Introduction: “Nuclear Waste”
The danger of nuclear waste, as argued by Muller in his essay “Nuclear Waste,” has been exaggerated by both scientists and politicians, making it a contentious issue. Beginning with a straightforward argument about the increased carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels (p. 252), Richard A. Muller skillfully poses rhetorical questions regarding nuclear debris and its dire consequences. Through statistical analysis, he demonstrates that the human race may face threats in the event of a leakage. This argument unfolds progressively, reaching its culmination when Muller compares the risks associated with fossil fuels, the scientists’ paranoia about disposal, and other formidable alternatives for waste management (p. 259), creating an intriguing narrative.
Moreover, the argument gains cogency and forcefulness as Muller leverages his personal credentials as an academic. This impact is further heightened when he adorns his arguments with effective logos and pathos.
Rhetorical Devices in “Nuclear Waste”
Concerning ethos, Richard Muller employs the first person to introduce himself to the readers, presenting his role as an academic in a university. This approach ensures that Muller’s voice, advising future politicians while assuming the role of a teacher to his students, is perceived as reliable and credible due to his close association with nuclear and nuclear waste-related issues. He reinforces this ethos with forceful logos, utilizing statistics to quantify total available space, the radioactive vulnerability of the material, and the time span involved (p. 252). One particularly interesting fact he presents concerns the probabilities, which do not exceed 1% to 10% in extreme cases (p. 257). This reinforcement of logos not only strengthens his argument but also persuades the readers.
Logos in “Nuclear Waste”
In terms of the role of logos, the premise revolves around the disposal of nuclear waste in the space prepared in Yucca Mountain. The weakness of this premise lies in potential threats: what if there are strong earthquakes, leakages, or seepage of water? In all three cases, Muller presents compelling arguments supported by logical statistics, asserting that no earthquake could cause a significant leakage of any material. He highlights that even currently, uranium is obtained from “a geologically active region, full of faults and fissures” (p. 257), diminishing the weight of the earthquake-related concern.
Moreover, the probability of leakages is deemed implausible, as any potential leakage is already mixed in the Colorado River, whose water is used “for drinking in much of the West” (p. 257). Additionally, the likelihood of groundwater seepage is asserted to be “20 times less than that currently posed by natural uranium” (p. 258). Despite presenting logical and robust responses to these three fears, Muller’s arguments also incorporate a subtle element of pathos, albeit to a minimal extent.
Pathos in “Nuclear Waste”
In terms of pathos, Muller has employed it sparingly compared to logos, given the nature of the subject involving politicians. Nevertheless, he manages to strike emotional chords with his audience by posing rhetorical questions such as “a legacy to our children?” (p. 252) and by expressing concern about the suggestion to throw waste into the sun through a rocket, which he asserts would “Crash back to the earth” (p. 254). Additionally, Muller clarifies that he does not downplay the danger of the problem (p. 258) and insists that he has thoroughly calculated the risks, implying that scientists and politicians are not adequately considering these factors.
Beyond these appeals, Muller incorporates the strategy of using rhetorical questions at various points, including the beginning (p. 252) and the last paragraph (p. 259), where he reveals his true intention behind employing this style of argumentation. Openly stating that the issue is not as significant as portrayed by scientists and politicians, he contends that, when compared with several other concerns, managing nuclear waste appears to be a relatively small but important task that requires careful attention.
Conclusion: “Nuclear Waste”
This concise analysis of ethos, logos, pathos, and the strategic use of rhetorical questions in Muller’s work demonstrates that while he initially presents premises and supporting evidence before explicitly stating his purpose, the objective is effectively realized by the essay’s conclusion or the end of the lecture. Muller subtly incorporates his own opinions through rhetorical questions, engaging the audience and enhancing the forcefulness of his argument.
The strength of his argument becomes particularly apparent towards the end, where he reiterates that acknowledging the threat posed by nuclear waste does not imply overlooking its seriousness. Muller emphasizes that scientists are actively addressing the issue, countering the fear generated by impractical suggestions like disposing of waste on the sun. He contends that even the transportation of waste through concrete cylinders is a safe and credible solution. Consequently, Muller perceives the ongoing public debate and scientific discourse on this matter as ironic, asserting that they should not contribute to unnecessary public paranoia.
Reference: “Nuclear Waste”
Muller, A. R. (2014). Nuclear waste. In Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein (Eds.), They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing (pp. 252-259). W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
Relevant Questions: “Nuclear Waste”
- How does the use of rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) in A. R. Muller’s article “Nuclear Waste” contribute to its persuasive effectiveness, and what impact do these appeals have on the overall rhetorical strategy?
- In the rhetorical analysis of A. R. Muller’s “Nuclear Waste,” how does the author’s choice of language and tone establish credibility and address potential counterarguments, shaping the overall rhetorical approach to the topic?
- What specific rhetorical devices or strategies does A. R. Muller employ in the article “Nuclear Waste” to convey the urgency or significance of the nuclear waste issue, and how do these rhetorical choices influence the audience’s perception and understanding of the problem presented in the text?
