The article, Nuclear Waste, by Richard Muller discusses the dangers of nuclear waste and his criticism of how important figures are handling the situation. Nuclear waste is the leftover nucleus of elements that were split and the result of nuclear fuel. Muller explains that because of the nuclear waste's half life we are left to decide where to place this waste, resulting in various debates. Muller criticizes that people are not considering the effect of placing the nuclear waste in the deepest parts of the earth. Instead of focusing on guaranteeing that the nuclear waste will be kept safe and isolated for 10,000 years, Muller makes the argument that people shouldn't just focus on absolute containment. Muller claims that we have to just account for 1% that all wastes should leak out making the storage problem seem tractable.
Overall I believe Muller's argument to be very persuasive and reasonable. He makes very effective claims by using factual evidence and statistical analysis. Muller takes account some of the other ideas by people used to solve the nuclear waste issue and critiques them. The article follows the cause and effect organization, giving a background of the subject before going into detail. Muller uses his own research to come up with a solution that instead of accounting for an absolute containment of 10,000 years; we should just focus on a more feasible answer such as guaranteeing leakage every 300 years. The article "Nuclear Waste" by Richard Muller uses many examples to support his claim and its effectiveness shows throughout the article. That's all for today. This is Leonard Yalong, signing off!!!
It is crazy how he says the Colorado River which the west coast drinks water from is in more danger than storing the Nuclear waste. If that is true I hope it never affects our water system.
ReplyDelete