Summarize the points made in the lecture, how they differ from the points made in the reading passage. |
The two contradicting opinions whether a nuclear power plant succors or victimize the environment as well as residents is discussed by the reading passage and the lecture. Evidences supporting its usage is outlined by the reading, while the lecture casts a heavy doubt on the benefits and cities information to dispute the writer's opinion.
To begin with, the lecture states that nuclear plant is effective in terms of cost. It argues that money spend on coal or natural gas will gradually increase as time goes, while the expenditure on nuclear plants will rather reduce. On the other hand, according to the lecture, one study has shown that all things, including operating cost, are considered, it rather wastes more substantial sums of money, that is about 60% higher than other kinds of resources.
Secondly, the fact that it cause no air pollution is another factor for the reading to support nuclear power plant. However, although there's no pollution directly resulted by nuclear plants, the lecture elucidates that chances are since nuclear power plants need fossil fuels, especially uranium, along with electricity to run plants, it can be safely argued that it is rather wasting of money as well as resources.
Finally, according to the lecture, there exists little chance for radiation to be leaked due to the concrete structure of nuclear power plants. However, it can bring about some risks of harmful effects according to the lecture. The professor presents one study in the UK that shows children living nearby nuclear plant are 10 times more vulnerable to suffer from certain diseases.
* 잘못된 내용은 없다고 치고 첨삭 좀 해주세요ㅠㅠ |