Nuclear power plants are really devastating for the nature. The nuclear waste that is created as a result of fission stays radioactive for thousands of years. Also, we had several nuclear disasters that have proven how unstable this whole system is. There are many better alternative and renewable sources of electric energy. Humanity should completely remove nuclear power plants.
When it comes to nuclear fuel, only 10% of it actually gets used. The remaining 90% is unusable poisonous substance, which will destroy any type of organic matter. There is no way to destroy this waste, we can only store it somewhere. The thing is that we will have to store it for 10,000 years. There have been no nations, and no governments, that have lasted for even half of that time. So any institution in charge of it might fade from existence, and future generations could come, unknowingly, in contact with the nuclear waste. This could have a devastating effect on our descendants.
Another really big problem are the nuclear power plant disasters. These disasters have laid waste and destruction to their surrounding areas, causing many deaths. There was of course the well-known case of Chernobyl. The lesser known case of the Three Mile Island incident which happened in the late 70s. And we also have the recent disaster at Fukushima. The last one is extremely worrying because we thought that our nuclear power plants became completely safe, but Fukushima proved us wrong,
There are many sources that are far better, such as solar and wind power. There is no need to go into nuclear energy because we have them.
The passage and the lecture are about the detrimental side effects of nuclear power plants. The author of the reading feels that nuclear disasters and nuclear waste prove it to be a harmful method to produce electric energy. The lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that most of the drawbacks of nuclear energy are exaggerated.
To begin with, the author argues that most portion of the nuclear fuel is just a futile toxic substance. The article mentions that there is no method to destroy this waste, so we can only store it. Also, it takes several 10000 years to store and decay, which will produce undesirable effects to our future generations. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that waste is just a temporary problem, and research is being done to recycle nuclear waste.
Secondly, the writer suggests the important issue of nuclear power plant is their disasters which disperse waste and destruction to the surrounding ecosystem. In the article, it is said that incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima proves that this method to produce energy is unsafe. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that nuclear energy in real produces fewer deaths and pollution than other energy sources like from burning coal or natural gases. Additionally, he says that far more people have died due to pollution than they did from the Chernobyl accident.
Finally, the author posits that other sources like wind and solar power are better options than nuclear energy for the generation of electric energy. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that as compared to other resources nuclear is a source that produces constant energy, whereas issues like cloudy weather and lack of wind breeze hinder the generation of power from these sources.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 226, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...mful method to produce electric energy. The lecturer challenges the claim made by t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, whereas, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1509.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08080808081 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49909686779 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548821548822 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0579345318 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.6 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258216744144 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0852416204865 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0539744608763 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156224781915 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0320068506459 0.0443174109184 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.