Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Nuclear power is far from safe or carbon-free

I became frightened when I read the commentary by Norman Meadow ("Nuclear blows away wind," Feb. 1). I wanted to say so much, but my thoughts were running way beyond the commentary. Just one example: The reactor at Chernobyl still contains enough radioactive material to destroy Europe. The only thing stopping it is a decaying sarcophagus. Mr. Meadow doesn't mention this. Nuclear waste is another example. The very first drop is still around. Reality is, there is nothing that can be done about the waste. No matter where it's stored or how it's stored, we will always have it. The waste can only be stored 100 years at a time at the most because of the continuing corrosive nuclear activity.

Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years — which is essentially forever. For those who are not familiar with a half life, it means one-half of the amount will be gone in 24,000 years, the one half of that in another 24,000 years, etc. Just one speck of plutonium will give you lung cancer, and after that person dies, the speck will still be around looking for another lung. As long as reactors are running, we keep accumulating more waste. I believe worldwide we have over 300 thousand tons of nuclear waste. And please remember just one tiny, tiny speck of plutonium will give you lung cancer. Heck, we already have 300,000 tons too much, right? Mr. Meadows doesn't mention this either.

There's much more to cover. Mr. Meadows writes that "…most opposition to nuclear power results from exaggerated fear of small doses of radiation at reactors or spent fuel storage facilities. This risk, which is small…" I was surprised he used the word, "small," twice so closely together. Does he consider a tiny speck of plutonium small, that speck which causes lung cancer? Government regulations allow nuclear plants to "routinely" and "deliberately" emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. This is just the normal operation of a nuclear plant and does not consider the numerous undetected leaks, mishaps, lies, and near misses that are chronic.

Secondly, he observes that "…nuclear power is essential for building a carbon-free society." However, nuclear energy has the largest carbon footprint of any energy source other than the fossil fuels. The carbon footprint adds tons of carbon emissions which are necessary in the production of nuclear energy in mining of uranium or thorium, milling (taking the raw ore and converting it to "yellowcake," enrichment and transporting yellowcake to a conversion facility, dissolving it to form UF6, construction of the cylinders used to transport the UF6, formation of uranium fuel pellets, transportation of the uranium fuel pellets, and construction of a nuclear power plant with its massive amounts of concrete and steel which will take several years of using heavy construction equipment to complete. There's also much necessary infrastructure to support the nuclear power plant (roads, transmission lines, canals, etc., and heavy-duty diesel generators are needed to run the cooling system during routine maintenance, refueling, shut downs resulting from increased summertime water temperatures, and power outage emergencies, building radwaste storage containers and transporting the waste to the storage facilities, and construction of waste reprocessing and incineration facilities.

But wait, there's more including future decommissioning, decontamination and demolishing the nuclear plant, accident mitigation and clean-up efforts after nuclear accidents and the construction of a sarcophagus to contain a damaged reactor as well as monitoring, securing, and periodically re-entombing failed nuclear power facilities for all eternity.

Mr. Meadow writes that "By issuing 20-year extensions of operating licenses for many reactors built about 40 years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged their safety and durability." Well, I wouldn't feel safe buying a 40-year-old washer and expect it to work for 20 more years, not to mention a 40-year-old nuclear power plant that runs on highly corrosive radioactive material that has be given a 20-year extension. This feels very dangerous.

Regina Minniss, Baltimore

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Maryland is ahead of the curve on solar energy
      Maryland is ahead of the curve on solar energy

      As a lifelong Marylander, I'm proud of the progress that our state has made through successful, bi-partisan initiatives supporting renewable and efficient energy throughout the state. As such, I was concerned when I read a letter published in the Sun on Jan. 26 ("Maryland bucks the trend on...

    • License offshore wind, not oil and gas
      License offshore wind, not oil and gas

      After reading about President Barack Obama's decision to license drilling for oil and gas ("Obama administration proposes offshore Atlantic drilling," Jan. 27) I agree with oil industry representative Randall Luthi that the U.S. is turning a blind eye to the potential that lies off the Atlantic...

    • Wind farm addresses climate change threat
      Wind farm addresses climate change threat

      In the past two or three weeks, The Sun has printed at least three letters dealing with the Somerset County wind farm ("Wind project raises serious safety, health concerns," Dec. 6). They differed so much in content that it was almost impossible to see any commonality, except that none...

    • Wind farm would harm Navy testing
      Wind farm would harm Navy testing

      As a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and past director of the Test Resource Management Center, it is clear to me that the decision to defer a final decision on the Great Bay Wind Energy Project was not a result of the political machinations of Rep. Steny Hoyer or any other...

    • Wind project raises serious safety, health concerns
      Wind project raises serious safety, health concerns

      Andy Bowman's recent commentary regarding his company's wind power project in Somerset County does not represent the view from the eastern side of the Chesapeake Bay ("Politics, not safety concerns, hamper Eastern Shore wind project," Dec. 1).

    • Mikulski got it right on Somerset wind turbines [Letter]
      Mikulski got it right on Somerset wind turbines [Letter]

      Congratulations to Sen. Barbara Mikulski on her stance regarding the Patuxent River Air Station and the prolonged initiative to place wind turbines in Somerset County ("Eastern Shore wind farm: Let the Navy decide," Aug. 18).

    • Md. needs more clean energy
      Md. needs more clean energy

      Maryland currently ranks fifth in the nation for worst air quality and produces over 60 percent of its energy from dirty sources like coal and natural gas. Immediately after his inauguration, Gov. Larry Hogan rolled back coal regulations that would have greatly improved air quality conditions...

    • Nuclear power doesn't add up [Letter]
      Nuclear power doesn't add up [Letter]

      I read with interest the commentary, "The nuclear option" (Aug. 26), in The Baltimore Sun, and I wanted to comment on just one aspect of this public pitch for nuclear power. The author omitted the fact that Constellation Energy made application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to...