There are ways to avoid nuclear power

The information in this article ranges everywhere from misquoted to simply wrong.

Nuclear is green. Every electricity source produces green house gasses over its lifecycle. Solar and wind also need mining which requires equipment that produces green house gasses. If you look at the life cycle nuclear is better than any other source except hydroelectric dams when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions (Alsema 2006). Once the new centrifuge enrichment facility is built the emissions will be even less.

Nuclear is cheap. There is a high capital cost but once a plant is built, nuclear power is cheaper than even coal. If you again look at life cycle cost, nuclear is on par with coal and well below renewables at this point. There is a reason that utility companies build coal and nuclear plants, they care about money and coal and nuclear are the most economically viable.

Nuclear Energy is safe. No civilian has ever died in the US because of a nuclear accident. The nuclear industry has a better safety record than almost any other industry, you are more likely to die working at a bank than a nuclear power plant. A Columbia University study in 2004 with 53000 nuclear workers showed that on average nuclear industry workers had 60% lower mortality rates that the general public.

As for radiation, living near a nuclear plant will increase your exposure about the same amount as eating a banana would. If you have ever got an xray you have received 100 times more radiation than you ever would from nuclear power.

For the terrorist threat, for a nuclear bomb to be made requires either an enrichment plant or a reprocessing plant. There is not a terrorist group in the world that has the technology, or money for either of those. So that "collosal" threat is that a group would somehow steal nuclear waste weighing thousands of tons, somehow get it to an enrichment or reprocessing plant (those only exist in about 5 countries and they are carefully regulated by the UN), get a high enough quality fissile material and then build a bomb out of it (again with technology and money they dont have) before anyone realizes the material is gone(all of it is tracked by GPS). Any group stealing nuclear waste is idiotic.

I do not where to begin. The writer is deluded. Every argument here is a generalization, none of it actually is going to stand up actual scientific scrutiny.

And the stuff about Greenpeace saying this and that.....good grief...she needs to listen to Dr James Lovelock (Greenpeace founder)

Typical leftist, ignorant, incorrect, scare mongering garbage....

I do not wish her well...she is actively trying to destroy the one chance we have to get out of the mess we are already in...

The author is limited only by her imagination. She clearly has little understanding of the conditions necessary to have effective wind power electrical generation. She also fails to address the use of Nuclear power in France where the majority of electrical power is provided from Nuclear plants safely.

C02 is not a pollutant , and it is necessary to sustain life on this planet. Nuclear power plants do not emit CO2.

Most of current day pollution can be found in left wing liberal writing such as hers.

Where did you get your info? Please provide some links.

Dear lucille, I have to dissagree with you 100% Just take a look at france there whole country is 80% nuclear energy.It is the best way to solve global warming. We will run out of oil one day and now is the time to change over. hydrogen is the splitting of water through the use of uranium and that is what we can burn in cars for the future believe it or not!

First, I'm on the left politically and I support and defend nuclear power. I would like to see it expanded.

The author is quite delusional vis-a-vis CO2 emissions. There is only ONE study that comes up with these ridiculously high numbers. The entire CO2 emissions from the life cycle of nuclear energy is below that of natural gas and almost as low as wind (wind uses 5 times the material per KW than nuclear does). Very little uranium is actually mined, the only real use of fossil in the cycle. Obvioiusly any nuclear fuel mill used a lot of energy...that can be supplied, and is, by nuclear energy. There is ZERO CO2 emissions from a nuclear power plant so any emissions come from the mining. There is about 1/1000 the amount uranium ore mined that coal. To state, as she does, that nuclear produces more CO2 than coal destroys here credibility.

David Walters

Thank you for breaking the press' silence on this. The Miami Herald has endorsed this calamity and the Miami Dade County Commission rubber stamped approval despite wetlands destruction, an enormous water need, health and security risks and most importantly the existance of more renewable, cost effective options currently available.

