To move away from fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions, nuclear energy is a great option for energy, but there are many concerns about it. One of these issues is what to do with nuclear waste. The way different academic disciplines approach this issue is unique to each discipline. In A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils, the author approaches nuclear waste from an engineering standpoint, providing a possible solution for soil remediation, and supporting this with a mathematical model and experimental data. In Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969, the author approaches nuclear waste from an anthropology standpoint, looking at how public view has changed over time by examining news articles. While the article from the engineering perspective offers a detailed understanding of the scientific side of the issue, the article from an anthropology perspective explains what the public thinks of this issue. Through examining both of the articles, one can gain an in depth understanding of this issue, and its importance to the public.
A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils by Tao Miao and Tongyan Pan takes on the issue of nuclear waste from and engineering perspective. It consists of five sections: Introduction, Governing Equation Derivation, Finite Element Formulation, FEM Model Validation, FEM Model Implementation, and Summary and Conclusions. The introduction begins by discussing nuclear power and the environmental threats it poses as well as research in alternative energy and soil remediation related to nuclear waste. Most of the article is focused on detailing the steps taken to create the model and the experiment to support it. The Governing Differential Equation and Finite Element Analysis Formulation sections contain equations accompanied by descriptions of the steps that were taken to get them. The FEM Model Validation and FEM Model Implementation sections include graphs and diagrams that compare the experimental data to the predictions of the model. The authors discuss the implications and uses for this model in the Summary and Conclusions.
Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on Nuclear Waste, 1945-1969 by Judi Pajo looks at the issue of nuclear waste from and anthropology perspective, analyzing how people’s view of the issue changed over time. The article consists of five sections: Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. The author provides background on the problem of nuclear waste itself and introduces the idea of public conceptualization of it. The methods detail how the author went about analyzing this issue and why they chose this approach. The majority of the article discusses the findings of study and divides the public conceptualization of nuclear waste into stages. The article ends by discussing what this means in today’s context and why it is significant.
The engineering perspective given in A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils reveals aspects of the issue that the anthropology article does not. One difference that can be seen throughout the article is that this writing talks about nuclear waste by focusing on a solution for it. The author writes, “The finite element model developed in this work allows predicting the entire evolution of pollutant concentration in soil, contributing greatly to the designing and
evaluation of the cleaning efficiency and effectiveness of general electrokinetic remediation schemes.” Like the rest of the article, this line shows how the issue of nuclear waste is discussed through focusing on solutions to it. The writing in this article is accompanied by graphs and diagrams which is typical for writing in this field. 
Above are two graphs that were included to compare the results predicted by the model to the experimental results. While most of the article is made up of very specific details about electrokinetic remediation, the introduction and the conclusion discuss these things much more generally. For example, in the introduction, it states, “of the various removing mechanisms, a promising one involves using an externally applied electric field and, in general, is referred to as electrokinetic soil remediation.” This can be compared to this statement from the second section: “The transport of chemicals relevant to in situ soil contamination and remediation involves four primary mechanisms: 1) natural diffusion owning to the concentration gradient of chemical species in pore water, 2) electromigration—the movement of ions driven by the electric field executed between electrodes, 3) electroosmosis—the electric field driven movement of water that carries ions, and 4) convective diffusion with the hydrodynamic movement of pore water due to capillary suction or mechanical stirring.” While the first statement talks about electrochemical soil remediation, the second one provides many more details about it, discussing specific mechanisms involved in the process.
Just as the engineering perspective provides details that the anthropology perspective does not, Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on Nuclear Waste, 1945-1969 provides a different understanding of the issue. This article spends much more time explaining and justifying the methods used that the engineering article. In the section on methods, the author writes, “Given this timeframe, a newspaper archive is an especially appropriate source from which to draw a dataset that would address a question such as where the concept of nuclear waste disposal comes from.” While the engineering article discussed what methods they used, it does not explain why in the same way that the anthropology article does. This article also offers a view of the issue as it changes over time. It states, “the view of nuclear waste evolved over a number of conceptual stages—from an initial introduction as a byproduct that was suspected of potential distant threats, to an assessment of the nature of that threat, to a subsequent crystallization of the view of nuclear waste as danger, to the present view of a grave and implacable hazard to human health and to the natural environment that cannot be entitled to a physical presence.” Looking at how the view of nuclear waste has changed greatly expands our understanding of the issue. The engineering article only looks at the issue from present day. This article also makes important connections between the issue and people. The author describes, “In yet another portrayal, the cultural origins of “nuclear fear” may be rooted more profoundly in our shared myths if not even human consciousness. It is some kind of deep mythical fear, in other words, that is then stoked by both the imagery of nuclear warfare and the visibility of nuclear energy disasters such as the recent Fukushima meltdown or Chernobyl and Three Mile Island before it.” This helps to contextualize why this issue is important and what people’s response to it is. By referencing Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, the author reminds us of what this issue means to people, and how directly it can affect them. Another thing that this article addresses that the engineering one does not, is how this issue is viewed by people in ways that aren’t so logical. The author describes, “A record of November 16, 1960 that reported the accidental death of a nuclear scientist at Shirley, Long Island ‘when a huge truck loaded with used atomic reactor fuel skidded on wet pavement and struck his car’ must have felt the need to address the understanding of nuclear waste as danger already in its subheading: ‘Car Is Struck by Truck Full of Radioactive Waste--None Leaks or Spills.’” This example that the author provides shows the concern that arises over nuclear waste being involved in something, even if it has little to do with the incident. A truck carrying anything else could have hit the car and the outcome could have been the same.
