Research essay

The Case for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Facility

In Richard A. Muller’s (2014) lecture “Nuclear Waste,” he presents his argument in favour of a consolidated response to nuclear waste disposal in America. The Yucca Mountain “prototype nuclear waste facility” has escaped consensus, mostly due to concern from cost, disaster mitigation, and longevity (Muller, 2014, p. 253). Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkley, provides his argument for the facility to non-science students in the form of a course lecture. He aims to educate by dispelling some common misinformation around the issue of nuclear waste. Despite an effective approach to dampening the pathos on an issue famously steeped in political turmoil and emotional judgement, Muller misses an opportunity to effectively use his stature and expertise to present a clear, logical argument in favour of the toxic waste facility at Yucca Mountain.

Muller uses the emotional tendency of his opponents to his advantage in his opening statements. By displaying their fear-based counter-argument and matching “at least part of their passion” for questioning any nuclear waste policy, he causes the reader to take pause and check their own emotional bias before proceeding (Muller, 2014, p. 254). He effectively shows that he understands the argument and is prepared to counter it in a more sane and logical way. To do this, he uses devices that are normally reserved for eliciting emotional responses, referencing obscene costs, warning of frequent earthquakes and imploring the reader to please think of the children (Muller, 2014, pp. 252-253). When he then confesses that he is merely “reproducing the anti-nuke argument,” he allows his readers, the potential future Presidents of the United States, to take pause and ingest the truth in his argument: “The waste is there, and you will have to do something about it” (Muller, 2014, p. 254).

After an effective introduction, Muller has the chance to use his expertise as an accomplished physicist and notable deep-thinker to his advantage, but he fails to prove his credentials have merit. By implying that the problem-solver must “understand the physics,” the underlying suggestion is that Muller himself is best suited to finding a resolution (2014, p. 254). Throughout the article to follow, he fails to provide a physicist’s argument. Moreover, he neglects to prove to the reader that a physicist is the best person to resolve the issue. Chemists, geologists, and civil engineers are some among a long list of professionals who could provide a reasonable argument for or against the waste disposal facility in question. He implores the reader to trust that by “discussing Yucca Mountain with scientists, politicians, and many concerned citizens” he is qualified to speak for them (Muller, 2014, p. 255). Worse yet for his argument, he disagrees with the experts and decision-makers in question (Muller, 2014, p. 255).

The bulk of Muller’s lecture hinges on his logical argument, and this is where his statistics and figures begin to confuse his readers. Since he has “[worked] out the numbers,” the reader should expect well-reasoned, scientific evidence for Yucca Mountain (Muller, 2014, p. 254). Instead, he relies on theoretical statistics. He launches into an unnecessary re-imagining of the risk analysis, proclaiming the merits of downgrading the expectations for the holding facility to a more reasonable one percent risk over 300 years (Muller, 2014, p. 256). Conspicuously absent from his argument is an analysis of the health and environmental effects of contamination. Risk statistics quickly break down when the costs are loss of human life or degradation of the surrounding environment. Adding to this, he muses whether there could be “a sufficiently large earthquake” to allow “100% of the waste to escape” (Muller, 2014, p. 257). He does not answer this question, and he neglects to take into account the unforecastable nature of tectonics. He leads the reader to conclude that they should accept a higher risk, instead of seizing an opportunity to focus on the effectiveness of the containment technology in the face of a destructive event (Muller, 2014, p. 257).

The success in Muller’s lecture is in his ability to pull it away from the emotional reactions that can accompany this polarizing issue. Though lacking in his argument, Muller is correct in his assessment. Nuclear waste exists, and those responsible for its safe disposal have some difficult and necessary decisions to make (Muller, 2014, p. 254). Sensationalist journalism and politics keep a reactionary public undecided while temporary measures fail to provide safe, permanent solutions for nuclear waste. Given his credentials, Muller could have provided effective and logical information to his audience. Instead, his argument meanders as he provides confusing risk statistics and ineffective comparisons. While politicians, scientists, and analysts continue to argue, the military complex and nuclear power producers in America continue to temporarily stockpile their waste around the country, waiting for consensus from experts like Muller.

Word Count: 773

References

Muller, R. A. (2014). Nuclear waste. In G. Graff & C. Berkenstein, They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (pp. 252-259). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.