In this assignment, I read learned a lot about nuclear energy and the hazards it will pose in many years from now. Symbols may not always remain danger symbols, and nuclear energy, despite proponents, will cause immeasurable damage. 

In Why Danger Symbols Can’t Last Forever, Christophe Haubursin discusses the importance of creating symbols for danger and hazards that are “memorable but meaningless.” Especially in discussing nuclear hazard, it was important to start with a symbol that could be understood by all can be timeless.  Because nuclear energy and weaponry has become such a big part of life, it is imperative for all people to be able to understand when it is safe to enter certain areas, and when it is not.  There needs to be an effective way of communicating warnings so that all people can understand the dangers and so that no one will end up in dangerous situations because they were uneducated on the matter.
            In Robert R. Johnson’s Romancing the Atom, Nuclear Green and the End of Power, he discusses the danger nuclear energy poses now, and aims to see if there can be anything done to “confront the atomic mindset and work for change.” It is hard to see the downfalls to nuclear energy, when many prominent people, that are high up on the government radar preach the safety, importance, and necessity of having nuclear energy. Johnson discusses the types of arguments that these proponents of nuclear energy use and he claims that there is a common thread between the arguments that they all make.  Johnson states that the common thread is that “nuclear energy creates jobs it is environmentally viable; it produces virtually no pollutants; it’s cheap; it safe-guards our way of life and our lifestyle” (147).  It is important that although there may be some economic benefits to nuclear energy being used, the health dangers it poses to people and has posed to people for many years is not worth the risk. 

This assignment on The Politics of Invisibility, written by Olga Kuchinskya, talked about Chernobyl fallout and the invisible health effects it had on people in the Northern Hemisphere of Europe, specifically, Belarus. Olga Kuchinskya is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communications at the University of Pittsburgh. Her main focus is dealing with every single possible way of discussing scientific information and data in ways to not make the topic at hand completely unknown to the public. Her primary research on the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 analyzed the many health risks, specifically thyroid cancer in children in Belarus. Kuchinskya asses the lack of visibility of the effects that this nuclear fallout on the people of Belarus and how they were all perfectly fine, and thought nothing bad was happening to them, until it struck.  Kuchinskya had family that lived near Belarus and when she asked them they stated that they weren’t primarily affected, but there were “16,000, 30,000, or even 100,000 victims” (vi.) These people that were living their lives were completely blind to the fact that Chernobyl fallout could cause disease, other health issues, and even in extreme cases, death.  She stressed the importance of making these health issues more understandable and known to the public; however, she stated that it was, “not surprising that nuclear industry experts might be motivated to downplay the perceived consequences of a nuclear accident” (8). She tried to show readers that as much as we would like to know the effects of the things around us, it is very likely that there are things being kept from us in order to make a country stronger nuclear wise, even if it is at the cost of its own people. Kuchinskya struggled with the idea that there are just some situations that health effects can be known, and others just can’t. It’s important for scientists to help the general public gain access to these dangers so that they can take necessary action. Kuchinskya stated, “without the experts and their equipment, we are left with impressions and no direct experience of the reality to verify them,” (vii) however, when discussing the risks at hand “the same proposed thresholds, for example, might expand the visibility of one context but limit it in different circumstances” (8). Kuchinskya attempted to get readers to see that risk discussion is more complex than we may think, and discussing each hazard needs to be done in a way uniquely in order to reach the full extent to which people understand and comprehend that risk. 

Throughout the process of project one I learned a lot about my writing habits and about how I work as a writer. This was by far one of the hardest writing experiences I’ve had, and I felt like I learned so much about how to be concise in my language and reach my goals and points quickly and effectively. Not only did I learn about how I prefer to write in the library and split up my work into segments rather than writing a whole paper in one sitting, but I learned a lot about the risks around us and how we should be discussing those risks.  Through reading the various articles I learned the importance of including both scientific research and personal anecdotes to create a stronger argument that reaches a larger group of people. By reading Beck, Sauer, Johnson, Iverson, Williams, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Herndl and Brown, and listening to the podcasts, I expanded my knowledge on risk and nuclear testing within the United States and world. This knowledge that I gained wasn’t solely on just nuclear testing. It was about trying to figure out the best ways to discuss risk. I will now be able to write within word limits and figure out what the best way to reach an audience is.  I learned what works and what doesn’t work to reach an audience and how I can achieve that in the way I present my evidence and talk about each piece of evidence.  After this project I think I need to continue to find out how to persuade an audience better and how I can find the best pieces of evidence and use them in comparison and contrast with one another in order to achieve what I want to achieve. 

