Dave Levitan is an American Science journalist and author. His work has appeared in Wired, Atlantic, Scientific American, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and Time. He attended Haverford College in Pennsylvania.

The hazard/issue Levitan is discussing is how politicians discuss or don’t discuss, scientific issues, and how that affects society in a negative way. The overuse of the phrase “I’m not a scientist” displays how politicians do not make the effort to inform themselves on scientific issues affecting the country they are leading. Certain politicians, such as Ronald Reagan in regards to the epidemic of AIDS in the 1980s, shows the lack of discussion about important issues. This issue applies throughout the United States.

The research method used to produce this text is through the use of secondary research. The text uses direct quotes from politicians such as Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and John Boehner, as well as scientists such as Stephan Lewandowsky.

The text says that politicians use this phrase as a cop out to make sure they are not held accountable for whatever they may be saying about a scientific topic. These politicians can manipulate science towards political ends, which is not ethically correct. Therefore, “holding elected officials accountable for their misrepresentation of science could have remarkable far-reaching effects” (Levatin). The author’s primary point is that getting scientific information wrong erodes public trust in both science and politics, and can actively harm people today as well as in the future. The other point he is trying to make is that “failing to address issues of importance spreads the idea that those issues don’t matter” (Levatin). The example he uses is Ronald Reagan’s reluctance to discuss the problem of AIDS for several years. The author claims that “normalizing science and the discussion of science would likely do wonders for reducing the potential for political missteps” (Levatin).

The audience is meant to view the hazard as comical and ridiculous because the politician’s claims regarding science are arrogant and ill-informed. For example, Levatin responds to a quote said by Jeb Bush, “We’ll ignore the fact that doubting what the entirety of the world’s scientists say on an issue seems a tad more arrogant than those scientist’ explaining what is known” (Levatin). He is using sarcasm to make fun of the politician’s ignorance in order to display to readers that we can not put all of our trust in our nation’s leaders, especially on scientific topics and issues such as climate change.

Johnson

The author of Nuclear Green and the End of Power” from Romancing the Atom is Robert R. Johnson.  He is a professor of rhetoric, composition, and technical communication at Michigan Technological University. He is the author of User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts.

The hazard/risk Johnson is trying to discuss is how individuals view nuclear radiation, and how this atomic mindset has taken hold in society and is affecting how nuclear energy is being viewed in the present day throughout the world.

Johnson’s research methods include, “personal narratives of those involved, documents from the government archives, several photographs of the cleanup itself, and most importantly, excerpts from the town meetings that told the stories of those affected by the milling site and their successful calls for action” (Johnson). He draws upon statements by politicians, media spokespeople, energy experts, and other outspoken advocates for nuclear power.

Johnson’s primary point about the risk is that people are all believing the faulty assumptions that the nuclear power industry should be labeled “nuclear green”. He claims that “the advancing of nuclear power by certain powerful individuals has turned the tables from fear and skepticism toward an unreflective optimism that, in turn, reflects our romance with the atom once again” (Johnson). He is arguing that nuclear energy is being thought of again as this great thing for society when in reality people are ignoring the real facts and dangers associated with it. This is shown through the nuclear green enthymeme example. Nuclear energy is in fact not green, cheap, safe, or disposed of correctly.

Johnson gives a “short lesson” on rhetoric, in order to prove his point about the discussion of atomic energy and how green it really is. He discusses a writing structure called an enthymeme, which implies a common understanding (or shared premise) that can result in an illegitimate premise. For example, Nuclear power does not produce CO2 emissions. Therefore, nuclear power is green” (Johnson). Because it is missing valuable information regarding the disadvantages/consequences of nuclear energy, this leads to people believing nuclear energy is perfectly safe and efficient for the environment and one’s health. By including this tutorial/example, Johnson is appealing to logos to prove his point and persuade readers into understanding both sides of the argument of whether nuclear energy is green or not. He goes on to include evidence of how nuclear energy production is actually quite time-consuming, expensive, and dangerous.

