1 4 The Case for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Facility Jim Mallick Camosun College ENGL-151-032: Academic Writing Strategies Tom Nienhuis February 13, 2020 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 f.

1. 1
4
The Case for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage
Facility
Jim Mallick
Camosun College
ENGL-151-032: Academic Writing Strategies
Tom Nienhuis
February 13, 2020
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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.
ENGL 151 Research Essay
Assignment Details
Value: 25% (additional 5% for Draft/Peer Review)
Due Date: Draft—Jun 10
Final—June 19
Length: 1500 words (does not count the references list)
Instructions
Write a 1,500 word argumentative essay in which you
communicate and defend a thesis about a specific topic you
have begun researching over the first four weeks of the term.
While your essay is based on your own opinion about a topic,
the strength of your essay will depend on your ability to
anticipate objections/questions from critical readers and address
them by collecting and integrating supporting evidence from
other texts. As always, I expect your argument to be thorough,
well-reasoned, and concise. Don’t waste space with empty

5. words.
Your analysis should have a strong, clear structure. As a guide,
consider our standard conceptualization of essay format:
· Introduction paragraph containing (among other things) a clear
thesis
· Body paragraphs discussing one aspect of the argument to
support your thesis
· Conclusion paragraph that reminds readers of the thesis and
major supporting ideas
Your essay must be formatted according to APA 7th edition
guidelines, and you must cite both quotations and paraphrasing
in APA style, which includes a References list.
Research
You must incorporate information from a minimum of five
reliable and appropriate sources in your essay, at least one of
which must be a scholarly article from the Camosun library
database. Texts providing only general information (eg.
dictionaries, encyclopedias, wikis) are not appropriate sources.
Web resources from reliable sources (eg. American Medical
Association, Statistics Canada) can be valuable, but extreme
caution should be used when defining “reliable”. If you’re in
doubt, discuss with other students and/or contact me.
Academic Honesty
Remember, plagiarism is a very serious offence. All borrowed
material must be cited using APA style, and any paraphrasing
must be significantly re-worded from the original material.
I expect you to limit the length of your quotations (all under 40
words long).

6. Essay Draft: Process and Grading
1. On Wednesday, June 10, before 12:00pm (noon), you will
submit a draft of your research essay to the Essay Draft Drop
Box on our D2L page. Your draft should be
· a complete essay that may lack the polish of a final draft
· fully cited in APA style, including in-text citations and a
references list
· formatted in APA style (see sample on D2L)
· submitted without your name on it (don’t include it on the title
page)
2. I will email you another student’s draft by 5:00pm the same
day, and you will use the Peer Review Guide to give feedback
on the student’s essay. The review process should only take 60
minutes max (that’s how long I give my students when we do
this in class).
3. You will submit your feedback to the Peer Review Drop Box
on D2L before Thursday, June 11, at 5:00pm.
The draft will be graded on a pass/fail basis. Failing to submit a
complete draft or complete the peer review on time will result
in a grade of 0 (a loss of 5% of your overall grade in the
course).
Final Copy: Process and Grading
1. Submit the final copy of your research essay to the Final
Essay Drop Box on June 19 before 11:59pm. It must be
formatted and cited according to APA 7th edition guidelines.
The final essay will be graded according to the Research Essay
rubric posted on D2L.

7. 2
Grade Component (Weight)
Unacceptable/Not Addressed (<50%)
Well Below Expectations (50-59%)
Developing Toward Expectations (60-69%)
Meets Expectations (70-80%)
Exceeds Expectations (81%+)
Structure and Organization (30%)
-Strong, clear topic sentence in all body paragraphs
-Body paragraphs unified (stay on one topic) and coherent (flow
with clear logic)
-Introduction grabs readers’ attention, makes readers familiar
with the topic, and provides a thesis
-Thesis clearly articulates a specific argument and sets out the
major supporting ideas (the focus of the body paragraphs)
-Conclusion re-states the thesis, summarizes the argument,
wraps up in a satisfying way
APA Citation, Format, Requirements (10%)
-Paper Format: Title page, font, spacing, header, page numbers
are all correct; word count is near 1500
-In-text citation: Sufficient, formatted correctly
-References List: Entries constructed correctly; list formatted
correctly
-Sources: At least five, at least one scholarly source, all
reliable, high-quality sources

8. Argument (30%)
-Claims supported with sufficient, high-quality evidence
-Evidence is integrated into the text smoothly and creatively
-Evidence is thoroughly analyzed and explained
-Writer draws logical conclusions from evidence
-Writer considers counterarguments (implicitly or explicitly)
Style and Clarity (15%)
-Free from informal language (slang, colloquialism,
contractions, 1st and 2nd person)
-Sentence construction is sound and varied
-Appropriate transitions smoothly connect sentences, and/or
indicate their relationship
-Writer chooses words accurately and appropriately
-Writing is concise (no wordiness) and precise (no vagueness)
Grammar/Mechanics (15%)
-Free from fragments, comma splices, fused sentences
-Free from spelling errors
-Free from major grammatical errors (agreement errors, tense
errors)
-Nearly free from minor grammatical errors (ie. No significant
impact on readability)

9. -Punctuation is used properly (very few minor errors)