For Project One my revision process went pretty smoothly.  By going over specific things from the group workshop day I was able to make many of my arguments flow smoother and create an overall better format for the piece.  At first, I began my revision process in my room.  I decided that I would work on it a little bit every day until the second draft was due.  I felt good starting out, I felt like I had a decent thesis to work with and now it was just a matter of refining my points to make them sound more eloquent.  I spent about an hour a night working on finding either better pieces of evidence or refining my analysis of the evidence.   I felt like this process was much less stressful than the original process because I had my points well throughout out and only really needed to refine them to make the arguments stronger. 

            I felt much more invested in this writing process than the original writing process because I had a solid idea of where I was going and was able to have fun with expressing my ideas.  I realized that the part that was making me the most stressful in the original writing process was coming up with an idea that I knew I could support and that I could find a strong argument for.  I wouldn’t change my writing process for the second revision of this draft. I think I scheduled it out the right way and completed the task to the best of my ability. 

• To produce my first draft of project one I began in the library on Sunday morning. After deciding on Saturday the pieces I would most like to use in my piece I began to think of a thesis that incorporated all parts of these documents.  I was trying to answer the question “scholars in STEM field and scholars of the humanities approach risk differently. How could a happy marriage between these approaches be accomplished?”  I found this process to be extremely difficult. It took many hours and many revisions of my thesis to finally find a concise and strong argument to talk about throughout my piece. After spending about two hours in the library attempting and finally succeeding in creating a thesis I went back to my room to finish the rest of the process.  My goal in my room was to find evidence and analyze the evidence to the best of my ability. I wanted to create strong arguments through limited amount of evidence used because we only had a 1200 word maximum. 

I found that my ideal writing process was hard to try and be followed for this draft.  Because College course load is heavy It was extremely hard to find time to get my major course work done in addition to this project. I ended up not looking at the prompts and actually thinking about what I wanted to write about until two days before the draft was due. I also took so long to try and create a claim that I got tired from being in the library for so long from my other homework and this project that I had to go to my bed and finish. Throughout the process I was extremely stressed. I knew my claim was what I somewhat wanted it to be for a rough draft but I found it hard to find the evidence that was the strongest because the word count was very limiting.  I found myself having to go back and reread all of the documents, and still I am unsure if I found the best pieces.  I think that it is good that I drafted my essay for nearly four hours because I feel like I tried to the best of my ability to make it good and I think that hearing what my peer may have to say will help me develop my ideas better. 

Ulrich Beck is a renowned sociologist who has dealt with the questions of uncontrollability, ignorance, and uncertainty.  He is most known for his coining of the term “risk society.” In Beck’s book, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, he speaks about the risks of modernity and how our new and developing technology is creating long lasting consequences that we are uncertain about and have a lack of understanding in. Risk is defined as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduces by modernization itself” (21).  Beck states on page 21 that “modernization risks appear in geographically specific areas, as well as unspecifically and universally.” Beck attempts to have readers understand the full effects of the risks we all experience in daily life by encompassing every area of life in his statement. 

Beck claims on page 9 that his book “contains some empirically oriented, projective social theory- without any methodological safeguards.” This research method, therefore, can be seen as Beck’s own knowledge and his theories on risks that the world is in danger of.  There is a lack of understanding in his eyes that presenting risks can’t be solely scientific or solely social, he states that there needs to be a level of “scientific and social rationality” (30) in discussing these issues. Risk society is defined by Beck on page 24 as, “ a catastrophic society” in which “the exceptional condition threatens to become the norm.” This statement can support the fact that we are currently on our way to becoming a risk society.  With all of the nuclear weaponry and extreme circumstances of our environment, everyone runs the risk of turning the world as we know it into a risk society. 

