Muller's Essay: The Nuclear Waste Debate
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
…show more content…
It was odd because Muller doesn’t seem to uphold his case as strongly as before. Even though I don’t have a precise position on the nuclear waste debate, I thought it was interesting to note that the author didn’t have a clear position either. Once I had completely read his essay, I confirmed my idea that the author doesn’t pinpoint his position on the case. It’s obvious that he dislikes nuclear waste, especially when he presents his case with utmost persuasion. But he never really tells what he feels that we should do. He only tells the readers what he thinks politicians and scientists are thinking or doing wrongly. He describes the wrongdoings of how people are handling nuclear waste and how it is making people more worried than they need to be. He asks, “Why are we worrying about transporting nuclear waste? Ironically, we have gone to such lengths to ensure the safety of the transport that the public thinks the danger is greater than it really is” (Muller 213). But isn’t that exactly what he is doing when he constantly pushes his case generating an incredulous case of how bad nuclear waste
It was odd because Muller doesn’t seem to uphold his case as strongly as before. Even though I don’t have a precise position on the nuclear waste debate, I thought it was interesting to note that the author didn’t have a clear position either. Once I had completely read his essay, I confirmed my idea that the author doesn’t pinpoint his position on the case. It’s obvious that he dislikes nuclear waste, especially when he presents his case with utmost persuasion. But he never really tells what he feels that we should do. He only tells the readers what he thinks politicians and scientists are thinking or doing wrongly. He describes the wrongdoings of how people are handling nuclear waste and how it is making people more worried than they need to be. He asks, “Why are we worrying about transporting nuclear waste? Ironically, we have gone to such lengths to ensure the safety of the transport that the public thinks the danger is greater than it really is” (Muller 213). But isn’t that exactly what he is doing when he constantly pushes his case generating an incredulous case of how bad nuclear waste