Rhetorical Analysis Of Nuclear Waste By Richard Muller

However, near the end of the essay, it seems that Muller changes his position and points out that the possibility of “if all the nuclear waste was to be leaked and managed to get in lakes and rivers, and oceans; the risks imposed would be 20 times less than other wastes such as uranium that could impose a threat.” (Muller 212) From what I believe, I think that the author knows that his position does not exactly put out a good argument. By Muller addressing that nuclear waste leakage is 20 times less than uranium leakage, he is saying that nuclear waste is safe. This may cause people to be confused by the fact that Muller states that is anti-nuke about nuclear waste.

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

Highly radioactive waste disposal has become one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear technology. As the amount of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from defense-related processing plants has continued to mount, the issue has become increasingly contentious and politicized.2 The politicization of this issue is especially evident in the site selection process of a permanent national repository for the disposal of highly radioactive waste.

This is demonstrated in the idea that the most harmful effects could be prevented by hiding in concrete bases. As a result of being in the dark about the power of nuclear weapons, people were constantly in fear. This lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons and the amount of planning in preparation of deploying a nuclear weapon along with the constant fear also caused people to be irrationally fearful about “willy nilly” deployments of nuclear weapons on the US such that schools even would hold nuclear war drills like schools hold fire, earthquake, or lock-in drills today to prepare people for such an event when the time came. This fear was multiplied by the successful string of launches of multiple generations of Sputnik by the Soviet Union which reinforced Americans’ fears of imminent nuclear

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has been safely storing and disposing radioactive wastes since 1979. The WIPP is located in Carlsbad, New Mexico and could be potentially harmful to future populations. The nuclear waste is held approximately 2,157ft below the Earth’s surface, and within the layers of the Salado Formation. If the WIPP does form into a nuclear and radioactive disposal plant, then we will need to warn future populations about the hazardous waste that will remain in New Mexico for the next ten thousand years. The main goal of creating a solution for this problem would be to protecting the future population of New Mexico and the United States.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

Although the first nuclear weapons were relatively small, with yields equivalent to approximately 20,000 tons of dynamite, they nonetheless shocked the world, setting off an arms and energy race that would last for decades. Today, the United States sits on top of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers dominate the oceans, and over 100 nuclear power plants supply nearly 20% of the nation’s power supply (Bayh & Gregg, 2014). All of this nuclear production produced tremendous amounts of nuclear waste.

The 9/11 attacks were among the deadliest attacks ever committed against the United States, whereby nearly 3,000 people where killed instantly. Yet what’s more shocking is that these atrocities were committed without the use of nuclear material. Fear of biochemical nuclear waste attack and its potential to cause unimaginable harm are among the biggest concerns in the nation. As a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley Richard Muller, in his article entitled “Nuclear Waste” addresses the topic of nuclear waste and its storage at Yucca Mountain. Muller argues that society should question the validity of information being presented as it pertains to the safety of nuclear waste. He supports this notion by highlighting the rigorous process involved in safely transporting nuclear waste, while noting that demanding100% safety in life is impossible. Muller presents his arguments in a cohesively well construct tone, supported with statistics and a touch of sarcasm thus lending to credibly to the information. Ultimately, Muller’s purpose is to inform the average reader of the true dangers associated with nuclear waste, while highlighting human’s exposure to natural occurring nuclear waste as well as exploring logical ways of safely securing these byproducts. Consequently, Muller challenges his readers to not let the fears of the unknown get in the way of being able to make sound judgment as it would lead to

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

Hazardous waste and its proper disposal have become a major sociological problem today due to its capability of contaminating the area in which we live and its potential to be lethal to all living things. In order for the United States and the rest of the world to save itself from a potentially life threatening problem they must fix the causes which lead to the improper disposal of hazardous wastes and like materials. Some reasons that hazardous waste has become a problem in the United States today is due to the breakdown in enforcing laws for the proper disposal of such wastes, a lack of initiative on big companies behalf to spend money on proper disposal, and the ease of disposing of such wastes illegally.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

The problem with nuclear waste is getting worse everyday while we try and find a solution to dispose of the waste properly, however there are some people who think that the nuclear waste project for waste disposal is not that serious and it does not have an affect on the environment, but they are wrong because our lack of care for proper disposal of nuclear waste is having a tole on the environment where the waste is buried and the life forms around these waste sites.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?