / reason for change: 

• Green Energy 
• A signifier of the nuclear renaissance, and a determiner of change in public acceptance of nuclear energy has been the renewed view of nuclear energy as a carbon-free energy source essential to the fight against climate change.  
• A 2010 article observes that, “These events [of Chernobyl], coupled with the economic problems that have plagued the industry, resulted in no new nuclear plant orders by a US utility since 1978. Until recently, it seemed that no utility would ever do so. However, for the first time in decades, nuclear power has resurfaced globally and is being actively marketed as a “green” solution to climate change.” (Culley and Angelique) 
• Ultimately, a recent emphasis on the dangers of climate change won out over aging perceptions about the dangers of nuclear energy.  
• A 2011 poll of public perception concedes that, “It is possible that the re-framing of nuclear power as a “green” technology has led to the steady growth in support and reduction in opposition to the technology seen by the annual Ipsos MORI polls.” (Goodfellow et al.) 
• This view of nuclear energy as clean has also played a role outside of public opinion, but within the opinions of policymakers as well.  
• Government Policy: 
• The framing of nuclear energy as a clean power source has allowed for governments to adjust policy to support the industry.  
• It should be noted that government policy played a large role of the decline and stagnation of nuclear energy in the late 1980s and 90s, as deregulation of the US energy market in the 1990s made utilities seek energy options cheaper than nuclear, such as natural gas. (“Why”) 
• However, with a focus of nuclear as a green, climate-friendly energy, “policy initiatives outlined in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and subsequent government actions provide[d] billions in financial incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants” (Culley and Angelique) 
• This increase in funding gave nuclear energy more means for growth, and allowed it to be competitive in a free market against cheaper, carbon-emitting fuels like coal and natural gas.  
• Similarly, government intervention supporting nuclear energy as a clean energy source has helped encourage the growth of the industry in the past few years.  
• Individual US states and the Biden administration have made the decision to postpone plant shutdowns in order to keep the zero-carbon sources, at least until more renewables can come online (“Why”) 
• Still, government intervention, particularly in democratic societies such as the United States, is not sufficient to completely turn the tide in favor of nuclear energy. For that, one must look at the way in which the general public has begun to perceive nuclear energy.  
• Public Opinion: 
• Public opinion is a great signifier of a nuclear renaissance, and there is prominent evidence for a shift – not just through the narrative of nuclear power as a green energy but also because of increased factual information and decreased reliance on exaggerated information spread in the wake of nuclear disasters.  
• A community psychology study on anti-nuclear activists asserted that “suggested that the public’s lack of understanding of the nuclear issue contributed to the “Forgetting Period” and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Some spoke of the issue as being highly technical and therefore intimidating and not “sexy” enough for widespread public involvement.” (Culley and Angelique) 
• In the aftermath of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and even the relatively recent events of Fukushima, the public was given a constant stream of information painting nuclear energy in a negative light. 
• With the current portrayal of nuclear energy as clean and safe, there is not as much incentive for the general public to focus on the intricacies and possible danger of nuclear energy; public opinion is heavily reliant on the industry’s portrayal in popular media.  
• The American nuclear society states, “Public opinion on nuclear energy topics is based largely on impressions, as few feel very well informed about the topic. Only 20 percent feel very well informed about energy sources used to produce electricity, and only 19 percent feel very well informed about nuclear energy. These numbers are significantly higher than a year ago, however, when they were 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Information may be reaching more of the public.” (Bisconti) 
• That is not to say that the current, positive portrayal of nuclear energy is inaccurate.  
• American nuclear society also points to the fact that “The more informed people feel, the more they favor nuclear energy. Of those who feel very well informed, 68 percent strongly favor nuclear energy, and 7 percent are strongly opposed, a 10 to 1 ratio.” (Bisconti) 
• Therefore, an increase in factual information over the past years may also contribute to a greater public favor of nuclear energy.  

Analysis – Did it happen? 