Beck appeals to his audiences’ sense of logic, emotions, and ethicality in his piece.  He states on page 21 that “in the modernization process, more and more destructive forces are also being unleashed, forces before which the human imagination stands in awe.” In this statement alone, Beck appeals to emotions, logic, and the ethicality of the human race.  No one wants to die, evoking the feelings of fear while reading words like “destructive.” Deep down people read and realize that they are fascinate by the powers of these destructive technologies despite knowing its ethically incorrect. 

Throughout the readings and podcast this week, the overall theme of secrecy and miscommunication about nuclear weapons and nuclear testing was discussed.  

In Kristen Iverson’s, piece, Mother’s Day, she discusses her first-hand experience with the secrecy surrounding the nuclear testing site at Rocky Flats, Colorado. Iverson’s comparison between her own family’s secrets, and the secrets the government acts upon throughout their projects of nuclear testing, helps to use a level of pathos to show readers how much trust is being broken, with the people we are supposed to have faith in. By having detailed first-hand experience of the amount of secrecy surrounding her family, that which she is supposed to trust, helps to show the broader perspective about the lost faith in the government that is supposedly there to protect us. The lack of information presented to the public lead people to have a false sense of security in the safety of their hometown, as seen on page five when Iverson states, “No one knows what the factor will produce. No one cares. It means jobs. It means housing.” The fact that everyone had this undeniable trust in the government that they wouldn’t put the people in harm’s way, is automatically refuted with stories of people who fall ill, people who end up risking their lives to work in these dangerous conditions. Overall, Iverson attempts to address readers in a way that would reach their sense of trust in how the government has handled issues, and the secrets that they keep from us that has a huge impact on our safety. 

Terry Tempest Williams, author of, Refuge: An Unnatural History of Time and Place,as well as an environmentalist, shows readers, in the same way Iverson did, how the government attempts to hide the truth behind the risks of their actions. Through her heartfelt stories about those who were impacted in Utah from the nuclear testing, she talks about women who have had to get mastectomies in order to survive. In a way, the government’s lack of disclosing the effects of their testing destroyed the lives of many, and Williams includes that. “all the evidence is buried.” Physically in those who died because of the actions, and figuratively, in the sense that the government is hiding things. 

The doomsday clock that is conducted by many scientists, attempts to use a level of logos, Kairos, and pathos, in the way they construct their ideas about how close we are to the end of the world. The diction they use to express their ideas has a level of harshness that scares readers and viewers into understanding the full effects of our actions and that we need to fix them. 

In the Podcast, “Fallout,” the ideas of how nuclear testing rhetoric is approached throughout the years is discussed. Specifically, the secondary research conducted in interviewing Jeffery Lewis, the author of a book depicting the effects of nuclear war and how we speak about it. In this interview the possibility of nuclear war is very probable in Lewis’s eyes, and he believes that we don’t speak enough about the North Korean point of view or ideology. Lewis uses a sense of logos in an attempt to get listeners to logically think about how we view the threat and that if we don’t attempt to speak about both sides, then we are ultimately doomed. 

This week while reading Romancing the Atom, the professor of rhetoric and technical communications, Robert R. Johnson, discusses the power that the atom presents over all people, and has presented over people for decades.  Johnson writes on xi, “whatever the case, we are all held in some fashion to this common bond of infatuation with the atom.” Through this statement, Johnson uses a play on words when discussing atoms. “Bonds” are often associated with atoms, atoms form bonds to become something bigger and more powerful. Throughout the piece Johnson discusses how people’s infatuation with atoms and what can be created from them, poses an extreme risk. By choosing the word “bond” while discussing all people, he attempts to exemplify the magnitude of the issue if all people are attempting to make the atom something big and destructive.

In reading The Rhetoric of Risk, Beverly Sauer, a senior chemical engineer and director of life cycle studies for energy discusses the “responsibility of writers within agencies about the nature of expertise and experience as grounds for judgements about risk” and specifically in the mines.  The entirety of Sauer’s argument attempts to criticize reporters for not using the correct types of rhetoric when discussing topics that present risks. She outlines the “expert model,” that would attempt to solve this big issue of ambiguity about risks.  Sauer is an extremely credible source, as she is a senior chemical engineer, and conducted her own research in the mines and about how people reported and spoke about risk. 

