EAP 4 ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Name: CHUNG NGỌC BẢO HÂN I.D: 21000466

Class: EAP4-0921WSB-11
Assignment: Summary Critique
Assignment Question: (write out in full) Nuclear Power
YouTube/ Google Drive link: ............................................................................................................

Due date: 25/10/2021 Date submitted: 23/10/2021

 I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.

 I certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any
other student’s work or from any other source except where due
acknowledgement is made in the assignment.
 I affirm that no part of this assignment/product has been written/produced for
me by any other person except where collaboration has been authorised by the
teacher concerned.
 I am aware that this work may be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism
detection software programs for the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism
(which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism checking).

Note: An examiner or teacher has the right to NOT mark this assignment if the above
declaration has not been signed.

Student’s Signature: CHUNG NGỌC BẢO HÂN Date: 23/10/2021

EXTENSION – To be approved BEFORE original submission date

Supporting evidence sighted: Yes / No Extension approved /Extension not approved

If approved, new submission date ____/____/_____ Teacher’s Signature : ___________________

Greenpeace 2012, ‘Nuclear energy: dirty, dangerous and expensive’, Greenpeace publication,

viewed 21 Oct 2021, http://www.greenpeace.org

The article, ‘Nuclear energy: dirty, dangerous and expensive’, written by Greenpeace

(February 2012), examines the drawbacks and risks of using nuclear power. The citizens all

around the world who concern about environment may find this article very interesting.

Throughout the article, Greenpeace’s main idea is that there are numerous disadvantages of

using nuclear energy. Initially, the author outlines the principal contributors to reactor

accidents are human and institutional failures in the nuclear industry. Also, Greenpeace

provides the prices that residents have to pay after a nuclear disaster. Particularly, the public

has to face the risks to their daily lives and health, disruption of being away from family

without compensation or jobs, and the burden of clean-up costs. Moreover, radioactive waste

from atomic power causes long-term problems for the environment and climate change.

Besides that, the author discusses demonstrated that profits are more important than the lives

of workers. As a result, institutions prefer profit to safety. Nevertheless, it is realized that

nuclear power is not the way to fight climate change, and there is no possible solution for

using nuclear energy safely. Finally, the author concludes that the risks of using atomic energy

outweigh its upsides.

The author’s analysis of the drawbacks that nuclear power brings, and its effects on people’s

lives and health is successful. However, besides the reliable argument based on the credibility

of Greenpeace publication, the one-sided perspective makes the disadvantages of using

nuclear power outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, there is a lack of informational sources for

specific evidence that support the author’s points. Yet, the language usage of the article is

1|Page
appropriate to the reader's object. Also, the structure is a strength of this article because of the

writer’s broad understanding clearly and clear headings for every part. Overall, it would have

been better, more balanced, if the author had provided more details about the numerous

upsides that nuclear power brings.

In conclusion, Greenpeace’s article is a reference source about the harmful effects of nuclear

power. It also discourages the public from using atomic energy as well as gives a new point of

view on this. On the other hand, this is useful for people who concern about the environment

and humanity

2|Page