• How to determine a renaissance: 
• The changes in the perception of nuclear as a green energy and greater public and political acceptance of nuclear energy all provided compelling means for an increase in the implementation of nuclear energy; a nuclear renaissance. However, did an observable shift actually occur, and to what extent? 
• It is important to recognize the key opposition to nuclear energy, namely the concerns of costly capital investment requirements for nuclear projects as well as the risk inherent in the use of nuclear materials.  
• A 2013 analysis of the concept of nuclear renaissance foreshadowed, “For technological optimists, these concerns will yield to the necessity of low-carbon energy. For alarmists, they are enough to stop construction of nuclear power plants” (Stuhlburg et al, 148) 
• The opposing viewpoints of optimist and alarmist groups resulted in both a slow of progress towards nuclear progression or recession, and a skewing of viewpoints around the state of the industry, making the matter of a nuclear renaissance hard to define precisely.  
• One way to define a nuclear renaissance is that, “nuclear power will experience a revival of plant construction on the order of thirty new reactors per year, similar to the sector’s heyday in the 1960s and early 1970s, but also that the collective growth in nuclear power capacity will be sufficient to offset a significant share of global emissions of greenhouse gases that otherwise would have been emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.” (Stuhlburg et al, 124-125) 
• However, another way to define a nuclear renaissance would simply be a significant increase in public favor of nuclear energy as well as a significant increase in initiated and completed nuclear projects compared to previous decades of stagnation.  
• It did not happen 
• Contrasting the idea of a nuclear renaissance, in both its rigid and flexible definitions, there exists evidence that the nuclear energy industry has instead stagnated.
  “From 2007 to 2008, both the U.S. and E. U. added more renewable capacity than conventional coal, gas, oil and nuclear capacity. The global share of nuclear energy did not grow at all; it actually shrank by about 1 %, and the amount invested in 2008 was one-tenth the amount invested in renewables and energy efficiency. Put another way, nonhydroelectric renewable resources as a whole grew at an annual rate of 23% in 2008, and wind energy alone added 10 GW that year … nuclear energy additions have stagnated at about 2 GW/yr.” (Sovacool and D’Agostino) 
• Although this data does reflect the early stages of the nuclear renaissance period, it makes an important point about nuclear energy in comparison to renewables. Despite the perception of nuclear as a green energy, renewable energy sources are inherently favored by environmental activists, and this has been shown to increase their implementation in society and policy. This contrasts with the rigid definition of a nuclear renaissance, which requires that nuclear energy be responsible for a majority of emission reduction.  
• Similarly, increases in the economic efficiency of fossil fuels has offset the explosion of the nuclear industry into a renaissance. New techniques like fracking and the export of lower-cost fossil fuels has “undermined worldwide nuclear industry sales by rendering nuclear plants noncompetitive in open power markets, where such less expensive alternatives are now available. Indeed, switching to gas has reduced emissions, lowered generating costs, and increased efficiency compared to coal.” (Duffey and Pioro) 
• It has been long known that nuclear power generation requires great initial investment, and this has been its downfall in the past few years as other forms of electricity generation have proven to be cheaper. This has undermined nuclear energy’s purpose of reducing carbon-emissions, since renewables were seen as sufficient for this purpose, while conversely the cost of carbon-emitting fuels reached enough of a low that its cheap cost was viewed to outweigh the consequences of its pollution.  
• However, there has been noticeable growth in the nuclear energy industry was still achieved despite competition from these other energy sources.  
• Yes, it is happening 
• By examining trends in nuclear construction projects and public opinion, one can see that there has been a significant favorable growth in the nuclear industry, particularly after 2007.  
• Nuclear reactors under construction stagnated around 30 globally between 1994 and 2005, then rapidly increased to 60 reactors at a time since 2009 (“World”) 
• Similarly, 2010 saw the most reactor construction starts (15) since 1992, which means 2024 is set to see the most reactors come online (15) since 1987, the year after the Chernobyl disaster 
• However, in the past 10 years there has only been an average of 7 reactor startups per year, an increase from the average of 4.5 per year from 1990 – 2013, but still far from the qualifying number of 30 to signify a nuclear renaissance. (“World”) 
• It is still important to note there have been only 4 cancelled plant construction projects in the past 10 years, compared to an average of 13.7 cancelled per decade between 1990 – 2013, most of those were caused in the aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima. (“World”) 
• When examining these shifts, it is important to attribute a lot of this growth to China, which has seen the largest increase in reactor projects in the past years of the nuclear renaissance (“World”). This is due both to China’s climate goals and the nature of its government structure, as “China’s ability to expand nuclear energy production is enhanced by the state’s greater capacity to site facilities compared to democratic countries such as India.” (Stuhlburg et al, 159) 
• However, there is still a growth of the nuclear industry in democratic societies such as America. Although there has not been quite a shift towards more reactor construction, recent surveys have shown a significant shift in public acceptance of nuclear energy.  
• “For three decades, a perception gap told a story of stigma attached to nuclear energy; the majority of Americans judged public opinion about nuclear energy to be less favorable than their own. In April 2019, for the first time ever in 36 years of surveying the national public about nuclear energy, a majority of Americans said they believe that a majority of people in their community favor nuclear energy; 53 percent perceive the majority to be in favor, and 47 percent perceive the majority to be opposed. That finding suggests that the image of nuclear energy may be changing. Among younger Americans, ages 18 to 34, 58 percent perceive public opinion to be majority favorable, and 42 percent perceive it to be majority unfavorable.” (Bisconti) 
• Since people tend to perceive public opinion as less favorable than their opinions of nuclear energy, this data suggests that a majority of Americans are ready to accept nuclear energy. Both a worldwide shift towards more nuclear plants and a shift in the United States towards acceptance of nuclear energy signifies a nuclear renaissance, not to the extent of the rigid definition of a renaissance, but to an extent that a noticeable revival is constituted.  

