Editorial Report 12a

Editing is an important part of the writing process. It allows for peers to review how we are doing and help us improve. Here is my editorial report.

Rough Draft Section:
     The main advantage to using LFTRs is that they are considerably safer than the current LWRs that use Uranium. As mentioned earlier the LWR uses a solid fuel rod for the reaction to occur and when the reaction happens gases are created in the rod (West, Danny). This is potentially dangerous if the reaction were to go too far because the rod could fracture, release large amounts radioactive gases, and possibly explode. The process by which governments keep this from happening is to have constant power to the plant that controls the reaction rate. But what happens when there is no more power or there is too much? Then the reaction proceeds at an increased rate or gets too hot causing meltdowns and even explosions. Two real life examples of power divergence are the Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi Disasters both of which are considered “a level 7 event (the highest classification) on the Nuclear Event Scale”  (Black, Richard). These disasters are the main reason why some people are against nuclear power; they are afraid of a reactor near their home exploding and harming them.
     This is where Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors show why they are the safer alternative. The physical state of the reaction (liquid) allows for the fuel to take any shape it needs and, as most liquids, when gas is created in it, it flows to the top where it can be collected as safely removed. This means that there is not a possibility for the structure of the fuel to be compromised and thus no meltdowns can be caused due to the failing structure.

Edited Section:
     ...
     This is where Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors show why they are the safer alternative. The physical state of the reaction (liquid) allows for the fuel to take any shape it needs and, as most liquids, when gas is created in it, it flows to the top where it can be collected as safely removed. This means that there is not a possibility for the structure of the fuel to be compromised and thus no meltdowns can be caused due to the failing structure.
     Not only does the fuel have safety features built in, he design of the reactor itself has one “called a freeze plug” to help protect the reactor from possible meltdowns. The plug is a solid salt that is kept at a constant temperature with a cooling fan to keep it from melting (West, Danny). This design protects against a possible meltdown by protecting the reactor in case of a power loss or a overheating of the reaction. If the power is lost, the fan stops and the plug melts. If the reaction overheats, the plug melts. The liquid is then dropped, in both scenarios, into an underground basin filled with “neutron absorbers” that will halt the reaction (West, Danny). This will prevent a meltdown and keep the surrounding area safe

Questions:

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

In the edited version of the rough cut I decided to add a section about how there is a safety mechanism proposed by some nuclear researchers that could help in case of a power loss or an overheating of the reactor. I think this builds more of an argument than just saying that the liquid itself is safer.

 

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

I think the form stayed the same after editing the rough cut because I stayed with the same MLA format. I added another citing in the paragraph but other than that it is the same.