The critics of power plants are right: The amount of radiation power plants release is dangerous. However, people don’t realize that they are constantly exposed to radiation by various ways. One can get exposed to radiation of 350 millirems from just standing in the sun for a long time or 5 millirems from being higher in the atmosphere. For example, flying in an airplane increases radiation by “lessening the amount of atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays” (seattletimes). An example of an high altitude situation would also include someone living on a hill which would result in about 500 millirems of radiation per year. One can also experience radiation of about 5 millirems if he or she has a habit of smoking cigarette and gets treated for lung cancer. A nuclear plant, however, only releases around 5 millirems of radiation. Therefore, living near a nuclear plant would have very little effect on peoples’ health compared to the radiation they experience when they travel or go out in the sun.
Content wise, much better, your point is well made. Someone will check your structure and grammar. Good thinking, and good analysis.
The critics of power plants are right: The amount of radiation that power plants release is dangerous. However, people don’t realize that they are constantly exposed to radiation by various ways. One can be exposed to radiation of 350 millirems from just standing in the sun for a long time or 5 millirems from being higher in the atmosphere. For example, flying in an airplane increases radiation by “lessening the amount of atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays” (seattletimes). An example of a high altitude situation would also include someone living on a hill; he or she would receive about 500 millirems of radiation per year. One can also experience radiation of about 5 millirems if he or she has a habit of smoking cigarette and gets treated for lung cancer. A nuclear plant, however, releases only around 5 millirems of radiation. Therefore, living near a nuclear plant would have very little effect on people's health compared to the radiation they experience when they travel or go out in the sun.
Excellent improvement in content and in mechanics, too. Congrats!
One other rather major issue (other than the spelling of grammar) needs to be addressed: how you cite references.
(seattletimes) is not a correct way to refer to whatever article you're using to back up that particular statement.
(Broken Link Removed)
This is an excellent place (add it to your Favorites) to get information about what to put in your Works Cited page and what to put in parenthetical (in-text) citations.
Hold your cursor over CITING SOURCES in the left column and click on "Electronic Resources/Internet" -- then scroll down until you come to the examples. For your Works Cited page, you should follow the model for the Online Magazine; it's the closest to an online newspaper. Notice that it starts with the last name of the person who wrote the article. Notice also that this particular newspaper (online or in print) is The Seattle Times, not "seattletimes," which is used only in the URL.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/home/index.html
In parentheses in your paragraph, you put that writer's last name, not "seattletimes." Do you see?
=)
=)
but if there is no author.
Then you'd use the first word or two of the title of the article -- whatever is first in your Works Cited entry.
How are you writing up that Works Cited entry? If you'll poste it, I can let you know exactly what to put.
SAFETY,BE THE POLICY FOR THE BEST COMPANY
patents
my name is sommaya mostafa. i'm egyptian i leave in cairo with my family i'm in the secondary school.i'm 16 years old.ihave apreparatory certicate,ican speak english well,now ilearn freanch.
The statement made suggests that the radiation released by power plants, specifically nuclear plants, is not as dangerous as people perceive it to be. It highlights that individuals are exposed to radiation in various ways, and the levels of radiation from sources like the sun, high altitudes, airplane travel, and medical treatments can be higher than what is emitted by nuclear plants.
To understand and evaluate this claim, it's necessary to have knowledge of radiation exposure and its potential health effects. Radiation is categorized into two types: ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation, which includes X-rays, gamma rays, and certain particles, has the potential to cause damage to living cells and DNA. Non-ionizing radiation, such as radio waves, microwaves, and visible light, does not have enough energy to cause molecular damage.
In terms of the sources mentioned, exposure to radiation from the sun is primarily due to its emission of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Prolonged exposure can increase the risk of skin cancer and other adverse health effects. The radiation received at high altitudes and during airplane travel comes from cosmic rays, which are high-energy particles from space. Cosmic rays are attenuated by the Earth's atmosphere, and the higher the altitude, the less atmospheric shielding there is, resulting in increased exposure. Medical treatments involving radiation, such as cancer therapy, are carefully controlled to target specific areas and minimize the exposure to surrounding healthy tissues.
It is important to note that radiation exposure is typically measured in units called millirems (mrem) or millisieverts (mSv). These units help quantify the amount of radiation energy absorbed by the body. To put it into perspective, on average, individuals in the United States receive an annual dose of about 620 millirems (or 6.2 millisieverts) from natural and artificial sources, excluding medical treatments.
Regarding the claimed radiation releases from nuclear plants, the statement suggests that they emit around 5 millirems, which is relatively low compared to other everyday sources of radiation. However, it is crucial to consider the context and potential health risks associated with such exposures. While nuclear plants indeed release radiation, they also have safety measures in place to minimize the impact on surrounding communities and the environment.
Moreover, the potential health consequences of radiation exposure are influenced by several factors, including the dose received, the type of radiation, the duration of exposure, and the sensitivity of the individual. Different types of tissues and organs also have varying sensitivities to radiation.
To fully assess the safety of living near a nuclear plant, it is necessary to consider not only the radiation emitted but also the effectiveness of safety measures, regulatory oversight, and emergency preparedness. These factors help ensure that the risks are minimized and any potential health effects are kept within acceptable limits.
In conclusion, while it is true that individuals are exposed to radiation through various sources, including the sun, high altitudes, and medical treatments, the safety and potential health risks associated with living near a nuclear plant involve a more comprehensive assessment. It is important to rely on scientific studies, expert opinions, and regulatory standards to fully understand the risks and benefits of nuclear energy and the potential health impact on surrounding communities.