Personally, I found the podcast extremely interesting. The reporters interviewed, Harold L. Herring, a former missile officer. Herring found it very odd that there didn’t seem to be a checks and balance system on the possibility of starting a nuclear war and ending the world.  Herring asked his teacher if there was a safety net in place if the president were to be making an irrational decision in wanting Harold to set off the bomb.  If there were no checks on the president, and he were making an irrational decision, Harold believed it would be a “conflict of conscience.” After questioning the authority of the president’s decision, Harold was forced to retire from the military. This interview exemplifies how dangerous the entire nuclear system works and how popular culture becoming fascinated with nuclear weapons only makes the risk greater for the possibility of nuclear war. The reporter also mentioned the dropping of the bombs by Truman, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This outlined how the seemingly missing checks and balances of the nuclear game came into play. By including how the military overstepped without fully informing Truman of the full effects, it set a precedent that maybe the president holding all the power is the best thing for the country. 

Overall, the readings and listening this week exemplified how people speak and act upon atoms has a huge effect on popular culture and how there needs to be more emphasis on the discussion of these things to prevent disaster.

Throughout my high school career, I constantly was presented with the question of what rhetoric was and how it was used to get a specific message across to an audience of readers.  Through workshops and class discussions, I developed a general idea of what rhetoric was and how to detect certain techniques in an author’s piece.  As I came to learn, rhetoric was a type of persuasive language that was construed through various types of figurative language.  Seen in nearly every speech I ever read and various articles, techniques such as logos, pathos, and ethos constantly being added in helped to boost the argument of the speaker or author and make a more real-life connection to their audiences.   Taking AP Literature and Composition definitely exposed me to more complex forms of rhetoric and taught me how to detect more difficult types of rhetoric such as an antithesis, allusions, and anaphora. 

This week, after reading Herndl and Brown’s “Introduction to Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America,” I was introduced to a different type of rhetoric regarding the environment and how figurative speech has an effect on the world as we know it.  I was introduced to concepts such as “ethnocentric ethos” which describes nature as a resource, “ecocentric pathos” which describes nature as a spirit, and “anthropocentric logos” which describes nature as an object. The use of these writing techniques creates rhetoric. Every time an author uses a technique mentioned above in their writing of the environment it, in a way, personifies nature, allowing for the audience to see an importance in protecting it and making the world an eco-friendlier place.

In reading “Inflategate” there was an emphasis on the importance of using strong rhetoric when discussing things such as concussions.  Getting across the danger of these things makes it crucial for strong, and the right type of rhetoric to be utilized.  Rhetorical devices will be changed depending on the topic at hand and the audience. It is important when writing, to pick and choose how to use certain rhetorical techniques in order to create the strongest argument possible and truly speak to your audience. 

The ideal writing process begins first, with finding a topic that I am passionate about and have put a lot of thought into. Without taking an interest in a given topic there is no way for the piece to excel. A lack of attention to the details of the subject matter often makes the content seem artificial and childish.  After picking a topic of interest or educating myself more on the matter, I then sit down to create an outline. My outline often includes my thesis or claim and a general overview of how I plan to produce my arguments in each paragraph.  If needed, my outline often includes supporting evidence and a brief analysis of the evidence being used.  After my outline, I then review the evidence and begin writing my draft.  My draft is a rough copy where I take the pieces of evidence I collected and add an analysis with transitions. I also connect my own ideas to what is presented in the evidence. After my draft is complete I find it very useful to have a peer review my work.  My peers often find errors I may not recognize and provide their own feedback on how I can better my piece. Finally, to finish my ideal writing process I consider what my peers have commented on and edit my own work to create my final copy.  I find this process ideal because it allows for me to take time and consideration of all aspects of my writing, as well as, taking many steps to ensure my work is thoroughly completed. 

When I think of a professional writer completing their own ideal process, I think of it to be somewhat similar to my own; however, there are many more drafts involved.  When I think of how much hard work it takes to get a piece published, it becomes much clearer that they put many hours of hard work and dedication devoted to their piece. They most likely start with finding a topic that they are passionate about and pursue that passion throughout their outlines, drafts, and selling of their pieces.  To be a professional requires many hours of finding an idea that not only interests themselves but allows room to create those same passions in others. To create the perfect piece, I imagine it takes many trials and errors; however, because these writers are so passionate about what they are writing about, the outlines, drafts, and editing, become worth-while once benefits of their published piece begin.