In an article entitled “Plastic bags a Major Problem for Marine Wildlife” written by Lori Brown (16 April 2009), the idea of plastic bags harming marine wildlife is explored. The University of Dalhousie performed some research looking at the contents of the stomachs of leatherback turtles, and they found that there were traces of plastic found in more than one-third of the animals that they looked at. In this article, Brown makes a claim that plastic and debris that is not properly disposed of is harming wildlife. She quotes the United Nations Environment Programme, and they state that “Marine litter is one of the most pervasive and solvable pollution problems plaguing the world’s oceans and waterways.” Brown seems to believe in this statement, and she concludes that “a simple solution to the plastic bag issue is, of course, reusable shopping bags”. Although I believe that the claim Brown is making is true, she does not have very many good arguments and evidence to back up her claim.
Brown explains that plastic and other waste products were found in the stomachs of leatherback turtles but she fails to explain the details of this study, leaving the readers wondering where the study was performed, making it unknown where the problem of the litter resides. Brown also does not use any statistics, numbers, or data when she talks about what was found to be harming the marine wildlife, and this makes her claim seem less credible. If the reader does not have hard evidence and facts staring them in the face, they cannot see how much of a problem the management of the plastic waste and waste generated from humans really is. Brown does talk about a report that was recently released from the Ocean Conservancy report,” A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It”, who says that “plastic bags accounted for 12 percent of all marine debris collected during their 23rd annual Coastal Cleanup”. However with this being the only number given, the readers do not know what kind of debris accounted for the rest of the 100 percent found on the Coast, and we are uncertain of how big of a problem plastic debris really is.
Brown gives us advice of what we should be doing to diminish the plastic waste that we are producing, but the only advice she gives us is that we should be using reusable bags instead of plastic bags. Brown mainly talks about the harmful effects of plastic bags on the environment in her article, but she also mentions balloon fragments, fishing lines, candy wrappers, and spoons being found in the stomachs of the turtles that were tested. Because she mentions these others kinds of waste, I believe that she should talk about them a little more and outline some steps of things we should be doing to diminish the harmful effects of these objects too.
The claim that Brown is making is not backed up with very much hard evidence and facts, making it seem less credible to the readers. The issue she talks about is an important one and a very real one to our society, but because she gives no real data to support her ideas and opinions, the impact of what she is saying may be lost on the readers.
References
Brown, L. (2009) Plastic Bags a Major Problem for Marine Wildlife. Live Science, 16 April 2009. http://www.livescience.com/animals/090416-plastic-bags.html. Accessed 27 Sept 2009.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Money: The Real Idea Behind Recycling?
http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against
Throughout my life I have always been taught to recycle as much as I can, as often as I can. I never questioned these teachings because it seemed like the “environmentally friendly” thing to do. However, in Jordan Elias’ article entitled “Recycling: Argument Against”, (September 2009) she challenges this concept by proposing her arguments against the accepted reasons as to why members of society recycle , and by eventually making a claim regarding what she believes is the real idea behind recycling. She states that the general ideas of why we recycle (to help the environment, save resources, cut costs) are in fact not true and attempts to use this evidence to back up her strongest claim. Elias explains:
“I have thought long and hard about the rationale behind recycling, and the only reason I can think of for the hard push made by so many government and private organizations to encourage recycling is this: there are billions of dollars to be made by recycling.” (Elias 2009)
Elias’ tactic to validate this claim is to argue against the common beliefs of why we recycle. She states that first of all, recycled paper actually requires more resources than that of non-recycled paper. She then goes on to suggest that although it is the customary understanding that recycled goods cost less, eventually taxpayers end up paying for the difference. Lastly, she argues that by recycling, we are ultimately doubling our contribution towards environmental pollution.
Not only do I think that the claim is incorrect, but I also believe that the suggested arguments made show no real evidence within them and are unsuitable to solidify this claim. I will share the ideas behind my opinion in the following sections of this blog.
In her first argument, Elias explains that in order to make recycled paper, old paper and fresh pulp must be combined, which then requires a paper plant whose energy derives from burnt coal, oil, or gas. Although this may be a true statement, it does not provide evidence as to why she believes recycled paper requires more resources than non-recycled paper, considering the latter demands even more fresh pulp, as well as a paper plant to produce it. Furthermore, this does not give any support to her idea that the government and large organizations promote recycling for the sole reason that there is big money to be made.