Haubursin

Christophe Haubursin is a video producer for Vox, which is an American news and opinion website. He produces those videos through scripting, animating, and editing. He makes videos about culture and design. He attended Northwestern University in Illinois.

The hazard/risk Haubursin is discussing is how the meaning behind a toxic biohazard symbol should be universal and able to stand the test of time. This idea is applied on a global scale.

The research method used to produce this video is secondary research, including points of views and claims made by philosophers, scientists, and authors who are knowledgable in the subject of visual risk and biohazards.

The video is saying that the hazard discussed (meaning of the symbol) must be well understood throughout the world. The point about this risk is that how over several years, many visuals/symbols that originally had one a dangerous connotation, can morph into a less dangerous connotation. An example of this is the skull and crossbones symbol that once meant death and poison, but then became associated with pirates and treasure. Therefore, a new approach is needed to effectively warn people globally, while preserving the meaning of the symbol for generations to come.

The language the author uses to discuss the hazard is that he repeats the phrase “memorable but meaningless”. This saying from Charles Baldwin, an environmental health engineer, displays how the symbol must stand out and be memorable while having no meaning. This phrase holds a meaning of importance because of the grand scale of how many people need to be familiar with the meaning of the symbol. This example of language shows a sense of repetition because he reiterates the idea of “memorable but meaningless” several times throughout the video.

 

 

Olga Kuchinskaya, Ph.D. is a researcher and author who focuses on science communication related to health and the environment. Kuchinskaya researches risk, health, and environmental communication, as well as a number of other areas related to scientific and female studies. She is an associate professor of Communications at the University of Pittsburgh.

The hazard/issue that Luchinskaya is discussing is the radiation in Belarus due to the nuclear explosion at Chernobyl, and how the definitive consequences are unknown due to a lack of appropriate research.

Kuchinskaya uses personal interviews and secondary research (documents and data analysis) to produce her text, “The Politics of Invisibility”. She uses quotes from individuals such as Ulrich Beck, a German sociologist who studied risk, and Mikhail Savitsky, a prominent Belarusian artist, to further her arguments on radiation and other invisible environmental risks. She personally interviewed Chernobyl experts, as well as laypeople living in the areas officially defined as contaminated, to get various perspectives.

The point about the hazard Luchinskaya is trying to make is that the effects of the radiation from Chernobyl and other environmental risks are not immediately observable (“invisible”), therefore the way people respond to and discuss imperceptible environmental hazards will determine how the consequences are interpreted. The author claims that her main purpose is “to recognize and learn to respond to imperceptible environmental hazards when neither the hazard nor its consequences are immediately observable” (Luchinskaya). At the end of the reading, the author mentions that Belarus did not have the appropriate resources to make the radiation risks and effects visible, so she then mentions the work that was done to make them invisible. 

Kuchinskaya is using logos to discuss the hazard when she includes official facts/numbers on the Chernobyl catastrophe; “According to the official numbers, 23 percent of the Belarusian territory was covered with long-lasting radioactive isotopes” (Kuchinskaya). There are also indicators of pathos in her except when she is talking about the health problems linked to the Chernobyl nuclear incident. She says, “only one disease was linked to radioactive exposure: thyroid cancer in children” (Kuchinskaya). The author knows that childhood cancer is something that tugs at readers heartstrings, and makes them care about the issue at hand. 