By looking at both A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils and Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969, an engineering article and an anthropology article about the issue of nuclear waste, one can gain a deeper understanding of this issue, and its importance to the public. The engineering article provides details important to the issue but become more meaningful with the context provided from the anthropology article. The engineering article describes a model and experiment and states, “Based on the computation results, around 80 % of a 10 cm × 10 cm soil domain can be cleaned under an external potential of 8 V.” While details like this are important to understand, by looking at the anthropology article too, you can understand how this impacts people. The anthropology article states, “as the awareness of the hazard that nuclear waste presents to human health and to the environment mushroomed, the physical space for disposing of nuclear waste imploded.” While this doesn’t explain much about nuclear waste, it explains what the public response to this issue has been. The anthropology article provides an understanding of why this issue is important to people and how people's response to it affects what is done about it.
Sources:
A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste-Contaminated Soils: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-014-2292-3/fulltext.html
Just as the engineering perspective provides details that the anthropology perspective does not, Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on Nuclear Waste, 1945-1969 provides a different understanding of the issue. This article spends much more time explaining and justifying the methods used that the engineering article. In the section on methods, the author writes, “Given this timeframe, a newspaper archive is an especially appropriate source from which to draw a dataset that would address a question such as where the concept of nuclear waste disposal comes from.” While the engineering article discussed what methods they used, it does not explain why in the same way that the anthropology article does. This article also offers a view of the issue as it changes over time. It states, “the view of nuclear waste evolved over a number of conceptual stages—from an initial introduction as a byproduct that was suspected of potential distant threats, to an assessment of the nature of that threat, to a subsequent crystallization of the view of nuclear waste as danger, to the present view of a grave and implacable hazard to human health and to the natural environment that cannot be entitled to a physical presence.” Looking at how the view of nuclear waste has changed greatly expands our understanding of the issue. The engineering article only looks at the issue from present day. This article also makes important connections between the issue and people. The author describes, “In yet another portrayal, the cultural origins of “nuclear fear” may be rooted more profoundly in our shared myths if not even human consciousness. It is some kind of deep mythical fear, in other words, that is then stoked by both the imagery of nuclear warfare and the visibility of nuclear energy disasters such as the recent Fukushima meltdown or Chernobyl and Three Mile Island before it.” This helps to contextualize why this issue is important and what people’s response to it is. By referencing Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, the author reminds us of what this issue means to people, and how directly it can affect them. Another thing that this article addresses that the engineering one does not, is how this issue is viewed by people in ways that aren’t so logical. The author describes, “A record of November 16, 1960 that reported the accidental death of a nuclear scientist at Shirley, Long Island ‘when a huge truck loaded with used atomic reactor fuel skidded on wet pavement and struck his car’ must have felt the need to address the understanding of nuclear waste as danger already in its subheading: ‘Car Is Struck by Truck Full of Radioactive Waste--None Leaks or Spills.’” This example that the author provides shows the concern that arises over nuclear waste being involved in something, even if it has little to do with the incident. A truck carrying anything else could have hit the car and the outcome could have been the same.
By looking at both A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils and Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969, an engineering article and an anthropology article about the issue of nuclear waste, one can gain a deeper understanding of this issue, and its importance to the public. The engineering article provides details important to the issue but become more meaningful with the context provided from the anthropology article. The engineering article describes a model and experiment and states, “Based on the computation results, around 80 % of a 10 cm × 10 cm soil domain can be cleaned under an external potential of 8 V.” While details like this are important to understand, by looking at the anthropology article too, you can understand how this impacts people. The anthropology article states, “as the awareness of the hazard that nuclear waste presents to human health and to the environment mushroomed, the physical space for disposing of nuclear waste imploded.” While this doesn’t explain much about nuclear waste, it explains what the public response to this issue has been. The anthropology article provides an understanding of why this issue is important to people and how people's response to it affects what is done about it.
Sources:
A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste-Contaminated Soils: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-014-2292-3/fulltext.html
Danger
Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on
Nuclear Waste, 1945–1969: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2Fs13705-015-0064-6
No comments:
Post a Comment