Nuclear Power Controversy

Rossin’s argument in favor of nuclear-powered electricity generation omitted several negative points. First, no mention was made of waste disposal. Thus far, most nuclear waste has been stored on-site, and the difficulties and hazards of transportation and long-term burial are largely unresolved. The large repository which is being constructed in Nevada sits within an area laced with geological faults, and the threat of ground-water contamination will remain alive for tens of thousand of years.

Some nuclear plants are dangerous simply because their locations were chosen carelessly. Anyone can recognize the danger of constructing a plant in a geologically active area. Further, evacuation must be considered. Long Island’s Shoreham facility will never generate a watt because a population in excess of 2 million cannot quickly exit via several bridges and ferries.

Finally, the high-grade uranium ore required to fuel nuclear reactors is, like fossil fuel, a finite resource. Mining, processing, and radon-emitting tailings threaten both the environment and its human inhabitants.

Rossin also neglected to mention the possibility of solar power delivered to earth from satellites. Such energy would be continuous and clean. Perhaps the United States can divert funds from SDI “killer satellites” to research on extraterrestrial solar energy technology.

JOHN CANTILLI

San Diego