Ask a New Question
Menu

The critics of power plants are right: The amount of radiation power plants release is dangerous. However, people don’t realize that they are constantly exposed to radiation by various ways. One can get exposed to radiation of 350 millirems from just standing in the sun for a long time or 5 millirems from being higher in the atmosphere. For example, flying in an airplane increases radiation by “lessening the amount of atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays” (seattletimes). An example of an high altitude situation would also include someone living on a hill which would result in about 500 millirems of radiation per year. One can also experience radiation of about 5 millirems if he or she has a habit of smoking cigarette and gets treated for lung cancer. A nuclear plant, however, only releases around 5 millirems of radiation. Therefore, living near a nuclear plant would have very little effect on peoples’ health compared to the radiation they experience when they travel or go out in the sun.

8 answers

Content wise, much better, your point is well made. Someone will check your structure and grammar. Good thinking, and good analysis.
The critics of power plants are right: The amount of radiation that power plants release is dangerous. However, people don’t realize that they are constantly exposed to radiation by various ways. One can be exposed to radiation of 350 millirems from just standing in the sun for a long time or 5 millirems from being higher in the atmosphere. For example, flying in an airplane increases radiation by “lessening the amount of atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays” (seattletimes). An example of a high altitude situation would also include someone living on a hill; he or she would receive about 500 millirems of radiation per year. One can also experience radiation of about 5 millirems if he or she has a habit of smoking cigarette and gets treated for lung cancer. A nuclear plant, however, releases only around 5 millirems of radiation. Therefore, living near a nuclear plant would have very little effect on people's health compared to the radiation they experience when they travel or go out in the sun.

Excellent improvement in content and in mechanics, too. Congrats!
One other rather major issue (other than the spelling of grammar) needs to be addressed: how you cite references.

(seattletimes) is not a correct way to refer to whatever article you're using to back up that particular statement.

(Broken Link Removed)
This is an excellent place (add it to your Favorites) to get information about what to put in your Works Cited page and what to put in parenthetical (in-text) citations.

Hold your cursor over CITING SOURCES in the left column and click on "Electronic Resources/Internet" -- then scroll down until you come to the examples. For your Works Cited page, you should follow the model for the Online Magazine; it's the closest to an online newspaper. Notice that it starts with the last name of the person who wrote the article. Notice also that this particular newspaper (online or in print) is The Seattle Times, not "seattletimes," which is used only in the URL.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/home/index.html

In parentheses in your paragraph, you put that writer's last name, not "seattletimes." Do you see?

=)
=)
but if there is no author.
Then you'd use the first word or two of the title of the article -- whatever is first in your Works Cited entry.

How are you writing up that Works Cited entry? If you'll poste it, I can let you know exactly what to put.
SAFETY,BE THE POLICY FOR THE BEST COMPANY
patents
my name is sommaya mostafa. i'm egyptian i leave in cairo with my family i'm in the secondary school.i'm 16 years old.ihave apreparatory certicate,ican speak english well,now ilearn freanch.