After reading the article, I do not know if the author is qualified to write on the subject of nuclear waste disposal. He seems to know what he is talking about but he failed to put the information in any particular order so that his readers will understand what he is trying to say. He proposes a way of disposing nuclear waste but then proceeds to skip around and not connect his thoughts. He needs to think before he writes. Maybe a rough draft or two would help.
The author is trying to propose a method of disposing nuclear waste. He suggests that radioactive waste be incased in lead and then be incased in glass. He says that glass, when properly annealed, would be as hard as steal and virtually indestructible. He also states that the Yucca Mountain Project is not a good choice by telling the reader that on June 14, 2002, a 4.4 earthquake on the Richter scale was experienced. He questioned how safe the site is.
The author has very good points but fails to back them with facts. He makes very good points such as the current method of nuclear waste disposal is
not safe to the environment at all. Currently, the rods are wraped in lead then they incase them in concrete. After that, we store them at the site or dump them in the ocean or the North Dakota Badlands. He also states that in Norway, a hole is dug and the rods are simply dropped into it. The problem with these methods are that their lifespan is roughly about 200 years and then waste begins to leak.
The tone of the article is persuasive. He is trying to convince everyone that his proposal will work. By having a persuasive tone, he than can affect the readers in one strong point.The author tends to use broad generalizations rather then a well thought out analysis.Haddow, like many others, is clearly bias. He believes strongly that he is correct. Writing a biased paper in not wrong but it does not give the other side of the argument which can be a little frustrating if …