During her second argument, Elias makes notice that although a roll of toilet paper made from recycled materials might be for sale for half a dollar less than a roll of “new” toilet paper, that fifty cents does not make up for the tax dollars being used to pay the recycling programs and the employees at the government-run recycling programs. My perspective on this assumption is that there are no given statistics that actually prove how much of a tax payer’s money goes towards these programs and their employees, as well as the amount of money that is needed to run these operations. Also, even if a consumer chose to purchase a good created from raw materials instead, they are still paying however many tax dollars towards these programs. So why not buy the less inexpensive item? More importantly, I believe that Elias' assumption shows no connection towards her notion that large corporations (including the government) promote recycling because it can make them millions of dollars. Whether she believes that the logic behind her argument is relevant to her claim or not, she never states this anywhere throughout the article.
Throughout her last argument, Elias backtracks to her first argument and simply repeats herself using a different example. She restates that by creating materials from recycled goods, we are consuming substantial amounts of other resources such as oil, gas, and coal. She even concludes this argument by saying that we are actually doubling our contribution to the pollution in our environment because the chain of salvaging recycled materials is never ending. Now it may seem like I am also backtracking and am using the same reasons as to why I disagree with this altercation, but the fact is that this author has just reiterated herself and gave no logical reasoning as to how recycling materials consumes more energy than creating “fresh and new” materials. In reality, utilizing old materials to construct something new alludes to the fact that less “virgin” materials are required; therefore fewer of these energy consuming components need to be produced. When considering the relationship between production and the environment, the lesser the production, the better. Once again, this concept does not apply to her main claim, as there is no relationship between the two.
Elias essentially believes that recycling is a hoax, and defends her theory by stating that this so-called environmentally friendly activity actually increases our resource consumption and contribution to environmental pollution, as well as costs us more money. She uses these arguments as building blocks to stabilize her claim that society is encouraged to recycle in order for the government and corporations to make a profit. Unfortunately, not only do these arguments show a lack of logic, but they also have no connection as to how money can be made from recycling. Although in this day and age money plays a key role in our society, I optimistically believe that the act of recycling is not monetarily beneficial, but is environmentally rewarding. Not only does it reduce our consumption of raw materials, but it has the potential to reprocess something that would have otherwise taken up space in a landfill. I believed this previous to reading this article and Elias was unsuccessful to have me believe otherwise.
Reference
Elias, J. (2009) Recycling: Argument Against. Helium, September 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against. Accessed 21 Sept 2009.
Throughout my life I have always been taught to recycle as much as I can, as often as I can. I never questioned these teachings because it seemed like the “environmentally friendly” thing to do. However, in Jordan Elias’ article entitled “Recycling: Argument Against”, (September 2009) she challenges this concept by proposing her arguments against the accepted reasons as to why members of society recycle , and by eventually making a claim regarding what she believes is the real idea behind recycling. She states that the general ideas of why we recycle (to help the environment, save resources, cut costs) are in fact not true and attempts to use this evidence to back up her strongest claim. Elias explains:
“I have thought long and hard about the rationale behind recycling, and the only reason I can think of for the hard push made by so many government and private organizations to encourage recycling is this: there are billions of dollars to be made by recycling.” (Elias 2009)
Elias’ tactic to validate this claim is to argue against the common beliefs of why we recycle. She states that first of all, recycled paper actually requires more resources than that of non-recycled paper. She then goes on to suggest that although it is the customary understanding that recycled goods cost less, eventually taxpayers end up paying for the difference. Lastly, she argues that by recycling, we are ultimately doubling our contribution towards environmental pollution.
Not only do I think that the claim is incorrect, but I also believe that the suggested arguments made show no real evidence within them and are unsuitable to solidify this claim. I will share the ideas behind my opinion in the following sections of this blog.
In her first argument, Elias explains that in order to make recycled paper, old paper and fresh pulp must be combined, which then requires a paper plant whose energy derives from burnt coal, oil, or gas. Although this may be a true statement, it does not provide evidence as to why she believes recycled paper requires more resources than non-recycled paper, considering the latter demands even more fresh pulp, as well as a paper plant to produce it. Furthermore, this does not give any support to her idea that the government and large organizations promote recycling for the sole reason that there is big money to be made.