Implications – Is it good or bad? 

• Negatives: 
• With the existence of a nuclear renaissance established, it is important to examine the consequences of such a renaissance – can the costs of nuclear energy outweigh its ability to reduce carbon emissions? 
• One must acknowledge costs of an increased nuclear fleet pose a drawback to the benefits of a nuclear renaissance.  
• “Although the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are widely known, no less than 76 nuclear accidents totaling $19.1 billion in damages have occurred worldwide from 1 947 to 2008. These figures correspond to at least one incident and $332 million in damages every year for the past three decades.” (Sovacool and D’Agostino) 
• Even though current reactor technology has developed to a point where accidents are highly unlikely to cause human harm, incidents do occur and cause financial harm.  
• Similarly, cost of operating reactors remains a non-negligible issue. Some issues result since, “Lack of knowledge about known reserves of uranium fuel, as well as long supply chains and almost complete dependence on importers, have contributed to large price spikes on the global market. The cost of uranium for reactors in the U.S., for example, jumped from $ 10/lb in 1994 to $60/lb in 2008.” (Sovacool and D’Agostino) 
• Taking both the costs of operation and the cost of accidents into consideration, a nuclear renaissance would imply a heavy cost on utilities. Although this would likely be offset by profit from electricity generation, it is nonetheless a greater concern compared to other methods of electricity production.  
• Can this cost be offset by the reduction in carbon emissions that nuclear energy provides? It is important to note that a transition to nuclear energy is unlikely to fully reduce emissions, as to do so: 
• “worldwide we would need to build at least 1,500 new plants—a new plant every one to two weeks until about 2050. Given that the NRC estimates it would take at least 20 years for licensing and construction processes to unfold for each plant in the best case scenario, this is not likely feasible.” (Culley and Angelique) 
• A nuclear renaissance, at least of the current magnitude, will not solve the climate change crisis. Yet there are still benefits to any extent of nuclear energy implementation.  
• Positives: 
• Even in spite of cost, aspects of nuclear energy provide advantages over both renewable energy and fossil fuels, meaning that the changes of nuclear renaissance are of benefit to developing nations and the world as a whole.  
• For starters, nuclear energy does not fluctuate based on external conditions in the way that wind and solar do, and additionally nuclear plants only need to refuel around once every eighteen months.  
• This means that “For countries reliant on imported fuel sources (particularly those with uranium reserves), diversification through nuclear power potentially provides a source of reassurance for reasons of energy security.” (Stuhlburg et al, 127) 
• Despite higher costs, switching to nuclear energy would be a beneficial move for many countries, especially those reliant on Russian natural gas during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.  
• Additionally, the main benefit of nuclear energy is its safety. Despite its connotation as a dangerous technology, regulations and a lack of pollutants actually make nuclear energy among one of the safest power sources.  
• Taking into account air pollution, accidents and greenhouse gas emissions, on average coal plants cause 24.62 deaths per terawatt hour of energy produced, oil 18.43 deaths, natural gas 2.82, and nuclear only 0.03. This puts it on par with deaths per terawatt hour of wind and solar, 0.04 and 0.02 respectively (“World”) 
• When examining nuclear energy in terms of its main competitor, natural gas, nuclear is responsible for on average 94 times less deaths for the same unit energy produced. This is mainly because of deaths attributed to carbon emission, it goes to show how any replacement of fossil fuel, no matter the magnitude, will have a significant impact on human well-being.  
• As a footnote, both a contributing factor and positive implication of the nuclear renaissance is the development of the next generation of nuclear reactor technology.  
• Both governments, independent startups, and established nuclear suppliers are pursuing innovative methods of nuclear power generation, including higher temperature gas-cooled reactors, molten salt reactors, and microreactors.  
• Reactors of this next generation of designs would be safer, more efficient, and require a lower initial cost to build, meaning that development in this area could both fuel the nuclear renaissance and provide an increasing benefit throughout the progression of the renaissance. (“Why”) 

