Taylor Pearson: Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power

Student Name
Professor Name
Course
Date
Critical Analysis
Nuclear reactors have long been considered dangerous and threatening for human beings, and parents are frequently found forbidding their children from visiting places where nuclear power plants are present. Even when they are to send their children to school trips, they request the principal and teachers not to carry children to sensitive areas. Nuclear reactors are an important source of motive power or electricity. Not many people were aware of the harmful effects of nuclear energy until the Japanese nuclear reactor accident of 2013. Various innocent individuals lost their lives due to this meltdown, and national and international campaigns were then initiated to create awareness among the public regarding the potential harms of nuclear reactors. However, Taylor Pearson has justified an entirely different point of view in his article titled Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power.
According to Taylor, nuclear power is not as dangerous as a toaster that we use at home to prepare breakfast. He is able to convince the readers that nuclear reactors are an excellent source of energy and that they have nothing to worry about. The article contains a lot of humorous aspects, and throughout his writing, Pearson addresses different concerns of people regarding nuclear energy by comparing it to other sources of energy. Personally, I feel that Pearson’s arguments that about the dangers of a toaster are out of context. Throughout the article, he keeps talking about the disadvantages of toasters and advantages of nuclear reactors, claiming that these big sources of energy are safer than the toasters we use at home.
Taylor primarily uses second-hand evidence to support his arguments and to clarify his point of view. For example, while addressing the likelihood of nuclear power plants killing a large number of people, he draws the readers’ attention to a historical example of the Chernobyl accident and calls it the most lethal and worst nuclear incident of all times. Moving on, the author presents a number of quantitative evidence including the incident killed only 82 individuals and 32 were killed in an effort to put out the fire. These statements prove that the author is aware of the history of nuclear reactors, especially the accidents they have had caused so far. The use of evidence is effective, but calling nuclear energy safe for the public makes no sense. More specifically, Pearson’s choice of words is not up to the mark, such as the use of few and only (p. 174). It makes me feel that he is trying to defend nuclear energy in one way or the other. What does he mean by saying only 82 individuals? Though Taylor has presented factual evidence, his diction looks controversial and slightly odd.
In addition, his approach creates confusions in the minds of people regarding the use of toasters. Are toasters really dangerous? Shouldn’t we bring them home? Are they not worth our mo...