How did the described volcanoes in Iceland and the Philippines ...

[ARLKQ]

How did the described volcanoes in Iceland and the Philippines change the environment to lesser or greater extents?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Global climate change has been cited by nuclear power proponents as one of the most important justifications for further development of the nuclear power option.
 
  Give reasons for their belief, and then site some reasons that would counter their argument.

[Tabitha_2016]

Answer to Question 1

The volcanic eruption in Iceland had less impact on humans and the environment compared to that in the Philippines because it did not have large lava flows and mudslides associated with it. However, the eruption in Iceland did cause the skies in the vicinity to be filled with ash (disrupting air traffic) and ash covered the ground, affecting grazing animals.
The eruption in the Philippines, thankfully, was predicted, and an evacuation of humans took place. It did, however, have destructive and long-term effects beyond those seen in Iceland because of the accompanying mudslides that it produced.

Answer to Question 2

Nuclear power plants, unlike coal-, gas-, and petroleum-fired electrical power plants, do not produce greenhouse gases. Although this is true, the consequences to humans and the environment resulting from an uncontrolled release of radiation could be viewed as at least as severe as the consequences from global climate change. The need to isolate the waste products from a nuclear power plant for a half million years may be viewed as equally or more problematic than global climate change.

[ARLKQ]

Thank you

[Tabitha_2016]

No problemo