Conclusion: 

• *Recap the nuclear renaissance – causes and what happened* 
• Still, the hope of a complete nuclear renaissance has not yet seen complete fruition. Although reactor construction remains at an elevated level compared to the decade preceding the renaissance, it has not yet reached its same peak as in the 1970s.  
• *Recap the implications of the change* 
• We currently stand at a turning point in the climate crisis, in America and globally. Nuclear energy, despite its drawbacks, offers a safe, reliable, and proven solution to produce energy with zero-carbon emission. The nuclear renaissance, even if limited in scope, shows a shift in public acceptance of nuclear as this clean energy source, and highlights humanity’s ability to work towards the common goal of combatting climate change.  
• While the path to a complete nuclear renaissance is one wrought with many challenges, it can be made possible with public understanding and advocacy. In a matter so heavily dependent on public opinion, it is the shared responsibility of both citizens, policymakers, and innovators to create informed dialogs and support measures to advance the promise of nuclear energy in the battle against climate change.  

 

Sources:

Bisconti, Ann S. “Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy: Turning a Corner?” American Nuclear Society, 12 Jul 2019, https://www.ans.org/news/article-314/public-opinion-on-nuclear-energy-turning-a-corner/ 

Culley, Marci R., Holly Angelique. “Nuclear Power: Renaissance or Relapse? Global Climate Change and Long-Term Three Mile Island Activists’ Narratives.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 16 March 2010, pp. 231–246. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1007/s10464-010-9299-8 

Duffey, Romney, and Igor Pioro. “What Happened to the Nuclear Renaissance?” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 11 Nov 2011, https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/what-happened-to-the-nuclear-renaissance 

Goodfellow, Martin J., et al. “Nuclear Renaissance, Public Perception and Design Criteria: An Exploratory Review.” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, Oct 2011, pp. 6199-6210. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S030142151100543X?via%3Dihub 

Ritchie, Hannah, and Pablo Rosado. “Nuclear Energy.” Our World in Data, 10 Jul 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy 

Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Anthony D’Agostino. “Nuclear Renaissance: A Flawed Proposition.” Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 106, no. 7, Jul 2010, pp. 29-29,31,33,35. ProQuest, https://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/nuclear-renaissance-flawed-proposition/docview/650608864/se-2. 

