Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.
In Richard A. Muller’s article “Nuclear Waste,” the author states clearly about how he is against the issues on nuclear waste and how it could pose a risk in society. Muller starts his essay by critiquing his opinion in a very persuasive introduction. He was very persuasive about his opinion when he states his questions about the issue like “How can we possibly make sure that this material is safe and that we can certify this material and it can be kept safe for 100,000 years?” (Muller 207) I think that these questions were purposely stated to enable the reader to answer questions that reinforce his case, and allow them to work towards taking action in some way. I also think it influences the readers and people in general to try and understand the risks of nuclear waste. We as humans need to keep in mind of the risks of nuclear waste, and how radiation could affect one’s health. As Muller have stated, “Children should be concerned about their health because the exposure of radiation can allow them to suffer quicker than adults would.” (Muller 206) Therefore, Muller presents his case with facts and his opinion on how nuclear waste can affect adults and the young as well.
While Richard A. Muller implies his opinion in being against nuclear waste, Muller seems to be convinced that he made a strong position on nuclear waste since the start. Although, I notice