Nukes: Not the Answer

As the dire consequences of climate change become apparent to even its most ardent deniers, the need to develop alternate sources of energy is becoming clear. The fact that we have not been working furiously to develop alternative energy for the last 50 years is an example of short-sightedness on the global scale.

There is an exception to the above as one type of alternate energy has received enormous dollars over the years. Unfortunately, that one source is nuclear energy. Trumpeted as unlimited energy at minimal costs the truth is quite the opposite. Nuclear energy is costly and has not proven to lower energy costs.

But forget the costs, let us look at the other two claims made for nuclear energy: safe and clean. Safe, compared to what I always wonder. Even in the nation, France, which seems to have figured out the most efficient way to produce nuclear energy, safety remains a problem. According to a BBC report, France has 59 nuclear plants and produces 75% of its energy with nuclear power. The same report noted that four separate leaks occurred in a two week period in the summer of 2008 and that there had been a ten-fold increase in accidents in the recent past.

Japan is the other nation comparable to France in its reliance on nuclear power. According to a report by Sarah Buckley of the BBC in March of 2006, Japan has 55 reactors that produce one third of its power. Buckley noted that the nuclear industry, despite a national reputation for safety and efficiency, has a very spotty safety record when it came to nuclear power. Three Mile Island, Love Canal and Chernobyl all provide examples of safety problems in other areas of the world.

Any industry that involves human employees is destined to have accidents. With nuclear reactors, the possible risks from accidents simply exceeds the benefits. Even if we could somehow eliminate all human error and all possibility of an accident that would still not guarantee safety. Remember the earthquake that his Japan in July of 2007 which caused leakage of radioactive materials.Throw in deliberate sabotage by terrorists, revolutionaries and others and the safety factor begins to loom as a leviathan.

The other claim made for nuclear power is that it is "clean." Again, by what standard? The spent fuel rods provide a problem for which there is currently no viable solution. Even moving them for disposal creates difficulties that are nearly insurmountable. How about a wrecked truck carrying fuel rods? Plutonium has a half-life of forever. Any efforts to dispose of it must take that into account.

It is true that the planet is in desperate need of solutions for climate change and energy production. Cold analysis of the facts surrounding nuclear power strongly suggests that it is NOT the answer. The call for nuclear power is just more of the same old thinking that created our problems: energy production controlled by private sources paid for with public money. Solutions must not be prioritized based on the potential to generate profit for transnational corporations. That's what the nuclear buzz is really all about.