One might find it utterly absurd to compare a dangerous substance to a mere object we use as a convenience. Taylor Pearson strongly argues that toasters pose a larger threat to us than the feared nuclear power, through his article, Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power. He claims that many people derive our fear of nuclear power based on bandwagon, that everyone fears it due to its harmful features, but it isn't as threatening as we exaggerate it to be, therefore, we need nuclear energy. In order to develop his thesis, he uses the rhetorical techniques of logos, as well as pathos, with regard to execute his statement. To further develop his claim that nuclear power isn't quite menacing, he uses logos in order to compare the death tolls from radiation to deaths from toasters. Pearson took the Chernobyl incident as his example, as for he stated that it only killed eighty two people, as for most of the deaths were from people that were highly exposed due to radiation. This may seem like a lot to us, but he attempts to back up this disastrous case by mentioning that other cases were scarce and that if they were there, accidents have not resulted in more than ten deaths; and on top of that, there have been zero nuclear power deaths in the United States within the past several decades, which is astonishing. Ironically, Pearson takes toaster accidents to support his claim as for he mentions that over three thousand people died from toasters in the first year, and after wards, it causes fifty deaths per year in the United States. He wants his audience to be overwhelmed by how safe nuclear power actually is, and that we shouldn't oppose it and see it as a threat. Using the concept of logos, he statistically proved, using death tolls, that what we shouldn't tremor upon could be the hazardous object, in our perception. Taylor Pearson also uses pathos to develop this claim, as for he states, "If you care about saving human lives, then you should like nuclear energy". This quote stated by him is trying to appeal to our emotions, as for us humans value our life, since we only live once. People would not want our loved ones to die, nor ourselves, therefore we are obligated to have a tolerance for nuclear power, as for he attempted to persuade us that it's remarkable. The reason he spoke these words is because he proved statistically that deaths by nuclear power is far inferior as opposed to deaths by coal mining.
     This article is not very effective, in my opinion, as for the evidence is strong, but his analysis wasn't. He had the audacity to compare two concepts that were far different from one another, and he expected that to be a worthwhile argument. As for it was surprising to me that a household appliance can pose more of a threat to me than a harmful substance such as nuclear power, these two things don't coincide with one another, which is one of the reasons why it was personally ineffective for me. Not only that, but he mentions the deaths by toasters, coal mining, and oil drilling using logos, and he explains how these statistics are grand in comparison to deaths by nuclear power. With this being said, I believe this is a poor argument, as for a person would not wish for deaths to happen to begin with. It doesn't matter about the number of deaths, but what also matters is the impact of the deaths, and why it happened. This isn't the best way to appeal to our emotions, since we don't want to hear of a negatively connotated word, such as "death". In order for this piece to be effective, there needs to be more evidence since death tolls isn't something we'd want to read. As a person, I can say that reading about death puts me in a depressing mood, as opposed to how I would feel before I read the piece. Maybe others feel the same way as I do, which is why it isn't intelligent to input negatively connotated words in a text that is meant to persuade us to think positively.