I learned a lot about writing, critical thinking/analyzing, and synthesizing by completing Project 1. For starters, I have learned so much about nuclear power and scientific risks from the readings, viewings, and listenings we have completed so far this semester. This topic is very new to me, so it has been interesting to read, watch, and listen to the information provided. In completing this project, I became better at reading and interpreting dense and difficult texts, which I needed to do in order to come up with an argument that answers the question, “How do scholars in the humanities contribute uniquely to STEM-based conversations about risk?”. I learned to pay more attention to the readings to fully grasp the meaning behind them. I did this by taking my time while reading so I could take notes and highlight important information. Another thing that I learned was how to connect/synthesize texts with each other to contribute to an overall conversation. I did this by comparing my notes on each of the readings and sources I chose for the project, to find similarities and connections. This was the most difficult part of the project because it took a lot of hard thinking and evaluating to connect all the sources to my thesis. I also feel like I became better at writing in general because I was forced to write about a more sophisticated topic that I had never learned about in the past. This took a lot of time to craft my writing to make sure it fit my rhetorical goals. This new knowledge is significant as it contributes to my learning in this course and beyond because it is important to be able to gather and or take in information and then analyze it. A piece of writing or any other document is meaningless unless interpreted. This is why I can use these skills for the rest of the projects this semester in EN12, as well as in future classes and in the business world. Next, I need to know how to synthesize texts without having a question to refer back to. I feel like this would help me build upon my synthesis skill because it forces me to find connections without the help of a question guiding my findings. Next, I will continue to work on my reading skills of dense works, as well as formulating connections and analyses between sources. This will further my literacy and writing skills for the future, which will hopefully set me apart from others in business who did not receive a liberal arts education.

My revision process for Project 1 was more informal than my initial writing process for Project 1. I tend to take a lot of time to outline my ideas before putting them into a rough draft, so I feel like I had a lot of my final ideas for my paper are present in my first draft. Revising is one of the toughest parts of the overall writing process for me because once I have my ideas written down, I find it hard to alter my thesis and ideas while keeping the overall theme the same. When I revise, I find myself pointing out the grammatical or structural issues in my paper. This time around, I really tried to scan my essay for problems regarding content. I wanted to see if all of my sources and pieces of evidence related back to my thesis, as well as connected with each other. In EN11 we did an annotated bibliography where we had to synthesize a bunch of sources, so I had a basic understanding of what I needed to do, but I found it difficult to do for this specific topic. I feel like the sources we are working with this semester are very complex and hard to fully understand, so I had to take extra time before starting the project to refresh my memory on Beck and Johnson’s readings. Overall, I feel like my process was effective. I was able to add some things that contributed to my claim, as well as worked on the synthesis of my sources. Since classes were canceled on Tuesday, I took some time that afternoon to revise my paper. While revising, I felt like my ideas were coming together. Sometimes when I write the first draft, I am going so fast trying to get all my ideas down that I’m not sure if it all makes sense together. The revision process is the time when I can read over my work, and see where my argument has holes and where it can be stronger. In the future, I’d like to gain stronger revision skills that I can utilize on future assignments.

My Project 1 writing process began on Saturday when I sat down to reread the requirements and gather my thoughts. When I read it over, It took me a few minutes to decide which question I wanted to answer. They all seemed challenging, but I decided to go with the first one because it was the one I had a concrete idea for right off the bat. Having a question to answer definitely helps the writing process because it gives me a place to start and build off of. I then began my outline of Project 1. I revisited the two readings that are required for the assignment, Beck, and Johnson, and rewrote some notes that specifically focused on the question I am trying to answer. I then combed through the other readings, listenings, and viewings from the semester to try and find a common idea. I always need to outline my ideas first before I jump into a paper, or I feel like I have no organization. I do not really consider myself to be creative, so it is always daunting to start a project such as this one. Once I think about it for a while and come up with some ideas, it becomes much easier and smoother to write. On Sunday, today, I wrote a thesis to connect all my ideas and began synthesizing them into my paper. Having the outline was a huge help in the creation of my rough draft because it gave me something to work off of instead of going in blind. It took me a while to outline all my ideas, probably 2 or 3 hours, and another hour or 2 to connect the ideas into my rough draft. I tend to put assignments like this off because I struggle with the creative process. It always makes me feel relieved when I begin a project and have a rough draft because I know that the hardest part is behind me. I was definitely feeling stressed this week and this weekend to work on the project and think of creative ideas. This is my ideal writing process because it helps me stay organized and on track.