Stuhlburg, Adam N., et al. The Nuclear Renaissance and International Security, Stanford University Press, 2013. 

“Why Nuclear Energy is on The Verge of a Renaissance.” YouTube, uploaded by CNBC, 7 Jun 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfNgRc4sJt8 

“World Nuclear Power Reactors 1951 – 2023.” World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 30 Sept 2023, https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/reactors.html#tab=iso; 

1. The topic that I am going to explore is the “nuclear renaissance” This is a trend that most sources consider to have started around 2000, persisting until modern day. I plan to tell the story of how nuclear energy went from being widely feared to being accepted by most environmentalists as a crucial force against climate change. However, there is still controversy surrounding the renaissance, as some people would argue that nuclear is not really gaining ground, especially considering the events of Fukushima which occurred during this time period.  
2. This shift is particularly relevant to me because it is the story of my career field’s perception and its future. This shift needs to be understood by others in my audience because nuclear energy is one of the world’s best options for fighting climate change, and everyone should be well informed whether its drawbacks (waste, radiation) outweigh its benefits (carbon-free power) in order to promote the best course of action. Similarly, knowing where the field is headed and why in respect to public opinion is also crucial for the audience to decide whether to support the future development of nuclear energy.
3. There is a controversy about the legitimacy of this shift, whether it is just proponents of nuclear energy being hopeful or if it is an accurate reflection of the state of the industry. Therefore, I will mostly focus on “fact” and “quality” questions. Some questions I seek to answer is if there is an actual noticeable shift, how and why it is taking place, who it affects, and if any information supporting these claims is biased. Overall, my claim will be that since the turn of the century, the nuclear energy industry has been progressing towards a renaissance in terms of public opinion, policy, and technology.  

Sources I may be using:
https://www.ans.org/news/article-314/public-opinion-on-nuclear-energy-turning-a-corner/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfNgRc4sJt8

https://link-springer-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/article/10.1007/s10464-010-9299-8

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S030142151100543X?via%3Dihub

https://www.proquest.com/docview/650608864?accountid=13158&parentSessionId=SbJWOQP4RZUXV%2B%2FdqRTsDDTqTHHJVSVBjpQ8D5F0CTg%3D&pq-origsite=summon&parentSessionId=IIMR9LGaqHCLNFUZjzlZG565dIUVDpAtSWW3nfHHnzI%3D

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/pensu/reader.action?docID=1115255

Introduction:

• “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool” (Feynman).
• This is the main point of Feynman’s 1974 Caltech commencement speech
• What does it mean to not fool one’s self?
• Feynman is pointing to the idea of scientific integrity
• he defines this as, “a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do as a scientist.” (Feynman)
• In order to impress upon his audience the danger of a lack of scientific integrity, Feynman relies on the exigence of an increase in improper research in science, logical comparisons between this research and the cargo cults of Melanesia, and rapport through an understanding of his audience’s struggles.

Body 1 (may be split into 2 paragraphs):

• Feynman’s speech came at a kairotic moment by reflecting on the scientific industry’s transition from independent research to large-scale funded research in the mid- to late-1900s.
• After the end of World War Two in America, “the norms and self-regulating aspects of ‘little science’ — communities that valued questioning, craftsmanship, skepticism, self-doubt, critical appraisal of the quality of evidence and the verifiable, and verifiably replicable, advancement of human knowledge — gave way to current approaches centering on metrics, funding, publication, and prestige” (Stark et. al.).
• Feynman notices this in the field of psychology and gives examples
• This reflects a greater trend at the time of Feynman’s speech
• “When understanding, care, and honesty become valued less than novelty, visibility, scale, funding, and salary, science is at risk. Elements of the present crisis were anticipated by scholars such as Price and Ravetz in the 1960s and 1970s” (Stark et. al.)
• Feynman relates this to his field of physics, concerned that this will put its integrity at risk.
• Says that his friend was not allowed to do a control test for a heavy hydrogen experiment using the same apparatus as the main experiment because, “there wouldn’t be any new result. And so the men in charge of progress at NAL (National Accelerator Laboratory) are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying — possibly — the value of the experiments themselves” (Feynman).
• Feynman’s rhetorical argument is strengthened by highlighting this crisis and it’s implications

