Why You Should Fear Your Toaster Than Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power

According to Taylor Pearson article, nuclear power is very dangerous and costly to humans (Slovic, 1987). He structured his controversy in the manner of definitive oration where he lays his allegations with evidence but also considered outside the box matters and revisits the other points of view. Taylor Pearson, used different types of evidences to prove his controversy that nuclear power does not create dismay and completely contradict the idea that nuclear energy is a form of disaster with the use of evidence like account report, quantitative data, and personal experience, which effectively supports his hypothesis that nuclear energy should not be feared but clinched on.

Taylor Pearson used rhetorical proficiency, such as logos to compare different objects that we have had a notion that was harmless, such as a toaster or brick to nuclear power which is considered a deadly resource. Someone might find it absurd to compare and contrast a between the deadly resource to a mere object we use daily without fear. Taylor Pearson powerfully argues that toasters can cause greater harm to us than the nuclear power. Most people infer their fright of nuclear power based on the bandwagon of its dangerous characteristics stuck inside our heads. Comparing two properties exhibit the use of logos because it makes a visible and logical relatedness that if a brick radiates more radiation than nuclear power plants, then nuclear power may not be as severe as what we conceive.

Nuclear Power

Moreover, when contrasting the fatality tolls from radiation to fatality from toasters, Pearson took the Chernobyl happening as his instance, he stated that it only took away the life of eighty-two persons, as for most people who died were extremely exposed to the radiation (Cambray et al.,1987).To my surprise, when Pearson analyzed toaster fatalities to prove his controversy more than three thousand people died and suffered from toasters fatalities in the first year in the United States. This rhetorical proficiency is very effective because many people globally don’t have an idea that a toaster could cause a very high percentage of fatalities. Using a toaster and radiation as a way of contrast, to stress on the fact that nuclear power is not dangerous to the extent of creating a panic attack amongst human beings has proved that the logos concept was a success.

Despite historical instances, Pearson also used proficient sentiments, by simply using intermediary evidence, to influence the audience on his stand and support on nuclear power, He used authority and facts as the key elements of their persuasion to his dear readers. Pearson partnered with John McCarthy, a computer science professor at Stanford, who was on the verge of proving that “nuclear waste problem is exaggerated”(Woo, 1989). Pearson also heavily banked on several legitimate organizations, such as “U.S. Energy Information Administration and U.S. Food and Drugs Administration,” to help him move and push his agendas forward and make it happen rather than procrastinating. Working with other skillful individuals  and organizations, aided Pearson’s argument and enhanced his credibility and trust amongst his readers and most of the readers believed in his controversy, as there were several  important, trustworthy individuals  and organization that believed nuclear energy is not dangerous and is needed to improve and enlighten our day to day lives.

Nuclear Power

Author: Academic Master is an American writing company that provides free essays to the students all over the world.


Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.

Cambray, R. S., Cawse, P. A., Garland, J. A., Gibson, J. A. B., Johnson, P., Lewis, G. N. J., … & Wade, B. O. (1987). Observations on radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident. Nucl. Energy, 26(2), 77-101.

Woo, G. (1989). Is the risk of human intrusion exaggerated? Risks associated with human intrusion at radioactive waste disposal sites.


Related posts

Leave a Comment