No To Nukes: Rhetorical Analysis of an Editorial - Article Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date “NO TO NUKES” A Rhetorical Analysis of an editorial in the Los Angeles Times Introduction The Los Angeles Times editorial “No to Nukes” that appeared in the Los Angeles Times online newspaper in July 23, 2007 aims to convince its readers that nuclear power may not be the best solution to end global warming. The editorial categorically indicates “JAPAN SEES NUCLEAR POWER as a solution to global warming, but it's paying a price” (Los Angeles Times, 2007, p.1). The editor begins this editorial with the flashback strategy where he uses an event that happened at an earlier time which is necessary to foster deeper and broader understanding. “Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of problems at the world's biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of radioactive elements into the air and ocean and an indefinite shutdown” (Los Angeles Times, 2007, p.1). He also makes it clear within the first paragraph his aim of writing the article although he does so shortly and simply. Los Angeles Times, (2007, p.1) states “No to nukes it’s tempting to turn to nuclear plants to combat climate change, but alternatives are safer and cheaper.” This already sets the reader to automatically conclude from the word go that nuclear power is not suitable as a solution to global warming. He convinces his intended reader that nuclear power is in fact causing more harm than good. From the beginning of the article, he is determined to sway one to accept the fact without a doubt that usage of nuclear power could add to our problems: “That's just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks” (Los Angeles Times, 2007, p.1). He establishes ethos through giving statistics and proof of nuclear power being a danger not only now, but in the near future as well. “The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986” (Los Angeles Times, 2007, p.1). Los Angeles Times, (2007, p.1) describes the state of our present situation in the fifth paragraph by emphasizing the risk nuclear accidents pose to the universe “But accidents can and frequently do happen. The Union of Concerned Scientists cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear plants in which reactors have been shut down for more than a year as evidence of serious and widespread safety problems.” The editor emphasizes on the fact that it is expensive to produce nuclear energy and that alternative solutions are relatively cost effective. “Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the world would need to build a new plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. Even if that were feasible, it would overwhelm the handful of companies that make specialized parts for nuclear plants, sending costs through the roof” (Los Angeles Times, 2007, p.1).This fact is not true as Nuclear Power costs about the same as coal, so it’s not expensive to make as supported by Ferenc L. Toth (2007, p.1). This statement proves that he did not do a thorough research on Nuclear Power. The editor ingeniously applies narrative strategy throughout the editorial and captures the pathos of the intended reader to really emphasize on the dangers of nuclear power. Los Angeles Times, (2007, p.1) stresses that “Modern nuclear plants are much safer than the Soviet-era monstrosity at Chernobyl. But accidents can and frequently do happen. The Union of Concerned Scientists cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear plants in which reactors have been shut down for more than a year as evidence of serious and widespread safety problems. ” “Technology might be able to solve the recycling problem, but the question of what to do with the waste defies answers. Even the recycling process leaves behind highly radioactive waste that has to be disposed of. This isn't a temporary issue: Nuclear waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. The only way to get rid of it is to put it in containers and bury it deep underground — and pray that geological shifts or excavations by future generations that have forgotten where it's buried don't unleash it on the surface” (Los Angeles Times, 2007). In this exert, the editor uses the cause and effect strategy whereby he describes the recycling of nuclear waste and also gives the after effects of this process. He assists the intended reader to know more about the dangers of recycling even years from now. The editor uses the compare and contrast strategy in this paragraph “The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according to a May report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to produce than nuclear power. Further, the amount of electricity that could be generated simply by making existing non-nuclear power plants more efficient is staggering” (Los Angeles Times, 2007). He explains how wind power compared to nuclear power is much more effective in all costs. One can also note that he uses exemplification strategy of writing whenever he is proving a point. The examples vary, but act as supporting material, either to explain or clarify his main point, a good example is this. “Nevertheless, the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it does on renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry amounted to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a researcher based in Cambridge, Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy monitors energy spending. Renewable power sources, including hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion went toward conservation” (Los Angeles Times, 2007). The writer also had long sentences to say the least at most seven sentences in each paragraph. Longer sentences implied that he was being descriptive and detailed as much as possible. His diction is very often conveyed as straightforward as his main aim was to inform the reader, which makes it very formal. Here are a few words used to describe the type of diction used by the writer, weapons proliferation, prospective thief and decentralized approach. The writer also uses dashes constantly in his punctuation. Meaning he either changed his tone or thought on the matter, or he was setting off a brief summary. A good example is cited by Los Angeles Times, (2007, p.1) “ The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to make a difference on global warming.” CONCLUSION It is important to have sufficient evidence to reach conclusions. And it also important to present our evidence in a reasonable way that make it clear how we, as readers reach our conclusions. The editor intended to inform and educate the general audience with no particular target audience in mind, which means his diction was informal, since it was purposed for an audience with varied intelligence. The editorial gives specific incidences and statistics that are important to a new reader with low understanding of the subject of nuclear energy. The editor gives his opinion on why he thinks nuclear power should not be our last resort in combating global warming. This is evident in the beginning of the article “It's tempting to turn to nuclear plants to combat climate change, but alternatives are safer and cheaper.” Although from the word go he is already convinced that nuclear power is not suitable energy source. He should at least have given the readers a chance to racket their brains and make their own choice from reading the article, before attacking the whole topic altogether. All in all the research done was sufficient and persuasive enough to sway a first time reader to be convinced that nuclear power is dangerous and that other alternative should be used in combating global warming. Works cited Ferenc L. T. Prospects for nuclear power in the 21st century: a world tour. International journal of global energy issues, 2007. Los Angeles Times. A warming world: No to nukes. Editorial, 2007. Accessed on 27th August 2012 from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-nuclear23jul23,0,6924211.story Read More