Body 2 (may be split into two paragraphs):

• In order to make his point of faulty scientific research more understandable, Feynman sets up a logical appeal by likening this research to the cargo cults of Melanesia.
• During World War Two, modern armies set up bases on Pacific islands, and would bring planes and supplies, some of which benefitted the indigenous peoples. After the war, once the military forces had deserted the islands, some islanders had been found to have made their own runways and towers out of wood — they had arranged everything just as it once was in hopes of the planes and supplies returning.
• As Feynman puts it, “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”
• Feynman goes on to explain how research done without integrity is like a cargo cult, since one follow the scientific method but still have flaws in research — due to external interests — and this can cause false statements to be recognized as scientific and true
• This logical appeal helps to conceptualize the idea of lack of scientific integrity and convince the audience that this is as bad a a primitive cargo cult
• Also uses a logical example of this in advertising
• “Last night I heard that Wesson Oil doesn’t soak through food. Well that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to the advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will — including Wesson Oil” (Feynman).
• By walking through the advertisement, Feynman points out the logical flaws and how the advertisement skews the science
• Feynman then provides a logical walkthrough of how this affected past scientific work with Millikan’s oil drop experiment.
• “Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops and got an answer we know to be not quite right…It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit higher than that…until they settle down to a number which is higher…When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong — and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong” (Feynman)
• Feynman shows how even when not considering a monetary motivation, scientific integrity may be compromised by reverence of other scientists and fear of being incorrect
• This may be of particular importance to his audience of young scientists

Body 3 (May be split into two paragraphs)

• Feynman then appeals to an understanding of his audience’s struggles to further motivate listeners to exemplify scientific integrity
• Audience is students graduating from Caltech
• they are young scientists about to leave the comfort of university research and go out into the world of funded research
• Feynman recognizes that scientific integrity is, “Something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.”
• This is may be for good reason because in modern society, “the dystopian aspects of science funding and academic career arrangements are delicate topics, as the teacher has to weigh the chance of discouraging students against the need to give them realistic expectations about what lies ahead” (Saltelli)
• This understanding between Feynman and his audience helps to promote his message as he is stating scientific integrity can still be built, starting now, and can be maintained even through the ordeals that lie ahead
• To further emphasize this, Feynman states in his closing remarks, “I have just one wish for you — the good luck to be somewhere you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, for financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity.”
• In a world where scientific research “will often call for compromise between vocation and survival” (Saltelli), this remark by Feynman provides hope to his audience

Conclusion:

• Through his appeals to the exigence of a national decline in scientific integrity, logical comparisons and examples, and an emotional and credible connection to his audience of university graduates, Feynman is able to create a compelling agreement for the danger of Cargo Cult Science.
• Given during the mid 1970s, the speech responded to the rhetorical opportunity to advocate against the emerging system of externally-motivated scientific research.
• Feynman masterfully combined logical arguments about current issues in psychology and physics, comparing these modern inefficiencies to the obvious fallacies of Melanesian cargo cults.
• In order to further persuade and motivate his audience to reject Cargo Cult Science, Feynman builds rapport through honest but hopeful reflections of the audience’s personal situations
• As much as Feynman’s speech responded to a particular issue of his time, it continues to provide a strong message for scientists today
• Our modern world is still riddled with cargo cult science, but Feynman’s use of strong rhetoric remains a force against this science, still educating young scientists that integrity is not only a privilege but a responsibility.