During her second argument, Elias makes notice that although a roll of toilet paper made from recycled materials might be for sale for half a dollar less than a roll of “new” toilet paper, that fifty cents does not make up for the tax dollars being used to pay the recycling programs and the employees at the government-run recycling programs. My perspective on this assumption is that there are no given statistics that actually prove how much of a tax payer’s money goes towards these programs and their employees, as well as the amount of money that is needed to run these operations. Also, even if a consumer chose to purchase a good created from raw materials instead, they are still paying however many tax dollars towards these programs. So why not buy the less inexpensive item? More importantly, I believe that Elias' assumption shows no connection towards her notion that large corporations (including the government) promote recycling because it can make them millions of dollars. Whether she believes that the logic behind her argument is relevant to her claim or not, she never states this anywhere throughout the article.
Throughout her last argument, Elias backtracks to her first argument and simply repeats herself using a different example. She restates that by creating materials from recycled goods, we are consuming substantial amounts of other resources such as oil, gas, and coal. She even concludes this argument by saying that we are actually doubling our contribution to the pollution in our environment because the chain of salvaging recycled materials is never ending. Now it may seem like I am also backtracking and am using the same reasons as to why I disagree with this altercation, but the fact is that this author has just reiterated herself and gave no logical reasoning as to how recycling materials consumes more energy than creating “fresh and new” materials. In reality, utilizing old materials to construct something new alludes to the fact that less “virgin” materials are required; therefore fewer of these energy consuming components need to be produced. When considering the relationship between production and the environment, the lesser the production, the better. Once again, this concept does not apply to her main claim, as there is no relationship between the two.
Elias essentially believes that recycling is a hoax, and defends her theory by stating that this so-called environmentally friendly activity actually increases our resource consumption and contribution to environmental pollution, as well as costs us more money. She uses these arguments as building blocks to stabilize her claim that society is encouraged to recycle in order for the government and corporations to make a profit. Unfortunately, not only do these arguments show a lack of logic, but they also have no connection as to how money can be made from recycling. Although in this day and age money plays a key role in our society, I optimistically believe that the act of recycling is not monetarily beneficial, but is environmentally rewarding. Not only does it reduce our consumption of raw materials, but it has the potential to reprocess something that would have otherwise taken up space in a landfill. I believed this previous to reading this article and Elias was unsuccessful to have me believe otherwise.
Reference
Elias, J. (2009) Recycling: Argument Against. Helium, September 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against. Accessed 21 Sept 2009.
On Biodegradable Plastics
In his article Compostable and "Biodegradable" Plastics Provide False Sense of Responsibility, September, 2009 ( http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/compostable-and-biodegradable-plastics-false-security.php ) the author, Adam Lowry, notes an increasing trend in the use of biodegradable plastic in products such as cups and cutlery. He goes on to disapprove of the use of all such products, which are made of polylactic acid and are commonly referred to as PLA plastic. His argument suggests that since PLA products must be composted in order to properly biodegrade, by using them we are giving a false sense of responsibility that we are doing good for the environment when we really aren't, because they may not get composted. He also says that without composting infrastructure, these products are no better than ordinary plastics.
On this front, Lowry makes a connection between PLA’s providing a false sense of responsibility, and failure of the products to make their way into composting systems. But he does so without giving any statistics or supporting evidence to show how often or seldom they are actually composted. One could ask, what percentage of these products aren’t being composted?
He refers to one restaurant in the San Francisco area that uses PLA products, and even admits that these are likely to be composted because San Francisco has mandatory composting laws. But he also suggests that this solution only works because this restaurant happens to be in the only city (in the U.S.) with such laws. Does this mean PLA products in other areas are some how less likely to make it to compost?
Again he has failed to provide any evidence to support his argument, and actually provides an example where PLA products are proving to be an effective way to reduce waste. This is where one of the failures in Lowry’s argument comes from. He takes a stand against the use of PLA products in general, without considering the possibility that they would be able to be composted in any number of different specific areas. I will later show how this is indeed the case.