 

Who is Ulrich Beck?

Ulrich Beck is a well known German sociologist, as well as one of the most cited social scientists in the world during his lifetime. His work focused on questions of uncontrollability, ignorance, and uncertainty in the modern age, and he coined the terms “risk society” and “second modernity” or “reflexive modernization”. He passed away in January of 2015 at the age of 70.

What hazard or issue is Beck discussing and where does it apply (location/site)?

The hazard/risk Beck is addressing is how there are environmental issues occurring throughout the world, specifically in Western Civilization, but no one is really doing anything about it. They are acting like nothing is wrong, when there are actually major issues going on. Beck included 5 theses on environmental risks. 

Identify the research method used to produce the text.

Beck collaborated with ‘mostly young scholars’ in his research activities, as well as utilized secondary research to support his views. His writing is situated within his field, so he is using information from other authors in his field (Theory, Philosophy, or “Armchair” research). He compared the past to the present and created a timeline into what is going on now that we are not yet aware of. 

What does the text say about the hazard they discuss? What is their primary point about risk?

Beck is saying that a destructive event such as an atomic incident could last for generations to come, therefore people should be more worried about these incidents.

What is a risk society?

A risk society is a break within modernity, which is freeing itself from the contours of the classical industrial society and forging this new form. In the risk society, the principles of modernity are redeemed from their separations and limitations in industrial society.

What language does the author use to discuss the hazard (for example, look for descriptors like “dirty,” “dark,” “gleaming,” or “bright” as indicators of pathos, or how the audience is meant to feel about the hazard)? Provide at least one example from the text.

The language Beck uses to discuss the hazard within his book revolves around ethos. He uses his own credibility in the field of sociology. He uses claims and backs them up with the use of other sources. For example, he uses a quote from the Council of Experts on Environmental Issues that says, “in mother’s milk beta-hexachlorocyclohexane, hexachlorobenzol, and DDT are often found in significant concentrations (1985: 33). These toxic substances are contained in pesticides and herbicides that have by now been taken off the market. According to the report, their origin is undetermined (33). At another point it is stated: “The exposure of the population to lead is not dangerous on average” (35).

The author of “Mother’s Day” from Full Body Burden is Kristen Iversen. She is an award-winning author and holds a Ph.D. program director in Literary Nonfiction at the University of Cincinnati. The hazard/risk being discussed in the text is the amount of radioactive material that is present in a human body after a nuclear fallout. The reading focuses on the Rocky Flats powerplant in Denver, Colorado. Iversen’s research method is the personal experiences of the main character growing up near a nuclear power plant, as well as library/secondary research. This radioactive material that is present in the human body acts as an internal and ongoing source of radiation. A single particle of plutonium can lodge in the lungs and continuously expose the surrounding tissue, which could result in cancer. In all the decades of nuclear weapons production, the nuclear weapons industry produces waste with too little thought of the future or the environment and the cost to sue the government over these issues is far too expensive. The author uses a lot of descriptive words and imagery to appeal to emotion and feeling (pathos). She says, “Smoking in a cool, elegant way…”, as well as, “The neighborhood is made up of houses like ours: a front door and a picture window facing the street, two windows on each side, and a sliding door in the back that opens to a postage-stamp backyard” (Iversen). 