Source links:

Cargo Cult Science (caltech.edu)

Full article: Teaching scientific research integrity: A case study (tandfonline.com)

Cargo-cult Statistics and Scientific Crisis | Significance | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Sources:

Feynman, Richard P. (1974) Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37 (7). pp. 10-13. ISSN 0013-7812 https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:37.7.CargoCult

Philip B. Stark, Andrea Saltelli, Cargo-cult Statistics and Scientific Crisis, Significance, Volume 15, Issue 4, August 2018, Pages 40–43, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01174.x

Andrea Saltelli (2023) Teaching scientific research integrity: A case study, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2237949

 

After listening to my speech, I am quite pleased with how I did. I felt like I did particularly well with remembering the structure of my speech and elaborating on each point, however this may just be because I am familiar with the points of my speech. I also did not use too many filler words, although there were a few, however I was worried that my whole speech would be riddled with filler words, and it was not. I think that my tone of voice and speed was mostly adequate, however I did notice that during the song at the beginning and in the conclusion paragraph I began to talk a bit too fast. My last major positive of my speech was the song, I think I played it pretty well and it provided a good hook and lead into the speech.

There are still a few things that I think could have been improved. As mentioned before, I think the use of filler words and the speed of the speech could have been done better, and I also think that eye contact might have been a problem. I was looking at everyone in the room, however I don’t think I actually made eye contact with anyone. Additionally, I relied on my notecard quite a bit, which I think was mostly fine, but I should try to limit it in the future. I should also be more intentional with my gestures and movement in future speeches; in this speech I stood sort of stiff and also just did random hand gestures without any real intent. In terms of content, I think the two main things that could have been improved were the connection between the song and the intro paragraph, and connecting lines from the second verse of the song to the main point about anti-war protests.

The first thing that happened that I wasn’t aware of was speeding up during the song and at the end of the speech, I guess that was because of nerves. Another thing I didn’t notice was that I looked to my right for the majority of the speech. Granted, most people were too my right, but from the camera’s perspective it seemed like I was always looking over there and maybe I wasn’t connecting with the people in front of me and to my left. Finally, I didn’t realize that I was making gestures and moving my hands, I was doing that subconsciously, which I actually think helped my speech a bit, but it would help in the future to have intentional gestures planned out.

