EAP 4 ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Name: NGUYỄN VŨ HOÀNG LINH I.D: 22004031

Class: EAP4 -0922WSB-7

Assignment: SUMMARY – CRITIQUE

Assignment Question: (write out in full) : NUCLEAR POWER

Due date: 25/10/2022 Date submitted: 25/10/2022

 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: …NGUYỄN VŨ HOÀNG LINH….… Date: ….25.…/…10..…/…2022…

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: ___________________

 EAP4

SUMMARY CRITIQUE
 Nuclear Power

FILE GREENPEACE.DOCX

TIME SUBMITTED 25 – OCT – 2022 WORD COUNT: 305

SUBMISSION ID 22004031
 Summary Critique: Nuclear Power

Greenpeace (2012) Nuclear power: dirty, dangerous and expensive , Greenpeace

International.

Greenpeace released a comprehensive paper on the possible drawbacks of nuclear power,

officially titled “Nuclear Power: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive” (2012). The author makes

attempt to present a perspective that is well-informed about the current negative effects of

nuclear power. This global article is written for those who find this knowledge valuable,

particularly environmentalists.

According to Greenpeace, nuclear power has detrimental effects on the society, including the

emission of a significant amount of radioactive material into the environment during the

Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes. Additionally, Greenpeace discovers that individuals are

negatively impacted by medical problems, unemployment, and high expenditures as a result of

nuclear power. The author seems to be making an endeavor in the last passage to provide

additional verifiable evidence that using nuclear energy is not the preferred approach to address

climate change.

The structure of this essay is clear and well-organized when combining the main idea with the

main supporting points in each body paragraph. Therefore, readers can easily understand the

purpose as well as the main idea of the article. However, Greenpeace appears to possess a

significant prejudice because it mainly highlights the drawbacks of nuclear power. For instance,

the article only mentions the nuclear risks or the long-term harm caused by radioactive
wastes and make no mention of the advantages of nuclear power such as clean energy, creating

job opportunities or the reason why numerous nations still commonly use nuclear power in the

contemporary world. Despite a lack of information on the positives of nuclear energy to

encourage more objectivity, the arguments are mainly logically coherent and maintain the

formality throughout the paper.

The article provides enough details to broaden understanding of nuclear power utilization and

to give a variety of perspectives on the subject. Additionally, the paper might serven as a useful

reference for nuclear energy experts and environmentalists.