In the final two paragraphs of his article, Lowry, a designer, goes on to comment that we need to look at a broader model from a designer’s perspective. He suggests that a better model, in which material specification and recovery are coupled on a national or global basis, would lead to the following positive outcomes: more composting infrastructure would develop, and a transition to more biomaterials would result. Lowry fails to recognize that these positive trends are already occurring! This, despite his opening sentence noting the increased use of PLA products! He also fails to recognize that these trends support the further use of PLA products. More households in Canada are using composting programs. According to the Households and the Environment Survey, 27% of Canadian households composted in 2006, compared to 23% in 19941. From 2000 to 2004, the amount of organic waste that was composted in Canada increased by 70% to 1.7 million tonnes2. The average Canadian diverted 51 kg of organic waste from land fills by composting in 2004, compared to 32 kg in 2000. This increase in Canada can be attributed to the introduction of new composting programs and the expansion of existing organics collection programs to accept food wastes3. As the Composting Council of Canada points out on their website (http://www.compost.org/compostinggrowsstronger.html), there continues to be an increase in Canada in the number of cities that include composting programs, such as with curbside pick up, in the number of Canadians who participate in composting, and in the amount of compost materials diverted from land fills, across almost all regions of the country. And as Sarah Amandolare notes in her article, interest in composting has surged in San Francisco, with the amount of compost materials being collected having risen by 15% in recent months, while many restaurants are already avid composters4.
So while Lowry spends time looking for broader, global solutions to waste management, PLA products, coupled with ever-increasing involvement in composting programs, offer an immediate means of reducing waste.
References:
1. Statistics Canada, 2007
2. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008001/10540-eng.htm
3. IBID
4. Amandolare, California's Compost Law Could Spark New Trend,
September 10, 2009, http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/2009/sep/California-s-Compost-Law-Could-Spark-New-Trend-.html
On this front, Lowry makes a connection between PLA’s providing a false sense of responsibility, and failure of the products to make their way into composting systems. But he does so without giving any statistics or supporting evidence to show how often or seldom they are actually composted. One could ask, what percentage of these products aren’t being composted?
He refers to one restaurant in the San Francisco area that uses PLA products, and even admits that these are likely to be composted because San Francisco has mandatory composting laws. But he also suggests that this solution only works because this restaurant happens to be in the only city (in the U.S.) with such laws. Does this mean PLA products in other areas are some how less likely to make it to compost?
Again he has failed to provide any evidence to support his argument, and actually provides an example where PLA products are proving to be an effective way to reduce waste. This is where one of the failures in Lowry’s argument comes from. He takes a stand against the use of PLA products in general, without considering the possibility that they would be able to be composted in any number of different specific areas. I will later show how this is indeed the case.
In the final two paragraphs of his article, Lowry, a designer, goes on to comment that we need to look at a broader model from a designer’s perspective. He suggests that a better model, in which material specification and recovery are coupled on a national or global basis, would lead to the following positive outcomes: more composting infrastructure would develop, and a transition to more biomaterials would result. Lowry fails to recognize that these positive trends are already occurring! This, despite his opening sentence noting the increased use of PLA products! He also fails to recognize that these trends support the further use of PLA products. More households in Canada are using composting programs. According to the Households and the Environment Survey, 27% of Canadian households composted in 2006, compared to 23% in 19941. From 2000 to 2004, the amount of organic waste that was composted in Canada increased by 70% to 1.7 million tonnes2. The average Canadian diverted 51 kg of organic waste from land fills by composting in 2004, compared to 32 kg in 2000. This increase in Canada can be attributed to the introduction of new composting programs and the expansion of existing organics collection programs to accept food wastes3. As the Composting Council of Canada points out on their website (http://www.compost.org/compostinggrowsstronger.html), there continues to be an increase in Canada in the number of cities that include composting programs, such as with curbside pick up, in the number of Canadians who participate in composting, and in the amount of compost materials diverted from land fills, across almost all regions of the country. And as Sarah Amandolare notes in her article, interest in composting has surged in San Francisco, with the amount of compost materials being collected having risen by 15% in recent months, while many restaurants are already avid composters4.
So while Lowry spends time looking for broader, global solutions to waste management, PLA products, coupled with ever-increasing involvement in composting programs, offer an immediate means of reducing waste.