Oscar Felegy 

9/6/2023 

Civic Artifact Speech 

• Visual Aid – Lyrics to the Song 

1. Introduction, start with singing verse 1 and chorus of “Waiting on the World to Change” 
   1. As a young college student in 2023, sometimes it can feel like all we’re doing is waiting for the world to change. From a young age we are all told that we can grow up to be famous, influential, and powerful, but for right now, it seems like we are each just a small voice that’s never heard, and that disconnect can cause a sort of political apathy. This song, “Waiting on the World to Change,” written by John Mayer in 2006, frames the civic as ultimately futile, through explaining this ideology of inaction so prevalent in young generations, responding to the song’s contemporary exigence of the Iraq War, and developing the commonplace that what an individual does hardly matters on a large scale.
2. Point 1 – The song explains the ideology of inaction. 
   1. Upon intital analysis, one would assume that the song is based on an apolitical ideology. 
   2. Indeed, it does seem to encourage not getting involved in politics. 
   3. However, Mayer is trying to prove that he and his generation rather have an ideology of inaction. He reminds listeners that “It’s not that we don’t care, we just know that the fight ain’t fair” (Mayer 1:39) 
   4. This is the basis of his lament on the ideology of inaction, as if there is no way to effectuate a change, why even bother? 
   5. But we live in a democratic society, where are voices are supposed to matter? So how did we get to this point, where engaging in civic action becomes futile? 
3. Point 2 – The song responds to the exigence of the Iraq War.  
   1. Behind the general message of political insignificance, Mayer also includes an anti-war message. 
   2. He mentions that “If we had the power to bring our neighbors home from war / they would have never missed a Christmas, no more ribbons on their doors” (Mayer 1:07) 
   3. This is a reference to the Iraq War, which although the war started 3 years prior to this song being written, the year of this song was when the war had fell out of favor with the majority of Americans (Brittanica). 
   4. Between 2003-2006 there were several large protests, however none of them seemed to elicit any large change in policy, and by the end of 2006 President Bush announced that he would be increasing the number of US troops in Iraq (Britannica) 
   5. Mayer’s song responds to these kairotic events by attempting to evaluate the civic ideology created by people seeing their civic efforts amount to nothing. 
4. Point 3 – The song relies on the commonplace that our government system makes the voice of one individual insignificant 
   1. As stated before, in a democratic society like America, everyone’s voice is supposed to matter. 
   2. However, this is contrasted with the commonplace that power is only really consolidated in government officials.  
   3. Mayer reflects on this commonplace with the lines: 
   4. “It’s hard to beat the system, when you’re standing at a distance” (Mayer 0:55) 
   5. Recognizing how social constructs make it hard for an individual to make a change on a national or international scale. 
   6. “Cause when they own the information, they can bend it all they want” (Mayer 1:22) 
   7. Referring to common idea that political parties are selective and manipulative with information in order to inhibit the free thought of the public. 
5. Conclusion 
   1. Mayer uses these commonplaces, the exigence of the Iraq War, and the ideology of inaction to frame the civic as ultimately futile, at least for the time being, until the political and social structures in our world change. However, the song is not a call to the ideology of inaction that it describes. By the end of the song, Mayer optimistically remarks: “One day our generation, is gonna rule the population” (Mayer 2:44). And when our generation does, then we will be able to finally change the world for the better. But until then, all we can do is keep waiting, waiting on the world to change. 

Sources: 

“Iraq War | Summary, Causes, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, and Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 Aug. 2023, www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War/Occupation-and-continued-warfare#ref231540. 

Mayer, John. “Waiting On the World to Change.” Spotify, https://open.spotify.com/track/5imShWWzwqfAJ9gXFpGAQh?si=53450459b433447e 

 

“It’s not that we don’t care, we just know that the fight ain’t fair.”

John Mayer’s track, “Waiting on the World to Change” serves as an antithesis to the concept of civic engagement. Through the song, Mayer identifies that the world is not ideal, and that he, his community, and his generation wish they could change the way things are done. However, Mayer then asserts that he and his community, are too young; not influential enough, to have any capacity to change national and international policy. His provided solution is conveyed in the title of the song — wait until the world changes. In this way, Mayer describes that there is no obligation or even a meaning to civic engagement; all of our participation is ultimately futile until the world changes.

“Waiting on the World to Change” was written in 2006, in response to the exigencies of public dissatisfaction with the Iraq War and the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mayer created the song as an explanation of his generations’ political apathy towards these issues, and strategically used his power and place as a prominent musician to promote his political message to a wide audience, consisting of listeners across many generations.

However, across these age differences, two separate interpretations of the song’s message developed. Mayer’s intended message, appreciated by fans of similar age to Mayer, was to state his feeling of helplessness politically, particularly in relation to his and his generation’s disapproval of the Iraq War. This message gained traction during the kairotic events of the Iraq War, however after the war’s end, many people, particularly of older generations, began to criticize the song rather as a general call for political apathy.

Indeed, implicit in the song are the ideologies of apoliticism. However, the song is not an endorsement of these ideologies, but instead a disappointed reflection that holding any other strong political ideology will hardly bring a change about in the world. Mayer backs up this point with the commonplace that it’s nearly impossible to make a change as one person in a large society, (“We just feel like we don’t have the means / to rise above and beat it.”) Conversely however, Mayer ends with an optimistic message. Relying on the commonplace that things will get better with time, he reminds listeners that, “One day our generation / will rule the population,” and then, finally, the world will change.

Living in America in 2023, it can feel like no progress is being made in our society. With the upcoming presidential election, we can hope that things will finally begin to change for the better. But in the end, all we can do is cast our vote and, “keep on waiting, waiting on the world to change.”