Nuclear waste is dangerous just about anyone knows that. But is it really that dangerous or is it simply overstated? The answer to this question is a heated debate that involves everybody from politicians pushing for policy they don’t really understand to scientists who are trying to understand it to the public who take everything they hear as the truth. Honestly, I don’t even know if I can iron out the edges of this frenzied debate. Everyone, and that includes me, has their own perspective of the issue of nuclear waste, and their own idea of what to do about it.
From a first impression, it is clear that Muller sides with the anti-nuke face of the debate. He opens his case in a fury of intense disputes in favor of his view as the introduction to his essay. I must admit, he was very persuasive and persistent on his case when he added questions like “How can we possibly certify that this material can be kept safe for 100,000 years?” (Muller 207). These questions were purposely targeted to push the reader to answer questions that reinforce his position and push them to take action in some way. Muller went further to say that he felt so strongly about his case that he wasn’t even going “to present the facts and just the facts, and let you draw the conclusions”(Muller 209) because the facts only point strongly toward a particular conclusion. In some ways, though, I find that Muller, himself, seems to be suspended amongst the debatable cases. He seems to be convinced of his position on nuclear waste at the start of the essay. But as the essay follows, he presents facts and statistics that contradict his case. He even says that “…the problem isn’t really as hard as I just portrayed it.” (Muller 210) Towards the end of the essay, he challenges his former case again when he reveals his absurd-sounding conclusion that “if the Yucca Mountain facility were at full capacity and all the waste leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed to reach groundwater,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document