COUNTY BOARD DILEMMA:
A Nuclear Power Plant in Your County?
Disclaimer: This document was created by the Physics Teacher Education program at Illinois State University for the sole purpose of being used as a problem-based learning exercise. It depicts a hypothetical situation only. There is no effort under way to develop such a nuclear power plant in reality.
Introduction:
A power plant
consortium is hoping to build a 2.2 megawatt pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) nuclear power plant in west
central Illinois. The
county board has been petitioned by the power plant consortium to
construct the plant on 8,000 acres
of land situated about 5 miles south of Beardstown, IL. The land owner has agreed
to sell
the site to the consortium for the specified purpose in order
to bring needed
jobs to the economically depressed area.
A local protest group argues
that there is
a host of evidence from biology, chemistry, geology, and physics that shows
that situating a nuclear power plant in their county would be not only
unwise, but downright dangerous. The
protestors are saying "not in my back yard." They recall the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl reactor accident in Ukraine in which as many as
several hundred people died from direct radiation side effects in the weeks and months following the event - and that as many as several thousand might have died over the passing years. The events of the 1979 melt down at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, PA,
are also still fresh in their minds, to say nothing of FEMA failures associated with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. The protestors also are seriously questioning the need for more energy in the area.
The conflict between these two groups
has resulted in a number of public protests. The protest group is now encouraging the county board to pass a law banning the construction of the nuclear power plant. Both sides must
make a solid logical case before the county board in the hope of passing or preventing the law. The board members must weigh social and scientific arguments presented by both sides, and decide whether or
not to pass a law that appears to be favored by a significant number
of people living in the county, but opposed by the nuclear power group intending to construct the power plant.
There are many issues associated with this question:
- When one considers the possible consequences of continued
release of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels,
doesn't the prospect of nuclear energy seem less
frightening?
- Isn't there is a problem of continued U.S. reliance on foreign
sources of oil in the Middle East and Venezuela that nuclear energy can help
resolve?
- How safe are American-designed nuclear power plants, and what are the threats of having one in one's county?
- What are alternative sources to nuclear energy and what are their impacts and consequences?
- What does one do with nuclear wastes generated by nuclear power
plants?
Consortium Member - Team and Individual Tasks:
As a member of the power plant consortium you need to do the following:
- examine the claims of the
nuclear power plant opponents that
there are significant health and safety threats to humans working
at and living
within a short distance of the power plant;
- state and examine the evidence presented by contemporary scientists
supporting the safety of American nuclear power plants;
- examine the issue from all sides, including biology
(biohazards), chemistry
(nature of radioactive materials), geology (site requirements), and physics
(nature of radioactivity);
and
- convince the judge of the worthiness of your case to build the proposed nuclear power plant.
Protest Group Member - Team and Individual Tasks:
As a member of the protest group you need to do the following:
- examine the claims of the nuclear power plant
consortium that there are no significant health and safety threats to
humans working at and living within a short distance of the power
plant;
- state and examine the evidence presented by contemporary
scientists supporting the dangers of American nuclear power plants;
- examine the issue from all sides, including biology
(biohazards), chemistry (nature of radioactive materials), geology
(site requirements), and physics (nature of radioactivity);
- determine the actual need (or lack of need) of a power plant near Beardstown, IL; and
- convince the judge of the worthiness of your case to stop the construction of the proposed nuclear power plant.
Initial Information Sources:
Below you will find a number of Internet resources where you can
begin your quest for a solution to your problem. Use the traditional
Internet search engines to find additional resources as necessary.
Be certain to conduct an analysis of all information sources for
potential bias. Inclusion of any Web site in the list below is
not to be taken as an indication of
credibility. Sources beyond the Internet are also recommended such as
books, scholarly articles, videos, and discussions with experts.
Process:
- Review the nuclear power plant problem statement.
- Identify what you know and what you don't know on the basis of
the problem statement.
- Identify a variety of resources, including those outside the
Internet, that can be used to shed light on the problem.
- Analyze the credibility of each source you have identified for use.
- Research arguments for or against the proposal.
- In the act of "discovery," answer some fundamental questions from the opposition.
- Discuss various arguments with others, classifying and
analyzing arguments.
- Conduct research as necessary to analyze claims; find
supporting and/or refuting evident.
