Future Bleak for Nukes
I should like to comment on the “Nuclear Power Safe” letter that appeared in your April 14 issue. I believe that further clarification is needed regarding matters introduced in this letter.
The statement that “the nuclear power industry is careful” might be questioned. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the extension of the permit for the Vermont Yankee facility despite their having a number of safety violations in recent years reflecting shoddy maintenance and such events as the collapse of a cooling tower and the leakage of tritium. The writer correctly says that “old reactors . . . need to be re-evaluated.”.This should apply in this case, as this is an “old reactor” of design similar to the ones that failed in Japan.
On April 19 the Springfield Republican had a front page leading article entitled: “NRC oversight called lenient” in which it was contended that the NRC “was often making decisions based on industry’s profit margins rather than safety.” Indeed, this proved to the case in regulating BP, leading to the Gulf oil disaster.
While probability of a major failure may be low, its consequences may be extremely great, and the risk is the product of these two considerations. With Japan, there are over 12,000 deaths and untold injuries and future cancer development. Japan will lose much precious living space and agricultural land, and there may be billions of dollars lost to its economy. Is it worth this risk? While one may say that the probability of such events occurring is negligible, that was also said in the case of the Challenger disaster and the Gulf oil blow-out.
It may be said that fail-safe procedures can make systems safe. Such were in place in Japan and in the Gulf, but indeed, they failed! Oversight was not good enough to assure that these were not compromised by industrial managers more concerned with profit than safety. Government regulation is likely to become poorer as a result of current government cost-cutting efforts—just as the loss of the space shuttle Challenger may ultimately have been the unintended result of launching the spacecraft despite concerns of scientists and engineers about the effects of cold weather on its O-rings.
The economy of nuclear energy production has been such that no new nuclear facilities have been built in the U.S. for about 30 years. Risks are such that no insurance companies are willing to cover them with acceptable premiums. Operational reactors would not be possible today without government subsidy. The additional safety measures that will now be required in view of the Japan disaster will make the economics even less favorable.
Uranium ore, necessary for fuel, is becoming more difficult to mine, so fuel costs are bound to increase. We are becoming dependent upon imported uranium ore. Is this better than importing oil? Some believe that sooner or later, we may face “peak uranium,” after which its cost will increase.
If new reactors are approved now, many estimate that it will take about 10 years for these to be designed, built, and go on line as a source of power. Their construction will be expensive, and it seems likely that if funds were diverted to development of non-nuclear renewable energy sources (now much under-funded), their development in 10 years is likely to eliminate the need for nuclear sources. The cost of these alternatives will drop with increase in technology and volume of production. They will become more competitive with fossil fuel, the cost of which is certain to increase.
The problem of storage of spent nuclear fuel has not been solved. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on the abandoned Yucca Mountain facility. If there is an increase in nuclear energy use, there will be an increase in the accumulation of this spent fuel. It remains radioactive for very long periods of time, and there is reluctance by many to have it stored nearby.
Richard S. (Dick) Stein
Goessmann Professor of Chemistry Emeritus
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
*
Forever In Peace May You Wave
Over the past 2 months I have driven from Albany to Boston, from Nashua to Taunton and from Greenfield and all the way down to New Jersey and I have noticed 1 thing I wish I didn’t: torn, tattered and worn out American flags flying day and night in good weather and bad, in sunlight and darkness. As the late winter and early spring winds blow the flags out straight, it is easy to see the hopefully unintended disrespect shown for our flag. We are months from Flag Day and we have men and women all over this world fighting for our flag, can we please do our part here and make sure that we fly our flags in proper condition, always lit up and with pride? The worst sight is to drive by a public school and see worn out flags flying 24/7. Why can’t different students in the morning and afternoon raise and lower the flag so that all students can learn the proper care and handling of our banner? If your flag is worn out, the local American Legion or Scout Troop will know how to properly retire it; please contact them and replace the flag with a new one and continue to show pride in the American Flag.
Michael Sacenti
East Longmeadow
*
When Prohibition Fails
Massachusetts voters will have a chance to vote for a good solution to many of the problems created by the prohibition of marijuana: the Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act, H01371, which is sponsored by state Sen. Ellen Story (D-Amherst) will create sensible policies for the cultivation, selling, buying, and possession of cannabis.
As stated in the text of proposed legislation, “100 years of criminalization in Massachusetts has failed to stop the production, distribution and use of marijuana, and sustained enforcement efforts cannot reasonably be expected to accomplish that goal.” I encourage all who feel strongly about this matter to contact their state representatives and encourage them to support its passage.
Matthew Murray
Amherst
*
Veg Out
According to last week’s journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, half of the meat and poultry sold in U.S. supermarkets may be tainted with the deadly pathogen staphylococcus aureus. The study tested 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork, and turkey in five cities. Half of the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics. One organism, MRSA, is a leading cause of fatal infections in schools and hospitals.
The authors suggest that feeding antibiotics to animals in factory farms may contribute to this resistance. Indeed, two thirds of all antibiotics in the U.S. are used to promote the growth of farmed animals and contain infectious diseases induced by their extreme crowding and stress.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should ban the routine use of antibiotics in factory farms. The European Union has adopted such a ban in 2006. The World Health Organization has recommended a worldwide phase-out.
In the meantime, each of us should replace animal products in our diet with vegetables, fresh fruits, legumes, and grains. These foods contain all the nutrients we require, without deadly pathogens, antibiotics, pesticides, carcinogens, cholesterol, and saturated fats. They are touted by every major health advocacy organization and were the recommended fare in the Garden of Eden.
Eddie Buster
Easthampton
