Chemistry
Energy and Place
Essential Questions:
1. How does energy production impact place?
2. How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
This project went along with our Humanities project so to see my project for Humanities click here
For this project the motion was “Nuclear power is a clean source of electrical energy and the United States Government should provide incentives for the construction of new nuclear power plants throughout the United States including the Four Corners region.” I was in a group arguing against this motion. My initial position for this motion undecided. I saw both sides of being against or for the motion but I did not completely agree with either, I was more in the middle. After doing more research while doing the Joint Scientific Statement (JSS) I began to see different points of both sides even better than I had before. I discovered new points for both sides. There were many strong points for both sides of the argument. For example, some pro's were the fact that while the mills were running, it was pretty cheap, it provides a lot of energy which this era needs, and it does not emit greenhouse gases. Some con's were the fact that building them took a lot of money, there is always a big risk of nuclear meltdowns, it causes health issues, a result of it is radioactive waste, and we don't have a long term plan for radioactive waste. Some other questions that I would research would be about other energy sources. I would like to know a bit more about other energy sources. I would also research more about both the positive and negative sides of nuclear power to strengthen my understanding and to come to a final standpoint.
During the debate it was fun to engage with someone who was arguing against us. it was also a bit nerve-racking and scary because everyone had good, strong arguments and a lot of different points. My environmental ethic that I developed within my Humanities project complemented this project and helped me take a stand in my point of view about this motion. In my debate, I think I did well with my opening statement (not really the delivery but the points that I made). The other aspects of my debate were alright but I could have done better with my delivery overall and also made an effort to make more points within the debate. If I had a chance to do it again I would most likely try to do a better job on delivering my opening and closing statement, and more importantly try and make strong arguments and points in the debate instead of freezing up.
Look below for my Opening and Closing Statements
Opening Statement
According to my opponents, nuclear power is not only efficient and cheap but also environmentally friendly. I however, disagree with these statements. Uranium mining and milling causes serious environmental and health damage to the surrounding land and human population. During the mining operations there are large amounts of contaminated water that is pumped out of the mines and released into our lakes and rivers. There are piles of “waste rock” that often contain elevated concentrations of radionuclides when compared to normal rocks. These piles of “waste rocks” threaten both the people and the environment due to their release of radon gas and seepage water that contains radioactive and toxic materials. According to Radiation Protection, each year the petroleum industry generates around 150,000 cubic meters (260,000 metric tons) of waste including produced water, scales, sludges and contaminated equipment.
The ventilation of the mines releases radioactive dust and radon gas thus increasing the risk of lung cancer to residents nearby. According to various studies and surveys taken, other health risks caused by uranium mining and milling consist of the decrease of white blood cells and alterations in systolic blood pressure, an increased likelihood of kidney disease and diabetes, excess deformities and the formation of various types of cancer such as leukemia, and an increase in birth defects. Not only are these health risks a reality for people who live near the mills but even more for the people who work in the mills. Uranium poses an enormous health risk to the people who work in it. They are exposed to dust and radioactive radon gas thus creating a greater risk for them to get lung cancer. For example, in the U.S. it was estimated that about 70% of lung cancer deaths occurred in non-smoking miners and about 40% of lung cancer deaths in smoking miners are due to the exposure of radon progeny. In conclusion, the amount of people who actually benefit from uranium mining seems very small in comparison to those who suffer from the effects. It seems to me that the thought of land and health are thrown aside by the hunger for power. It is painfully obvious that the downfalls of nuclear power outweigh the benefits.
Closing Statement
After listening to different arguments and points made by my opponents it is clear that they have thrown aside the fact that not only are we pushing this burden onto future generations but we are also continuing to allow these health issues to ruin the lives of people who live near the power plants and the people who work in the power plants. If we wish to nurture our planet and our people this needs to be stopped. By supporting nuclear power not only are we supporting the fact that we are at risk for potential meltdowns which could harm millions and ruin our land but we are also encouraging health issues and diseases. Personally this is not a risk I am willing to take.
To see my debate video watch below
1. How does energy production impact place?
2. How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
This project went along with our Humanities project so to see my project for Humanities click here
For this project the motion was “Nuclear power is a clean source of electrical energy and the United States Government should provide incentives for the construction of new nuclear power plants throughout the United States including the Four Corners region.” I was in a group arguing against this motion. My initial position for this motion undecided. I saw both sides of being against or for the motion but I did not completely agree with either, I was more in the middle. After doing more research while doing the Joint Scientific Statement (JSS) I began to see different points of both sides even better than I had before. I discovered new points for both sides. There were many strong points for both sides of the argument. For example, some pro's were the fact that while the mills were running, it was pretty cheap, it provides a lot of energy which this era needs, and it does not emit greenhouse gases. Some con's were the fact that building them took a lot of money, there is always a big risk of nuclear meltdowns, it causes health issues, a result of it is radioactive waste, and we don't have a long term plan for radioactive waste. Some other questions that I would research would be about other energy sources. I would like to know a bit more about other energy sources. I would also research more about both the positive and negative sides of nuclear power to strengthen my understanding and to come to a final standpoint.
During the debate it was fun to engage with someone who was arguing against us. it was also a bit nerve-racking and scary because everyone had good, strong arguments and a lot of different points. My environmental ethic that I developed within my Humanities project complemented this project and helped me take a stand in my point of view about this motion. In my debate, I think I did well with my opening statement (not really the delivery but the points that I made). The other aspects of my debate were alright but I could have done better with my delivery overall and also made an effort to make more points within the debate. If I had a chance to do it again I would most likely try to do a better job on delivering my opening and closing statement, and more importantly try and make strong arguments and points in the debate instead of freezing up.
