Nuclear Power Won't Fix Our 'Greenhouse' " (Column Left, Nov. 30) is a fine example of sensationalistic journalism unsupported by the scientific facts. When reading Helen Caldicott's writings one must keep in mind that she is not a radiation scientist who has spent countless hours studying the effects of radiation on man, but someone who has made a name for herself by making exaggerated claims regarding nuclear power.
She claims to be concerned about public health, but the clean use of nuclear energy could prevent the thousands of deaths caused by the burning of fossil fuels every year in this country alone. She claims the release of cesium, plutonium and strontium will cause many painful deaths, but doesn't explain how these elements would be released. Yes, they are contained in nuclear fuel, but that is where they remain throughout the lifetime of the reactor and that is where they remain when the spent fuel is disposed of as waste.
Even if they were released, would they cause the health effects she claims? No! All of these elements have been released in substantial quantities into the atmosphere by nuclear weapons testing, yet we are not all dying of cancer.
MICHAEL C. BAKER PhD, Los Alamos, N.M.
By deciding to buy nuclear power plants, China is not stupid or callous, as Caldicott suggests. This giant country is desperately struggling to support a huge and rapidly increasing population without making the air unsafe for future generations to breathe.
Nuclear power offers a viable option for producing electricity without greenhouse gas emissions. The radioactive isotopes mentioned can and must be isolated from the environment. If Caldicott is truly interested in combating global warming, she should discard her personal theories and obsolete anti-nuclear slogans.
JOHN HUGHES, San Clemente
Finally, an eco-type has admitted that a possible solution to a problem may cost more than it's worth. Caldicott says, "A nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before realizing one net calorie of energy." She does not state how many years are needed to gain net calories from a newly built coal- or oil-fired plant, or a hydroelectric dam.
The same logic says that the environmental costs to produce and deliver a replacement vehicle for a "gross polluter" that was sent to the trash heap by Smog Check II are not worth it. That rationale applies for wind generators and for rooftop solar water heaters.
Solar water heaters are seen everywhere in Greece. I remember the man who owned a large campsite, where we spent the night. He was so proud of his "free" hot water, until I suggested he figure the cost to originally install it, and now, just a few years later, the cost to replace the rooftop equipment that produced all that "free" hot water. That was only the money cost, to him, not the environmental costs to produce and deliver the equipment. "Free" was not so free.
JAMES T. HUMBERD, La Quinta
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.