Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
This is the third (and final) part of the SSFL Research Project. This part is worth 50% of your grade on the research project, which is 50% of your overall grade in this course. Your task in this part is the same as it was for the first essay: state your position on some question and provide reasons for your position in clear and cogent prose. In this case, however, you will be expected to use not only the philosophical tools and resources from this course, but also the previously analyzed documents regarding SSFL.
IMPORTANT: It is very important (more so than it has been in the past) that you submit this assignment by the deadline. If you anticipate needing more time, please get in touch with me sooner rather than later..
Instructions
Write a 1000 – 1250 word critical essay on one of the prompts below, drawing on at least one of the readings by Plato assigned in this course AND at least one but no more than three of any primary or second sources related to SSFL, including ones analyzed in parts one and two of this project.
Requirement
Double-spaced
12 pt font
Times New Roman (or another standard typeface)
1-inch margins
Proper citations
Do not plagiarize. Papers will be reviewed using Turnitin.com.
Limited grammatical mistakes
Use of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ is OK
Must include:
A title
An introduction that presents a clear and concise thesis, which states some position for which you will argue for in your paper.
Body paragraphs that provide an adequate summary of the argument(s), position(s), and terms relevant for your chosen topic, as well as reasons in defense of your stated thesis and consideration of some possible objection(s) to your argument(s) or thesis.
A conclusion that might re-summarize your paper in different terms, acknowledge some limitations of your argument or further questions that need to be addressed, or indicate to the reader some possible, broader implications of the views at stake in your paper.
Advice:
Review the advice and comments for previous critical essay.
Review any comments (whether instructor’s or peers’) for previous parts of this research project.
Discuss questions and ideas with me in office hours or via email.
Prompts (choose one):
1. ETHICS OF WHISTLEBLOWING.*
Imagine it’s July 1959 and you’re a recently hired trainee at Atomics International assigned to work at its Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE), a new sodium graphite nuclear reactor. Atomics International, a subsidiary of North American Aviation, constructed the Sodium Reactor Experiment and housed it at a privately-owned test site in the easten Simi Hills referred to as the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). Initially, you were excited for this opportunity: the SRE has received local and nationalLinks to an external site. media attention, in part as a result of (you later discover) a public relations campaign by Atomics International; plus, the SRE was supported by a federal commission, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), tasked with turning the public’s attention to peaceful application of nuclear power as set forward in former President Eisenhower’s ‘Atoms for Peace’ speechLinks to an external site.. You felt you were part of a project that was cutting-edge and serving national interests.
However, less than four months after accepting the job and receiving your security clearance, you arrived one night for your shift at the SRE to learn that there had been (through no fault of your own) a partial meltdown. You and other workers ask the officials there in the control room, “Can we tell our families what happened? Can we tell them that the radioactive gases may’ve gone right over our own homes in Chatsworth and Canoga Park?” The officials discussed and replied, “No, you cannot. We don’t want anybody saying a word about it. We will report what happened to the public in our own due time.”
Yet, during the next two weeks, workers are ordered to turn the damaged reactor on and off, despite high radiation levels, more emergency shutdowns, and the release of radioactive gases into the air, blowing into the nearby communities of Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley. In some cases, you and others note that the readings exceeded monitoring instruments’ capacity to measure them. Two years go by and the AEC creates an informational film to explain both the incident and the ensuing cleanup. The AEC reported that, although extensive core damage had occurred, no serious damage nor injury had occurred, and that the entire experience had only confirmed the viability of the technology behind the SRE. This conflicts with your own recollection of the events that took place, particularly the measures taken with respect to workers’ safety. Now, you’re contemplating whether to become a whistleblower – that is, whether and, if so, how you should call attention to what you believe to be a wrongdoing within Atomics International.
Should you blow the whistle on your employer? Why, or why not?
*This hypothetical scenario is based on the testimony of John Pace, a former employee at Atomics International (see here, starting at ~3:00: https://youtu.be/-_FCvbc0cNE?si=Pt5ClULRxY2R6fjJLinks to an external site.).
2. TRUST AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Discuss the role of trust in the cleanup efforts at the Santa Susana Field Lab. Possible questions to discuss include but are not limited to: How can trust (or distrust) interfere with arriving at a just cleanup solution? How can trust (or distrust) help with arriving at a just solution? Why, if at all, is trust (or distrust) important for effective institutional reform or effective governance? How have the relationships of the stakeholders in the cleanup efforts been harmed by mistrustful deeds and how, if at all, can those relationships be repaired? Should cultivating trust be an aim of the cleanup efforts at SSFL? (If you focus on one of these questions, focus on only one. You’re welcome to investigate your own question on this topic, too, so long as it touches on the significance of trust in the case of SSFL.)
3. POLITICS AND THE VALUE OF THE SACRED
Discuss the value of sacred places and its role in the cleanup efforts at the Santa Susana Field Lab. Possible questions to discuss include but are not limited to: What type of value do sacred places represent, and should the be retained or even restored? Can the sacred be a part of a just solution in the cleanup efforts? What limitations, if any, should there be on appeals to sacredness in shaping the decisions, policies, and practices of public institutions? Should rocks or nature in general be understood as having moral standing – that is, as having the status of an entity deserving of consideration in moral decision making? How might the value of sacredness deepen the diagnoses and solutions of advocates for a cleanup at SSFL? (If you focus on one of these questions, focus on only one. You’re welcome to investigate your own question, too, so long as it touches on the the role of the sacred in the case of SSFL.)
4. CRITICAL CONTEXTS
The National Park Service provides a virtual tour of the Santa Susana Field Lab that takes you through some of the major sites, providing some brief description or historical context. Take the tour here.Links to an external site. Draw on some of the readings and information you’ve gathered about SSFL to provide some critical commentary of the tour. What is some context or information that seems to be missing but that would add to critical understanding of the site? What is the purpose of the tour, and is that purpose of value? Why, or why not?
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.