Nuclear Safety Is Not a Cut-and-Dried Issue

Frank from Florida writes:  How can a pro-nuke person honestly say that he or she is “concerned for our descendants and all species around us?” Don’t they know that after a nuclear accident it takes generations for living things to come back and thrive? If you’re someone who is concerned about what you say you are, you really need to do some homework on what happens when nuclear goes wrong.  Of all the types of energy we could be using, nuclear is not the cheapest by any means, and is the most dangerous of all to choose from. In my humble opinion nuclear is just wrong; it’s too costly and way too dangerous.

Proponents claim that nuclear is very safe by comparison to other forms of energy, and they’re right in the sense that there have been very few deaths directly caused by accidents.  However, of course:

• The ultimate result of Fukishima is still unknown.

• There is no telling how many more disasters will take place as the older reactors continue to operate long past their planned dates for decommission.

• What happens when we have a huge earthquake here in California near our plant at Diablo Canyon, which is very close to four main fault-lines (one of which, less than half a mile away, was discovered as recently as 2008)?

• We still have no acceptable place to dispose of our nuclear waste.

• Nuclear power based on U238 has the potential to be turned into weapons of mass destruction, a notion that is getting scarier every year as the sanity of the world continues to diminish.

Yet, some extremely bright people believe that it’s absolutely necessary if we are to avoid the full brunt of climate change and the other eco-calamities associated with fossil fuels.  Bottom line: As the title suggests, it’s not a cut-and-dried issue.