Look below for my Opening and Closing Statements
Opening Statement
According to my opponents, nuclear power is not only efficient and cheap but also environmentally friendly. I however, disagree with these statements. Uranium mining and milling causes serious environmental and health damage to the surrounding land and human population. During the mining operations there are large amounts of contaminated water that is pumped out of the mines and released into our lakes and rivers. There are piles of “waste rock” that often contain elevated concentrations of radionuclides when compared to normal rocks. These piles of “waste rocks” threaten both the people and the environment due to their release of radon gas and seepage water that contains radioactive and toxic materials. According to Radiation Protection, each year the petroleum industry generates around 150,000 cubic meters (260,000 metric tons) of waste including produced water, scales, sludges and contaminated equipment.
The ventilation of the mines releases radioactive dust and radon gas thus increasing the risk of lung cancer to residents nearby. According to various studies and surveys taken, other health risks caused by uranium mining and milling consist of the decrease of white blood cells and alterations in systolic blood pressure, an increased likelihood of kidney disease and diabetes, excess deformities and the formation of various types of cancer such as leukemia, and an increase in birth defects. Not only are these health risks a reality for people who live near the mills but even more for the people who work in the mills. Uranium poses an enormous health risk to the people who work in it. They are exposed to dust and radioactive radon gas thus creating a greater risk for them to get lung cancer. For example, in the U.S. it was estimated that about 70% of lung cancer deaths occurred in non-smoking miners and about 40% of lung cancer deaths in smoking miners are due to the exposure of radon progeny. In conclusion, the amount of people who actually benefit from uranium mining seems very small in comparison to those who suffer from the effects. It seems to me that the thought of land and health are thrown aside by the hunger for power. It is painfully obvious that the downfalls of nuclear power outweigh the benefits.
Closing Statement
After listening to different arguments and points made by my opponents it is clear that they have thrown aside the fact that not only are we pushing this burden onto future generations but we are also continuing to allow these health issues to ruin the lives of people who live near the power plants and the people who work in the power plants. If we wish to nurture our planet and our people this needs to be stopped. By supporting nuclear power not only are we supporting the fact that we are at risk for potential meltdowns which could harm millions and ruin our land but we are also encouraging health issues and diseases. Personally this is not a risk I am willing to take.
To see my debate video watch below
Semester 1/Beginning of Semester 2 Project and Project Reflection
Essential Questions:
1. “How has the chemistry of materials shaped our past, present and how may it shape our future?”
2.“How does the structure of matter on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic levels determine a material’s properties?”
The chemistry of materials have helped shape our past, present and will continue to shape our future because we are continuing to learn about the ways in which this is possible. When we learn about new things, we can use those things to make improvements and to help the world. For example, in our most recent project, I studied something called a PUR packet. ( To see the paper my project click here) The PUR packet is a powdered mixture made up of alum compound, calcium hyphoclorite and a trade secret compound that is used to purify dirty, hazardous and contaminated water. Once this mixture is put into contaminated water, the chemical reaction works to create precipitates. These precipitates then create a microscopic net that collects the dirt. The calcium hyphoclorite that is present in the mixture acts as a bleach that kills bacteria's in the water. This all occurs after the bottle of water has been shaken for about 5 to 10 minutes. After the dirt and bacterias have been removed from the water, it is safe to drink. This packet has been proven to clean up to 10 liters of water at a time, and eliminate about 99% of all waterborne viruses and diseases. This packet was used in third world countries for quite some time but is now worldwide. It is this sort of chemistry and discoveries that have shaped our past, influenced our present and will continue to shape and influence our future.
A materials properties are based on the structure of matter within the material on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic level. For example, when a material has a high melting point, it is due to the intermolecular force and/or because that material is an ionic compound or has either larger molecules, or a more symmetrical compound. When a material conducts electricity, it is because their atoms and outer electrons aren't forced to stay within a specific atomic nucleus. Thus meaning that there is a sea of electrons that can move freely and are in motion in responding to electric voltage. As you can see, the structure of matter within the material on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic level play a huge role in determining the properties of the material.
1. “How has the chemistry of materials shaped our past, present and how may it shape our future?”
2.“How does the structure of matter on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic levels determine a material’s properties?”
The chemistry of materials have helped shape our past, present and will continue to shape our future because we are continuing to learn about the ways in which this is possible. When we learn about new things, we can use those things to make improvements and to help the world. For example, in our most recent project, I studied something called a PUR packet. ( To see the paper my project click here) The PUR packet is a powdered mixture made up of alum compound, calcium hyphoclorite and a trade secret compound that is used to purify dirty, hazardous and contaminated water. Once this mixture is put into contaminated water, the chemical reaction works to create precipitates. These precipitates then create a microscopic net that collects the dirt. The calcium hyphoclorite that is present in the mixture acts as a bleach that kills bacteria's in the water. This all occurs after the bottle of water has been shaken for about 5 to 10 minutes. After the dirt and bacterias have been removed from the water, it is safe to drink. This packet has been proven to clean up to 10 liters of water at a time, and eliminate about 99% of all waterborne viruses and diseases. This packet was used in third world countries for quite some time but is now worldwide. It is this sort of chemistry and discoveries that have shaped our past, influenced our present and will continue to shape and influence our future.
A materials properties are based on the structure of matter within the material on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic level. For example, when a material has a high melting point, it is due to the intermolecular force and/or because that material is an ionic compound or has either larger molecules, or a more symmetrical compound. When a material conducts electricity, it is because their atoms and outer electrons aren't forced to stay within a specific atomic nucleus. Thus meaning that there is a sea of electrons that can move freely and are in motion in responding to electric voltage. As you can see, the structure of matter within the material on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic level play a huge role in determining the properties of the material.