Monday, April 6, 2015
The Future of Nuclear Waste
In Richard Mullers' article Nuclear Waste, he argues that nuclear waste is going to be one of the toughest issues that future presidents will face. Muller also raises some interesting questions on the safety of nuclear disposal. As someone who knows nothing about the topic, I found his argument to be ineffective. There were just too many science and math terms such as half-life for me to really get interested in his argument. If Muller would have stuck to layman's terms, then I think that I could have grasped his message a little better. Even though his argument failed to lead me to a conclusion on what I think about nuclear waste, I must admit that the article did make the future sound a little scary. From the second I read the word "danger" in the first sentence I immediately pictured a future full of post-Chernobyl disaster conditions. Besides the instilling of danger, Muller's argument didn't really do anything for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, the use of physics confuses a reader because not everyone is able to comprehend what those terms mean. I was really into the article but then as soon as he started talking about these number I was completely confused. I wouldn't be able to agree with his argument because it is hard to even understand what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was hard to follow but we should understand the dangers of it.
ReplyDeleteSo it seems like he didn't write this article with an English 5 class in mind as the audience. Keep that in mind if you think about throwing lots of numbers and physics into your own essays.
ReplyDelete