Reports Concerning Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident's Aftermath
This is where you will upload the file for your Annotated Bibliography assignment. Please use either .pdf, .doc, or .docx file format.
Click here to download the Annotated BibliographyPreview the document assignment. The assignment is due on Tuesday, November 10 by 11:59 pm (midnight) and it is worth 10% of the overall course mark.
You are asked to prepare an Annotated Bibliography summarizing five scholarly references that will be used in the preparation of your Case Study. Each annotation will consist of two paragraphs, so you’re going to write a total of ten paragraphs. For each annotation, the first paragraph will "summarize" the resource, and the second paragraph will "critically analyze" the resource.
Note: Please mention your topic briefly at the top of the first page of your Bibliography. If you have CHANGED your topic since the Proposal, please let us know that. Otherwise we might assume that you're continuing with the same topic or event, and would not be reading your Annotated Bibliography as you have intended.
Detailed instructions are provided in the downloadable assignment (linked above). You are asked to prepare an Annotated Bibliography summarizing five scholarly references that will be used in
the preparation of your Case Study. The objectives of the Annotated Bibliography are for you to identify,
evaluate, summarize, and cite scholarly resources in support of your Case Study research.
The case study topic I choose is Tohoku, Japan, 2011: I plan to examine the effect of hazard on the nuclear power plant disaster due to the earthquake and investigating the effectiveness of plans to prevent nuclear disasters in Japan in the future
JGE378H5F Fall 2020 Natural Hazards ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT You are asked to prepare an Annotated Bibliography summarizing five scholarly references that will be used in the preparation of your Case Study. The objectives of the Annotated Bibliography are for you to identify, evaluate, summarize, and cite scholarly resources in support of your Case Study research. The Annotated Bibliography: • Must be a properly formatted (APA-style) list of five references that you will use in the preparation of your Case Study. These do not have to be the same as the references you used in your Proposal, since your research has probably evolved since then, but for efficiency you should now choose references that you actually plan to use for your Term Paper. • Must include at least four scholarly references from peer-reviewed journals, but may include one reference that is not from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (e.g., it can be from a government publication, a newspaper, or even a website, as long as the reference is reliable, and appropriate to the topic). • Must include at least one reference (out of the five) that you will use primarily for the factual or descriptive basis of your Case Study; please indicate which one. • Must include at least one reference (out of the five) that you will use primarily for analytical purposes, and/or a paper that provides a useful theoretical framework for your Case Study; please indicate which one. • Must include, for each annotation, one paragraph (about 150-200 words) that summarizes the main points of that reference; see below. • Must include, for each annotation, one paragraph (about 150-200 words) that evaluates the reference, and in which you assess its relevance to the analytical part of your Case Study and/or suggest how you plan to use the reference in your study. • Must mention (briefly) your overall topic, as submitted in your Proposal, at the top of p. 1. • Must be submitted digitally to our course Quercus site before 11:59 p.m. on November 10, 2020, by file upload (.doc, .docx, or .pdf). As outlined above, each of the five annotations will consist of two paragraphs, so you’re going to be writing a total of ten paragraphs. In the first paragraph of each annotation, you should summarize the reference. To do this, you can think about answering some (but probably not all) of the following questions: • What type of paper is it – mainly descriptive, or analytical, or both? Is it mainly factual, or opinion-based? • What is the author’s stated goal or main point? • How is the paper organized? (You can probably determine this by looking at the main headings within the paper.) • What is the scope of the paper? Is it an overview, or does it focus on one particular aspect of the event or subject? • Is the work aimed at a particular audience? (The general public? academics? planners or policymakers?) • What is the disciplinary perspective from which the paper is written? (Philosophy? Geology? Meteorology? Geography? Can you be more specific – e.g., Human or Physical Geography? Political Ecology? etc.) • Is the paper reasonably current? Is it a historical or retrospective work, looking back on a historical event from a current perspective? • If you have one reference that is not from a scholarly journal, what type of piece is it (government report; popular journalism; current news; website; etc.)? In the second paragraph of each annotation you should evaluate and critically analyze the reference; assess its relevance to your Case Study; identify how and why you intend to use the reference; and comment on its role in your analysis of the event. To do this, you can think about answering some (but probably not all) of the following questions: • What do you think are the author’s most valuable contributions to the research on your topic? • How does the author frame the paper’s research question or main goals? • What methodology is used to answer the research question, support the thesis, or substantiate the main point of the paper? Is it an appropriate methodology? • What are the limitations of the methodology used in the paper? How effective is its method of investigation, analysis, or reporting? • How good is the evidence or the arguments provided in the paper? Would you have drawn the same conclusions from the evidence? • Does the author make new connections or open up new ways of seeing a problem or a situation? • Does the author use a particular theoretical framework or key concept that you find interesting? • Is there a specific conceptual framework or tradition in which the paper resides? Do the authors refer to a conceptual foundation in their introduction? • Does the author provide and analyze a particular body of evidence that you want to use in your Case Study? • How do the author’s conclusions and/or methods and/or approach bear on your own project? • Will you use the reference mainly for its presentation of factual information, or for its analytical or theoretical framework? Annotated Bibliography Evaluation Criteria On the basis of the assignment, here are the evaluation criteria for the Annotated Bibliography: For each annotation: • selected reference is appropriate, scholarly, relevant to project 1 point • quality of the summative paragraph 1 point • quality of the evaluative paragraph 1 point Sub-total (per annotation) 3 points Sub-total for the five references 15 points For the assignment as a whole: • references are correctly listed (APA-style) 1 point • references are mainly scholarly; at least one descriptive, one analytical 1 point • annotations are insightful, well-constructed, and well-written overall 1 point • writing demonstrates scholarly tone and quality 1 point • overall relevance of the references to the Case Study topic is demonstrated 1 point Sub-total 5 points TOTAL (will be converted into 10% of the course mark): 20 points
Bibliography
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Instructors Name
Date
Bibliography
Bauer, M. W., Gylstorff, S., Madsen, E. B., & Mejlgaard, N. (2019). The Fukushima accident and public perceptions about nuclear power around the globe–A challenge & response model. Environmental Communication, 13(4), 505-526.
