Richard Muller Nuclear Waste Rhetorical Analysis

Richard A. Muller a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, expresses his concerns on the subject of nuclear waste. In his essay, Nuclear Waste, he writes about where the United States stores its nuclear waste, alternative ways to dispose of the waste and whether it would be effective. He also talks about how dangerous the nuclear by-product is, and other dangers regarding civilian’s safety. He effectively explains his concerns through pathos, logos, ethos, and other uses of examples to help readers understand his concerns. He attracts readers by talking about the future generation and their safety against potential nuclear waste contamination.

Muller incorporates pathos in his writing to appeal to the reader’s emotions

“More than 600 hundred earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 and higher have occurred within the 50 miles in the past decade alone (253).” By giving out this information, he indicates that a place that should be a safe zone to store nuclear waste may not be so because of the disturbance to the mountain. This is important because it tells readers of how unsafe the mountain is to store such deadly chemicals. He also adds onto the fear factor by comparing the dangers of nuclear waste, and Colorado’s natural uranium that is still left in the soil with the potential danger of water

He does this to have readers think about reasonable alternative ways to get rid of nuclear waste. According to Muller, “Some scientists have proposed that the waste be put in vessels and sunk under the ocean, in a region where the movement of the Earth’s crustal plates will subduct the material, eventually burying it hundred of miles deep (254).” Even though the suggestion is appealing, we must determine whether the alternative is a safer method than storing the nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains. What if the vessel is destroyed by water pressure as it travels towards the bottom the ocean? This is significant to the element logos because it explains to the readers that even though an alternative storage has been suggested doesn’t particularly guarantee that the waste will be secure and away from civilians. It shows them to weigh the dangers, think reasonably on the storage options, and analysis whether the risk is worth the effect it may cause of changing the location of the nuclear waste. Muller continues to effectively explain his concerns through other examples in his