References:
1. Statistics Canada, 2007
2. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008001/10540-eng.htm
3. IBID
4. Amandolare, California's Compost Law Could Spark New Trend,
September 10, 2009, http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/2009/sep/California-s-Compost-Law-Could-Spark-New-Trend-.html
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Powerful Ideas Critique
In the article “Powerful Ideas: Bacteria Clean Sewage and Create Electricity” (31 August 2009) by Charles Q. Choi, the possibility of using bacteria to clean waste is explored. The author states that “microbes could help generate power by cleaning up organic waste at the same time” (Choi 2009) He details discoveries made by the Penn State University’s environmental engineer Bruce Logan and Derek Lovley from the University of Massachusetts. Choi also voices that the possibilities of such a discovery are numerous. However Choi’s article lacks a number of key information that would allow the reader to form an educated opinion on the topic.
Choi’s evidence for his claim are the positive results published by both Logan and Lovley that imply that bacteria can be used to efficiently reduce saline concentration from wastewater while creating usable electricity. He summarizes both scientists on their results, “Geobacter can break down some 90 percent,” (Lovely 2009). However Choi uses evidence that only raise more questions than answer. He frequently uses quotes from the scientists themselves, but fails to elaborate. For example Choi quotes; “Geobacter grows by breaking down organic materials and transferring electrons pretty much onto anything that looks like iron,” (Lovley 2009) however after the statement he does not elaborate on how this would be useful in using bacteria to create energy. He also does not say how the waste organic matter is converted into usable electricity.
Another argument Choi makes is that wastewater would provide an almost limitless supply of energy. He does however state the statistics of energy produced, and recognizes that the energy produced by the bacteria is significantly lower than what is consumed, “they could provide roughly 500 trillion BTUs of energy – an impressive figure until compared with the roughly 100 000 trillion BTUs of energy the United States uses every year.”(Choi 2009) He counters this with the statement that the energy created from cleaning the wastewater of “animal, food industry and domestic wastewaters” (Choi 2009) could render the filtering and treatment processes self sufficient.
Choi then furthers his claims by stating that further advancements in the waste to energy process lie in the genetic engineering of the bacteria. He quotes positive results as evidence, also summarizing briefly, “resulting bacteria all had more hair-like filaments known as pili . . . more pili could lead to even more productive microbes” (Choi 2009). Here is another example of where Choi’s evidence fails to inform but rather raises confusions. He fails to add how pili themselves are related to the conversion of waste to electricity and why it is advantageous to breed these microbes.
Genetically engineering these microbes for commercial use also raises concerns that Choi either does not realize or ignores. For example he does not explore the environmental impact of the genetically engineered microbes if any were accidentally introduced into the surrounding habitat.
I think that Choi makes a reasonable claim, yet is somewhat overly optimistic in his views. He needs back up his ideas with more statistical facts and not leave out any negative effects the bacteria could have. He also needs to choose his evidence with more care rather than randomly quoting the researchers. He however supplies some useful evidence to his arguments. Though many are not sufficient for the readers to decide for themselves whether or not they can believe in a new energy source from bacteria as something they could support. I believe that Choi’s written views are sound however it does not seem like he has considered all sides of the issue, proven by the lack of negative effects or setbacks stated. His article plays more like an advertisement rather than a critical look at up and coming technology.
Reference:
Choi, Q. Peter (2009) Powerful Ideas: Bacteria Clean Sewage and Create Electricity. LiveScience, 31 August 2009. http://www.livescience.com/environment/090831-ideas-germ-power.html. Accessed September 25, 2009.
The Great Nuclear Waste Debate
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html
As oil and natural gas reservoirs continue to decline, the race to find an alternative “green” energy source to power our global society has never been more critical. While efforts are being made to further develop hydro, wind and solar power sources, nuclear energy continues to be an area of intense interest. Unfortunately, one of the major issues with nuclear power is the management of the nuclear waste. Originally, nuclear waste was stored in facilities both above and underground. Now new reprocessing technology offers an alternative to the nuclear waste management dilemma. However, opinions continue to be divided over which strategy is better.
In The New Scientist Short sharp science blog, “Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground?” (19 May 2009), correspondent Phil McKenna criticizes the current direction that the United States is taking in terms of the management of its nuclear waste. McKenna claims that the United States should be directing money and effort towards investing in existing reprocessing technology rather than storing the nuclear waste in storage facilities until more efficient technology is developed. While McKenna does provide evidence to support his claim, the lack of statistical data weakens the impact and persuasiveness of his evidence.
