Site Loader

The consequences of this accident were and still are terrible for people and the environment in Ukraine and in surrounding countries. Furthermore, recent consequences of earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan at Fuchsia nuclear plant increase the importance Of the scientific debate against nuclear power, and force people around the world to come out against the nuclear power. People using nuclear power cannot control the whole process of its generation, as well as they do not know what to do with nuclear waste. Since we have nuclear waste, we are facing the necessity of disposing it.

Mueller notes that storing clear waste will not seem such unacceptable if we evaluate the danger of waste storage in comparison with two other dangers: the danger of the uranium originally mined, and the danger of the natural uranium left in the soil. The point is that we cannot guarantee the absolute security, but even the nature cannot; and the possible waste leakage is not a kind of danger that cannot be minimized. In order to support his claim and connect the arguments, Mueller uses a variety of rhetorical strategies.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Although his authority, logical arguments, facts and evidences effectively corroborate his viewpoint, my feelings on this topic are mixed. On the one hand, I agree that the existent problem should be solved, and the solution should be based on a scientific ground, not on publics fears. On the other hand, my personal background makes me consider his pure scientific arguments, which are mostly based on the theory of probability, inadequate, and his small percentage of the risk of leakage unconvincing. Understand that the problem is so complicating that nobody can find the solution with absolute safety, but also know that even a small possibility of unfavorable issue can lead tragic consequences. The truth is that share all publics fears around nuclear power. This problem touches me emotionally, and makes me recall all those real life stories about victims of Coherently tragedy.

I lived in Ukraine when Coherently disaster happened. In that time Ukraine was the part of Soviet Union; in accordance with politics that communist party conducted, we were limited of any information. Therefore, we even did not know that one of the nuclear reactors exploded on that tragic day April 26, 1986. The government did not provide the evacuation of people in time, and thousands of them got the radiation sickness. The consequences were terrible: many people died, many people tot incurable diseases, and generations of children were born with different genetic deviations. The thirty-kilometer area around the nuclear plant is still “dead”. The nuclear reactor was burned under the concrete sarcophagus, but there are still a lot of problems concerning it. There should pass hundreds of years before everything goes back to the norm.

Scribe my subjective feelings regarding nuclear power which are based on my personal experience, and on my fears. The author’s attitude to this problem is more objective. He throws away all fears and considers only scientific facts. He rites his lecture in a form of an appeal to a future president and at the beginning he briefly describes the nuclear waste problem from the anti-nuke position. This problem seems so intractable that it is insanity to continue producing nuclear power. We have a huge amount of waste and do not have an acceptable way to dispose it.

The scientists’ proposition such as send the waste into the sun or bury it hundreds of miles deep under the ocean shows how severe the problem is. The other suggestion to story the waste within Yucca Mountain 1 000 feet below the surface seems also unacceptable cause nobody can guarantee a safe Of its storing during the next 1 00,000 years; during this period the radiation will remain at a dangerous level for human society. Actually, it would have made sense to claim an absolute security if we had considered these alternatives before generating the waste but ‘the waste is there, and we will have to do something with it” (208).

Mueller emotionally confesses that he cannot set aside and just present facts, he needs to present his evaluation because “the dangers of storing our waste at Yucca Mountain to be small compared to the danger of not doing so, and significantly smaller than many other dangers we ignore” (208). The author is a professor of physics at the University at Berkeley, and a winner of the MacArthur Fellowship, often referred to as a “genius” award and earns the audience?s respect because his knowledge of a topic, his understanding of physics.

He notes that public is afraid of the nuclear waste and the radiation because of a scientific racket regarding this problem. Most of us either know nothing about the nuclear waste such as plutonium and strontium-90 or know a little that is enough for raising new fears but not enough for a deep understanding. Although his viewpoint is based on his deep knowledge in physics, I cannot accept his claim that there is no reason in additional research.

He says,”More research is demanded, but every bit of additional research seems to rise new question that exacerbate the publics fear and distrust’ (209). I think that the nuclear waste problem is so serious that all possible research should be made in order to find the best solution. Also a logical presentation of the facts and figures persuades us in his rightness. Mueller explains the nature of these elements and their danger for people using numbers, mathematical calculations and method Of imprison. His argumentation is built in the way that even non-science students can easily understand it.

He argues that the problem looks intractable when we consider it in the way of an absolute security during 10,000 years period when fission fragments “decay back to the radioactive level of the mined uranium” (209). He suggests the other way of evaluating the dangers by setting a more reasonable goal, calculating a reasonable risk of the waste leakage as he did “assuming the linear hypothesis-that total cancer risk is independent of individual doses or dose rate” (210), and impairing the danger of waste storage to the danger of the uranium originally mined, and to the danger of the natural uranium left in the soil.

He notes that “when you think about it this way, the storage problem begins to seem tractable” (209). At the present time people cannot refuse nuclear power, because nuclear power provides electricity for a significant percentage of the population. We built new nuclear plants, increase the production of nuclear energy, and do not think about inordinate high price we can pay for it. There are thousands of nuclear plants around the world, and even a tragic accident on the one of hem makes the world society think about expedient of use of nuclear power as a main source of electricity.

Post Author: admin


I'm Tamara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out