The report outlines the events that took place following the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The authors also outline the perceptions that the public has regarding nuclear power production. The accident had a major impact on the worldwide wide perception of nuclear production. It raises the question about the safety of nuclear power production in different parts of the world. The authors also outline the various cultural perceptions that people across the world have regarding nuclear plant accidents. The Fukushima power plant accident has shaped the nuclear production industry a lot, enhancing the risk mitigation strategies that plants use to prevent similar accidents in the future. According to the authors, the Fukushima accident happenings act as a basis for formulating risk mitigation strategies in the future of nuclear power production.
The report will be used for the factual description of the case study. Tohoku earthquake caused a massive tsunami, which destroyed the backup generators for the nuclear power plant. During the Fukushima nuclear accident, only three reactors were operational in the power plant. The three reactors had boiling water. Therefore, the lack of power failed the cooling system. As a result of the high temperatures, the reactors' metal rods melted down, thus releasing radiation. They also created holes at the bottom of the reactors, which exposed the cores. According to the authors, the Fukushima accident's devastating impact is currently used as a basis for formulating risk mitigation strategies. My case study will focus on some of these risk mitigation strategies that can help avoid similar future accidents. Leaders worldwide consider the accident as a lesson that other nuclear productions should learn and come up with ways to avoid a similar accident. In the case where the accident has already occurred, reducing the extent of the impact is a key aspect.
Kharecha, P. A., & Sato, M. (2019). Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident. Energy Policy, 132, 647-653.
This article, written by experts in the field of energy, outlines the emissions changes that followed in Germany and Japan after the Fukushima nuclear plant accident. The emission amounts in both countries were limited regardless of the major cuts in the nuclear power supply. Such a decrease in emissions was caused by high renewable power levels and a decrease in the amount of energy consumed. The authors offer a recommendation that could have reduced the number of deaths resulting from the emissions. They claim that if gas and coal were reduced, the emissions would have decreased compared to the situation where nuclear power was reduced instead. Such avoidable impacts will pose a challenge in the process of meeting national disaster mitigation strategies. The author recommends that large-scale energy users reduce the number of fossil fuels used instead of educating nuclear power. For instance, Germany can prevent approximately 16000 deaths by reducing coal usage instead of nuclear power.
This article will be used for the analytical purpose of my case study. The article provides useful information regarding the health hazards associated with the use of fossil fuels. The authors clearly outline the health hazard brought by the use of fossil fuels and gas. They point out that a reduction in the use of such energy can highly reduce the number of deaths resulting from carbon emissions in the future. The article provides useful information for my case study since it provides more insight regarding the number of deaths that occurred after the Fukushima power plant accident. It will be used to offer a recommendation to how such deaths can be avoided in the future. The authors recommend a reduction in the use of fossil fuels instead of nuclear power. In my case study, I will analyze how the aftermath of deaths from accidents similar to that of Fukushima can be prevented or reduced. Nuclear power production in Japan is no longer among the top productions globally, and this raises a question about the safety of the alternative sources of energy being used.
Kumamoto, Y., Yamada, M., Aoyama, M., Hamajima, Y., Kaeriyama, H., Nagai, H., ... & Masumoto, Y. (2019). Radiocesium in North Pacific coastal and offshore areas of Japan within several months after the Fukushima accident. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 198, 79-88.
This report was written by experts in the energy and radioactivity field. They measured t...