The author of “The Clan of the One-Breasted Woman” from Refuge: An Unnatural History of Time and Place is Terry Tempest Williams. She is an American author, conservationist, and activist. Williams‘ writing is rooted in the American West and has been significantly influenced by the arid landscape of her native Utah and its Mormon culture. The hazard/risk being presented is the nuclear testing around areas where families live and children grow up that eventually leads to nuclear fallout. This excerpt takes place in Utah. The research methods used are the author’s personal experiences, as well as the experiences of her community’s members, growing up in a Mormon household where she had to experience her mother, grandmothers, six aunts, and herself have mastectomies due to cancer. Seven of these people mentioned ended up passing away. The reading also includes quotes from the Atomic Energy Commission booklet; “Your best action is to not be worried about fallout”. The point about the hazard/risk is that nuclear fallout causes severe forms of cancer, which leads to death. This leaves never-ending scars on families while the government remains immune. Williams uses deep and painful imagery to appeal to emotion (pathos). Williams writes, “I watched beautiful women become bald as Cytoxan, cisplatin, and Adriamycin were injected into their veins. In the end, I witnessed their last peaceful breaths, becoming a midwife to the rebirth of their souls”. This quote makes readers feel empathy and sympathy for Williams who had to go through this pain of losing her loved ones due to cancer from radiation.

The contributors of the Doomsday Clock and Timeline are Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists writers and editors. The hazard/risk in the reading is the danger to humanity from technologies of our own making, particularly nuclear weapons, which is a global issue. To research and set the clock, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board meets twice a year to discuss world events and reset the clock if necessary. The board is made up of scientists and other experts with deep knowledge of nuclear technology and climate science, who often provide expert advice to governments and international agencies. They consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines and also seek the views of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 14 Nobel Laureates. The point is that the clock serves a warning to the public about how their actions have serious consequences. It is a metaphor that is a reminder of the perils we must address if we want to survive on planet earth. The website appeals to ethos (ethical/credibility) because it is urging Americans to think about their actions and how they affect the future of the planet. The website offers an ethical solution to the problem of earthly destruction by including information that answers the question, “What can ordinary people do to meet the challenges that the Doomsday Clock is warning about?”.

The hosts of On the Media “Fallout” are Brooke Gladstone, who is an American journalist, author, and media analyst, been a contributor to The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Observer, and Slate, and Bob Garfield, an American journalist and commentator who is also the host of The Genius Dialogues from Audible. The hazard/risk is the fear of control over a major nuclear crisis, which is global. If a nuclear fallout were to occur, the first thing to go would be technology. The research methods used are a book, t.v/movies (The Simpsons, and The Day After), as well as direct interviews with Jeffrey Lewis and Marcia Gordon. The point about hazard/risk is that the younger generation would struggle without technology during an apocalypse while older generations would be more equipped to navigate a situation like this. The hosts use comedic relief (pathos) when talking about the dark subject of nuclear attacks. One of the hosts says, “You could probably fit a tweet around a pigeon’s leg” when discussing forms of communication after the technology has been compromised during a nuclear apocalypse. 

 

 

 

The author of “Romanticizing the Atom” is Robert R. Johnson. He is a professor of rhetoric, composition, and technical communication at Michigan Technological University. He is the author of User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts. The hazard/risk Johnson is addressing is nuclear radiation, as well as the atomic mindset, and how it comprises the environment, people’s health, and people’s way of life. This mindset occurred, and continues to occur, throughout planet Earth. The research method that was used to produce the text focuses on people’s opinions from different occupations, such as Einstein. Johnson includes direct quotations, thoughts, and arguments from these people about the subject of nuclear energy in the U.S. to contribute to his overall message and argument. Their point about the atomic mindset is that people do not have all the facts about nuclear energy, and only take in what they want to hear (calculative mindset). People are being brainwashed into thinking that nuclear energy is the only answer, but it is expensive, dangerous, and hard to dispose of. The author uses rhetorical questions and straightforward facts to inform readers about the atomic mindset. An example of this is when he rhetorically asks, “Once the atomic mindset has taken hold and events unfold in which atomic development compromises our environment, health, and way of life, what can be done to confront the mindset and work for change?” (Johnson). This example appeals to emotion (pathos) because it paints a picture of something scary that could happen if people do not realize what atomic power is capable of. The problem is everywhere. 

