Opinion Stage

It is only one of the ways forward. If someone with a common sense head becomes president, maybe we will have an honest step by step approach to our energy needs. Shouldn't we use what God has given us abundantly before we go spending our tax dollars on unproven technologies? Common sense. That's all it takes.

The production of nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas, and that is why many experts believe that expanding the use of nuclear power is the only way to reduce global warming while producing the energy the world requires. Moreover, nuclear power plants release much less radiation to the environment around them than other power plants do.

My reasons why I don't see it as the way forward:
Three Mile Island – March 28, 1979 A cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in a reactor, resulting in a limited off-site release of radioactivity over a multi-state area. Doses off-site were less than normal background radiation.

Goiania Accident – September 13, 1987 Four people died and six received some doses of radiation from an abandoned highly radioactive medical teletherapy source that ruptured.

Windscale Pile – October 10, 1957 A fire in a reactor core resulted in a limited off-site release of radioactivity. Radioactive dust was detected in Belgium, Germany and Norway. It caused an estimated 200 cases of cancer in Britain.

Chalk River Nuclear Accident – 1952 The first-ever accident at a nuclear reactor. A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several worker errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output. Former President Jimmy Carter, then a U.S. Navy officer based in Schenectady, New York, was among those dispatched by the U.S. to help in the emergency response.

Soviet Submarine K-431 Accident – August 10, 1985 The Echo II class Soviet submarine K431 suffered a massive explosion during refueling in Vladivostok, Russia. The explosion produced a radioactive cloud of gas into the air. Ten sailors were killed in the incident and 49 people were observed to have radiation injuries with with 10 developing radiation sickness. Moreover of the 2,000 involved in cleanup operations, 290 were exposed to high levels of radiation compared to normal standards.

Mayak Nuclear Plant – September 29, 1957 The failure of the cooling system for a tank storing tens of thousands of tons of dissolved nuclear waste resulted in a chemical (non-nuclear) explosion having a force estimated at about 75 tons of TNT (310 gigajoules), which released some 2 million curies of radioactivity over 15,000 sq. miles affecting at least 200 people died of radiation sickness, 10,000 people were evacuated from their homes, and 470,000 people were exposed to radiation. Victims were seen with skin ‘sloughing off’ their faces, hands and other exposed parts of their bodies.

Chernobyl Disaster – April 26, 1986 A nuclear reactor located at a power plant in Chernobyl experienced a steam explosion and fire that caused a meltdown, releasing massive quantities of radioactive material. A significant fraction of the reactor core inventory was released, and contaminated areas of Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. There were widespread health and environmental effects.

Fukushima Disaster – March 11, 2011

Fleurus, Belgium - 2006 Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation.

Tokaimura, Japan – 1999 An accident at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura exposed 55 workers to radiation; one died.
Tomsk, Russia - 1993 Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure. No deaths were reported after the explosion, and no one was evacuated from the contaminated region.

Saint Laurent des Eaux, France - 1980 A fuel rupture resulted in a minor off-site release of radioactivity.

Jaslovské Bohunice, Slovak Republic - 1977 Damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity.

Hemp, solar, and wind are better forms of energy.

Granted, combustion power is practically Stone Age: most of the energy is lost to heat instead of forward motion, but that just means we need more efficient transfer of electricity, like solar, hydroelectric, or geothermal energy: basically anything on our planet that's already moving for free. Right now, nuclear power is just another source of heat, which makes it similar to geothermal, without the added possibility of fresh, desalinized ocean water. I've been thinking that the next step in energy technology would be proton (or H+) current, which technically would be nuclear, but makes more sense on paper, since protons equally follow the rule of electrons and are 1,836 times their mass.

With Nuclear power, and any other toxic or dangerous energy source, we will face the problem of NIMBY (Not in my back yard!). Environmental and health hazards are disproportionately located in politically and economically dis-empowered neighborhoods and countries, thus "dumping" the externalities of energy production and economic growth onto the global poor. Meanwhile, the rich and politically powerful will not agree to share the burden of extreme health risks such as those posed by nuclear power plants. It is unfair and completely unethical to allow this practice to continue, and thus, the U.S. and other countries should instead choose to invest in bio-fuels, wind, and solar energy. As we saw in Japan last year, we cannot guarantee that Nuclear power will be safe or sustainable.