Nuclear Waste Muller Summary

The Institute for Energy and Environment offered and alternative in 1999 for the management of nuclear waste. For short term storage the Institute for Energy and Research (IEER) recommended nuclear waste should be stored as near and safely as possible from where it was produced. IEER suggests that the sites need to be dry and as close as possible to the place where the waste was generated to avoid a potential terrorist disaster. The funding for the extra storage on the site should come from the Federal Governments Nuclear Waste Fund. For short term storage the Institute for Energy and Environment Research (IEER) recommended nuclear waste should be stored as near and safely as possible from where it was produced. IEER suggests that the sites need to be dry and as close as possible to the place where the waste was generated to avoid a potential terrorist disaster. The funding for the extra storage on the site should come from the Federal Governments Nuclear Waste Fund. Many repositories should be looked and studied for more than a decade and none prioritized. Finding a permanent and safe solution is very difficult and would require a lot of time because of the want for good science (Ledwidge,

Einstein conveys that bombs that can be created can change the future. It mentioned in the letter that,”...leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source energy in the immediate future.” This states that it can lead to

The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed plans to deposit 70,000 tons of highly radioactive waste underground Yucca Mountain in Nevada. While many environmental questions and concerns have been raised about the safety of the waste disposal plan for the next 10,000 years, there appears to be no alternative. Waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are a serious environmental problem that will be present for generations to come. It should be society's responsibility to come up with more efficient sources of energy, despite the costs, to prevent the production of more hazardous waste in the future.

The discovery of rainwater and chlorine-36 made opponents sure that the project could never be viable. After a long fight, Yucca Mountain was taken “off the table” (Brown). The Obama administration withdrew approval of the project in 2009. However, in his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama insisted that “a need to [build] a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” exited (Koch).

The word “Nuclear” instills fear in the general American public’s mind. The simple utter of said word brings memories of huge mushrooms clouds and destruction, or the thought of communism and 50 years of an uncertain, yet terrifying Cold War. Whatever it may be the fact of the matter is that Americans are extremely afraid of anything that has the word Nuclear in it. In the article “Nuclear Waste” published in 2008 by physics professor, and winner of the MacArthur Fellowship award, Richard Muller claims that storing nuclear waste under the Nevada Yucca Mountains can prove to be a safe and efficient way to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Muller supports his argument by first providing the reader with the anti-nuke

In 1982, Congress passed the nuclear waste policy act that said the Department of Energy (DOE) was to build and operate a repository for used nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste (NEI). The DOE had until 1998 to find a location and build a site. In 1987, the nuclear waste policy act was amended and the DOE was told to study the Yucca Mountains only because it was a remote desert location (NEI). Even thought it is a desert location it still affects the nearby civilizations. The federal government in 2008 filed a construction license application to

Nuclear power is an alternative source of energy that has been gaining ground as an alternate for fossil fuel. This creation of power, like other forms, has negative impacts in the form of waste it produces. This waste is nuclear adding an increased danger in its disposal. The threat and benefits of nuclear power has allowed it to become a topic of political discussion, the reason being a proposed waste sight in the Yucca Mountains. This controversy is difficult because it has two sides that contradict each other. In the case of Hillary Clinton, a democrat, her opposition to the creation of the waste site is due to lack of scientific information of the dangers of it. On the other hand, republican candidate, Rand Paul is for the use of nuclear

The need for a permanent and efficient depository for nuclear waste was a growing problem in the United States. The federal government had failed to administer the issue over the storage of our nuclear wastes. Despite efforts to recycle and reuse nuclear fuel, it presented another problem. Myers (1986) explains that this process isolates the plutonium

Lecture 2 talks about nuclear energy and weapons and their impact on society. Overconfidence and too much optimism inhibit clear thinking and allow an avoidance in realizing the negative consequences and unpleasant ideas in the world. Also vital to understand is the concept that science and reality are not identical. Science describes reality, whereas our ideas reality are biased albeit unique. The fusion bomb, first created in 1952, is equal to 10 to 50 megatons of dynamite. It is 500 to 2500 times more powerful than the earlier created fission bomb. The fission bomb, as well as nuclear power plants, split large atoms into smaller atoms in order to create energy. The fusion bomb creates its larger energy by doing the reverse process. The

In response to the potential scientific perjury, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff issued a report in 2006 concluding that the Yucca Mountain depository site has consistently been proven in scientific studies to be an appropriate location for the disposal of nuclear waste (Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet, 2006). Later that same year, the DOE announced contracts with multiple private laboratories and scientific associations for the purpose of conducting expert scientific review of the Yucca Mountain project (DOE, 2006). Despite the efforts made by the DOE to legitimize the science behind their project, the planned repository still faced questions regarding the quality of science behind it by the State of Nevada and other Congressional members. The Yucca Mountain project remained the nation’s answer to nuclear waste until the Obama Administration took over the Executive branch in 2008, and in 2009, had announced the discontinuation of the Yucca Mountain project amid scientific uncertainty and growing political and public pressure (Government Accountability Office). Making this announcement a reality, in 2010 the DOE filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw the Yucca Mountain project licensing application, of which the NRC had almost

H.G. Wells predicted the project happening in a book long before the project had started. In the book it showed the power and how nuclear weapons will end society and it is extremely dangerous most people thought H.G. wells did not predict it he inspired the scientist to make

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has been safely storing and disposing radioactive wastes since 1979. The WIPP is located in Carlsbad, New Mexico and could be potentially harmful to future populations. The nuclear waste is held approximately 2,157ft below the Earth’s surface, and within the layers of the Salado Formation. If the WIPP does form into a nuclear and radioactive disposal plant, then we will need to warn future populations about the hazardous waste that will remain in New Mexico for the next ten thousand years. The main goal of creating a solution for this problem would be to protecting the future population of New Mexico and the United States.

Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.

It is estimated that at today’s rate of consumption, the earth has about fifty years left of fossil fuels. In contrast, due to the very small amount of uranium needed to create a huge amount of energy, the supply of nuclear energy is almost infinite [Jiskha].

Finney and Edwards raise concerns over this component of the Anthropocene. The emphasis on the beginning of the Anthropocene ignores the geological strata, which is a major component to its validity as an official epoch. According to Finney and Edwards, the Anthropocene overly emphasizes the beginning of this potential epoch, not its contents. The focus on the start leads to “the opinion that geological time scales are defined solely by their beginnings” (Finney and Edwards, 7). According to the AWG, the suggested start for the Anthropocene is 1945 (Finney and Edwards, 7). An indicator for this date is “the human human-caused atomic detonations” that resulted in the spread of atomic radiation across the planet (Zalasiewicz et al., 2230). In defining the Anthropocene based on its cause and date, and using the definition as grounds for justification as a geological time unit is where Finney and Edwards find fault. Also, the core of the concept centers at being a human caused event, which can be used to socially and politically sway