Toaster>Nuclear Power Plant?

Taylor Pearson puts forth an argument where she disputes why you should fear your toaster more than nuclear power. Pearson does this by developing a structure where she humorously compares that a toaster poses more of a threat than nuclear power. She supports the structure through the use of logos and pathos. She starts off by showing the audience of how the word “Nuclear” is portrayed in society. She does by making a text to world connection with the incident that occurred in Japan by mentioning, “ For the past months or so, headlines everywhere have been warning us of the horrible crisis caused by damaged Japanese nuclear reactors. Titles like "Japan Nuclear Disaster Top Scales" have fueled a new wave of protests against anything nuclear” (Lines 1-5). Thus, amplifying a negative connotation of the word nuclear because it’s depicted as dangerous to the point where citizens are protesting against it. From the very beginning,  Pearson is reaching towards her audience by relating to them on the same level of why one might be afraid of nuclear power.  It's effective because the author used pathos to evoke a feeling of pity toward the victims of the crisis. In addition, the readers would feel curious about the author's position, fearing the toaster more than nuclear power as understood from the title. In doing so, she has successfully touched upon the audience’s surface and leaving them intrigued to read more. Including me, I would feel interested to where Pearson argument would be heading.  I insist on knowing why a nuclear power plant is considered safer than a toaster and comprehending Pearson's point of view.

Further into the argument, Pearson addresses the death toll. She states, “The actual number of deaths caused by nuclear power plants accidents, even in worst case scenarios, have been few...Other nuclear powers accidents have been few and never resulted in more than 10 deaths...Let's consider an innocuous household appliance, the toaster: over three thousand people die from toaster accidents” (Lines 15-33).  By putting the death toll of nuclear power and a toaster appliance into perspective, she deflates the fear caused by nuclear plants. By deflating the audience fear, it makes them reconsider their stance. For instance, me being part of the audience would be in conflict. It never occurred to me that toasters can cause more deaths than nuclear power plants. I’m assuming it’s because workers take more precautions to handle unsafe objects. As well, I found it amusing that she compared a toaster, an everyday household object to a nuclear power plant, a generator of electricity where many possible things can go wrong. Unlike from the start of the article, I was drawn in by Pearson's logic of comparing a toaster to a nuclear power plant. However now, I wouldn't be convinced of her argument because it's unfair to compare the two. People can easily make careless errors with a toaster without expecting a disaster. It's common to be unaware of how deadly a small object can be. Whereas a nuclear power plant has many workers to be sure nothing can go wrong and they're more alert to the situation around them. The workers are specially trained to minimize the number of mistakes. Towards the end, I lost respect for the article and thought of it as nothing more than a joke.