The author of The Rhetoric of Risk is Beverly Sauer who has more than fifteen years’ experience as a consultant to a wide range of Federal, State, and private organizations. She was formerly Professor of Communication at Carnegie Mellon University, Johns Hopkins University Carey School of Business, and Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business. Sauer specializes in helping individuals develop communication skills to enhance group dynamics cross-cultural communication, and risk assessment in highly technical systems. The hazard/risk that Sauer is risk management and hazards in the workplace, specifically mines. She addresses how poor communication and documentation skills affect the way events and decisions precipitate a disaster. The point Sauer is trying to make is that risk specialists can benefit from an understanding of the rhetorical practices that influence how we document what audiences know. When a crisis occurs, individuals need adequate documentation to help them make decisions, and they also need appropriate strategies to persuade others to act to reduce manage risk. The method of research she uses is formal interviewing. She interviewed miners in the U.S., Great Britain, and South Africa from 1992 to 1997 to discover the full range of rhetorical strategies that individuals employ when they observe, analyze, and assess risk. She also uses quotes from fellow risk analysts, as well as studied workplace documents. The author asks several rhetorical questions which make readers think logically about the subject at hand (logos). For example, she asks rhetorically, “How do we discover the means of persuasion that are not recorded in writing, inscribed in textual practices, and authorized as conventional within the disciplines and institutions we choose to study?”. 

The hosts of the Radiolab podcast are Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad. For 22 years Robert Krulwich was a science, economics, general assignment, and foreign correspondent for ABC and CBS news; earned a BA in history from Oberlin College, and a law degree from Columbia University in 1974. Jad Abumrad studied creative writing and music composition at Oberlin College in Ohio and he was honored as a 2011 MacArthur Fellow (also known as the Genius Grant). These hosts had a few different guest speakers who shared stories regarding nuclear weapons in U.S. history. The hazard/risk discussed in the podcast revolved around the idea of checks and balances in nuclear regulation, and whether the President should have the sole authority to give the launch command of destructive nuclear weapons. Their research method is formal interviews with these guest speakers who are providing first-hand accounts of the topic of the launch of nuclear weapons. Harold, a former military member, and airforce pilot was forced to retire after he questioned the President’s authority in making decisions about the launch of nuclear weapons. They hear from a few different people and come to the conclusion that the President probably should be conferring with someone on this manner that has such high stakes, but it should be with the secretary of state and not a military member like Harold. Their point is that there needs to be a system of checks and balances in place for something that could cause mass destruction and thousands upon thousands of deaths. The hosts use guest speakers who have real experience in the topic they are discussing, which makes listeners feel that what is being said is true and credible. 

Rhetoric is the act of using language to persuade or convince someone of something. It can also be defined as the study of the ways in which language shapes the world. This art of persuasion and convincing is accomplished through various figures of speech, various visual techniques, etc. Rhetoric is used to help organize groups, create meaning and ideas, as well as coordinate behaviors. Rhetoric is important because it allows writers and/or speakers to communicate effectively and engagingly with their respective audiences. It allows one piece of information to be shared in numerous different ways, which can shape the way it is interpreted and understood by the audience. Rhetoric is all around us on a daily basis. It’s in everyday conversations, books, movies, t.v. shows, news media, magazines, art, and even body language. Rhetoric is involved in people’s everyday life, whether they are conscious of it or not. I learned the most about rhetoric, especially visual rhetoric, last semester in EN11. I learned how to organize my thoughts and ideas into a visual form of media that could appeal to a specific audience of my choosing. It was very interesting to see how different forms of media cater to different groups of people, such as kids, teenagers, middle-aged people, and the elderly, as well as how factors like color, size, alignment, and proximity affect the conversation. Each of these age groups I listed all take in and process information differently, which is why rhetoric is so important to keep in mind when conveying one’s ideas. I also learned last semester about logos, pathos, and ethos and how each of these appeals shape language and communication. Appealing to different emotions, feelings, and logic can change how a writer displays their work, which in turn affects how it is perceived by the reader/watcher. Rheotric is a very important component of language and communication, which is why it should always be considered as part of the writing/design process.