- Develop your case both for your preference and in answer to the voices of protest.
- Carefully prepare a formal presentation to be delivered to the county board members.
- The opponents will explain the situation first, and then make their case. They have 25 minutes.
- The proponents will clarify the situation second, and then make their case. They have 25 minutes.
- Each group will have a chance to provide a 5-minute rebuttal.
- County board members may ask questions at any time.
Guidance:
First and foremost, your work should reflect elements of critical
thinking and avoid personal bias (but not necessarily personal
values). Your written and oral reports might include many of the
following critical thinking skills outlined by Marzano (1992):
- Comparing: Identifying and
articulating similarities and differences between things.
- Classifying: Grouping things into
definable categories on the basis of their attributes.
- Inducing: Inferring unknown
generalizations or principles from observations or analysis.
- Deducing: Inferring unstated
consequences and conditions from given principles and
generalizations.
- Analyzing errors: Identifying and
articulating errors in one's own or others' thinking.
- Constructing support: Constructing a
system of support or proof for an assertion.
- Abstraction: Identifying and
articulating the underlying theme or general pattern of
information.
- Analyzing perspectives: Identifying
and articulating personal perspectives about issues.
Teamwork Principle and Corollaries:
EVERYONE IS EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM;
EVERYONE IS EXPECTED TO WORK DURING THE TIME GIVEN IN CLASS.
- Every student will contribute to the discussion.
- Every student will be non-judgmental of other student's
opinions. Listen to others' opinions. Let others finish talking
before sharing your opinion or raising a question.
- Every student will have the opportunity to express his or her
ideas without their ideas being attacked. Do not laugh at or attack
other people's comments.
- Every student will ask questions when an idea or fact is
presented that they do not understand.
- Remember that the teacher is primarily a facilitator and not an
information giver.
As you work on this project, keep in mind the following
points: One of the worst possible outcomes in any community
is the collapse of communication. While concerns for safety surround
the construction of a nuclear power plant are understandable,
emotional sentiments should not be the basis of decisions. As
scientifically literate citizens we are under an obligation to
understand, discuss, and analyze the issues in a deliberative and
objective manner. Honest disagreements between members of the
community should not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the
motives of some are suspect. As a board member who may already have
strong opinions on this matter, you have the obligation to understand
the issue, do everything possible to help both sides understand and
appreciate the concerns of the other, and then resolve the issue to
the best of your ability working within the confines of the law.
Scoring Rubrics:
Your written paper should reflect the processes and procedures of
critical thinking; your oral presentation should reflect critical
thinking dispositions.
Expert Essay Scoring Rubric
Oral Presentation Scoring Rubric
Peer Team Member Scoring Rubric
Conclusion:
This problem-based learning activity has been designed to help
students understand the following things:
- Content -- Teachers of science understand and
can articulate the knowledge and practices of contemporary science.
they can interrelate and interpret important concepts, ideas, and
applications in their fields of licensure, and can conduct scientific
investigations. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 1)
- Nature of Science -- Teachers of science
engage students effectively in studies of the history, philosophy,
and practice of science. They enable students to distinguish science
from nonscience, understand the evolution and practice of science as
a human endeavor, and critically analyze assertions made in the name
of science. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 2)
- Inquiry -- Teachers of science engage students
in studies of various methods of scientific inquiry and in active
learning through scientific inquiry. They encourage students,
individually and collaboratively, to observe, ask questions, design
inquiries, and collect and interpret data in order to develop
concepts and relationships from empirical experiences. (NSTA Teacher
Preparation Standard 3)
- Issues -- Teachers of science recognize that
informed citizens must be prepared to make informed decisions and
take action on contemporary science- and technology-related issues of
interest to the general society. Students, therefore, should conduct
inquiries into the factual basis of such issues and assess possible
actions and outcomes based upon their goals and values. (NSTA Teacher
Preparation Standard 4)
- Science in the Community -- Teachers of
science relate their discipline to their local and regional
communities, involving stakeholders and using the individual,
institutional, and natural resources of the community in their
teaching. They actively engage students in science-related studies or
activities related to locally important issues. (NSTA Teacher
Preparation Standard 7)
Written by Carl J. Wenning, Coordinator
Physics Teacher Education Program
Illinois State University
Last updated November 30, 2006