Two main pieces of evidence are presented:
1. Storage facilities are not safe because conditions are less than ideal.
2. Reprocessing technology is a better alternative because weapon grade plutonium is produced.
McKenna attempts to support his claim by questioning the safety of existing facilities and promotes the benefits of reprocessing technologies used in Japan. However, every point he makes is backed up by little evidence which at best provides little if any credible data.
When he questions the safety of storage facilities the only “evidence” he presents is:
“So which is better? Storing spent fuel for decades on end in less than ideal storage conditions while working on developing safer, more efficient reprocessing technology, or reprocessing the fuel today into plutonium rich fuel?”(McKenna 2009)
He makes a statement questioning the safety of storage facilities but provides no actual data to strengthen it. In fact, he adds that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that the storage facilities have had no incidences for the past 20 years. Where he actually provides some numerical proof it contradicts what he is claiming. He mentions that the UK has had some leakage issues with similar facilities but again he doesn’t back it up with actual examples or even numerical statistics.
For his second piece of evidence McKenna also fails to provide significant data or even examples that would give stability and credibility to his evidence. Matthew Bunn, a scientist, claims that existing reprocessing technology is not worth investing in because it is expensive, inefficient and does not produce that much more energy. The only rebuttal McKenna provides is a single sentence stating that the technology can produce weapon grade plutonium. Once again, the evidence that is provided is very limited and lacks any actual facts or certainty.
The main weakness in McKenna’s argument is the strength of his evidence. He provides little numerical data or actual examples of the claims he is making, while only providing actual data and quotes to points that contradict his evidence. The lack of examples and certainty in his evidence weaken his claim and therefore the overall impact of his argument.
References
McKenna, P. (2009) Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground? The New Scientist, Short Sharp Science, 19 May 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2009.
As oil and natural gas reservoirs continue to decline, the race to find an alternative “green” energy source to power our global society has never been more critical. While efforts are being made to further develop hydro, wind and solar power sources, nuclear energy continues to be an area of intense interest. Unfortunately, one of the major issues with nuclear power is the management of the nuclear waste. Originally, nuclear waste was stored in facilities both above and underground. Now new reprocessing technology offers an alternative to the nuclear waste management dilemma. However, opinions continue to be divided over which strategy is better.
In The New Scientist Short sharp science blog, “Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground?” (19 May 2009), correspondent Phil McKenna criticizes the current direction that the United States is taking in terms of the management of its nuclear waste. McKenna claims that the United States should be directing money and effort towards investing in existing reprocessing technology rather than storing the nuclear waste in storage facilities until more efficient technology is developed. While McKenna does provide evidence to support his claim, the lack of statistical data weakens the impact and persuasiveness of his evidence.
Two main pieces of evidence are presented:
1. Storage facilities are not safe because conditions are less than ideal.
2. Reprocessing technology is a better alternative because weapon grade plutonium is produced.
McKenna attempts to support his claim by questioning the safety of existing facilities and promotes the benefits of reprocessing technologies used in Japan. However, every point he makes is backed up by little evidence which at best provides little if any credible data.
When he questions the safety of storage facilities the only “evidence” he presents is:
“So which is better? Storing spent fuel for decades on end in less than ideal storage conditions while working on developing safer, more efficient reprocessing technology, or reprocessing the fuel today into plutonium rich fuel?”(McKenna 2009)
He makes a statement questioning the safety of storage facilities but provides no actual data to strengthen it. In fact, he adds that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that the storage facilities have had no incidences for the past 20 years. Where he actually provides some numerical proof it contradicts what he is claiming. He mentions that the UK has had some leakage issues with similar facilities but again he doesn’t back it up with actual examples or even numerical statistics.
For his second piece of evidence McKenna also fails to provide significant data or even examples that would give stability and credibility to his evidence. Matthew Bunn, a scientist, claims that existing reprocessing technology is not worth investing in because it is expensive, inefficient and does not produce that much more energy. The only rebuttal McKenna provides is a single sentence stating that the technology can produce weapon grade plutonium. Once again, the evidence that is provided is very limited and lacks any actual facts or certainty.
The main weakness in McKenna’s argument is the strength of his evidence. He provides little numerical data or actual examples of the claims he is making, while only providing actual data and quotes to points that contradict his evidence. The lack of examples and certainty in his evidence weaken his claim and therefore the overall impact of his argument.
References
McKenna, P. (2009) Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground? The New Scientist, Short Sharp Science, 19 May 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