Jon wrote:

The information in this article ranges everywhere from misquoted to simply wrong.
Nuclear is green. Every electricity source produces green house gasses over its lifecycle. Solar and wind also need mining which requires equipment that produces green house gasses. If you look at the life cycle nuclear is better than any other source except hydroelectric dams when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions (Alsema 2006).. The nuclear industry has a better safety record than almost any other industry, you are more likely to die working at a bank than a nuclear power plant. A Columbia University study in 2004 with 53000 nuclear workers showed that on average nuclear industry workers had 60% lower mortality rates that the general public.
As for radiation, living near a nuclear plant will increase your exposure about the same amount as eating a banana would. If you have ever got an xray you have received 100 times more radiation than you ever would from nuclear power.
For the terrorist threat, for a nuclear bomb to be made requires either an enrichment plant or a reprocessing plant. There is not a terrorist group in the world that has the technology, or money for either of those. So that "collosal" threat is that a group would somehow steal nuclear waste weighing thousands of tons, somehow get it to an enrichment or reprocessing plant (those only exist in about 5 countries and they are carefully regulated by the UN), get a high enough quality fissile material and then build a bomb out of it (again with technology and money they dont have) before anyone realizes the material is gone(all of it is tracked by GPS). Any group stealing nuclear waste is idiotic.

The fear is Chernobyl- a reactor design never used in the USA. The reality of safety is 3-Mile Island- no deaths and no uncontrolled release if radiation. Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem. In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment. Bottomline, a great "green" energy bridge until "Mr. Fusion" comes to WalMart! LOL

After reading the first paragraph of the article I was saying,'here we go again..." By the end I felt driven to write a response, but Jon and others above beat me to it, which did my heart good.

The only thing I would add to the posts above is that the issue of nuclear power is not really left right issue and its not useful to paint it that way.

I would encourage readers to explore the option of burning Thorium-based fuels in nuclear reactors, easier to obtain, less waste with less radio-toxicity (much shorter half lives), and less proliferation potential.

I think before a writer takes off against a particular source of energy, he/she should consider the alternatives. Ms. Weinstat told us why she didn't like nuclear. Even if her reasons are valid, they don't present the full picture. It's akin to speaking against windpower because windmills are ugly and kill birds, or against photo-voltaic because there's not enough silicon. We Americans have slept for 30 years since our wake-up call, and we are in deep trouble. Nuclear is desperately needed to buy time for the break-throughs needed to get to renewable sources. The alternative is a severe, long-lasting recession.

An excellent summary. Nuclear power is dangerous and expensive.

Lucille Weinstat concluded her Op-Ed commentary in the Sun-Sentinel's Monday Forum by saying:"...Energy efficiency and co-generation can accomplish enough savings of electricity that we would not need any nuclear power at all."

Every other point made in Lucille Weinstat's Jan. 21st article is supported factually in Dr. Helen Caldicott's most recent book, "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer."

Helen Caldicott was nominated for a Nobel Prize for leading the successful effort to ban atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

France has good reason to rely on nuclear power -- France received $58-billion in free oil from Saudi Arabia to provide arms and munitions to Iraq during the eight year war from 1981 to 1988 between Iraq and Iran.
In a New Yorker article shortly after 9/11 it was reported that France has placed anti-aircraft batteries at all its nuclear power plants.
French nuclear power plants require military protection from terrorist attack -- due to French colonial oppression in Algeria and Indo-China.
It should be noted that France relied on the Maginot Line to deter a German invasion. So, maybe we should not be relying on the French for guidance on energy policy.

seaape wrote:

An excellent summary. Nuclear power is dangerous and expensive.

and as always you provide nothing to back up your empty rant against anything that improves the quality of life for all

But is France does it, it can't be right.... right?

John Zoppi wrote:

Dear lucille, I have to dissagree with you 100% Just take a look at france there whole country is 80% nuclear energy.It is the best way to solve global warming. We will run out of oil one day and now is the time to change over. hydrogen is the splitting of water through the use of uranium and that is what we can burn in cars for the future believe it or not!

Kahuna wrote:

<quoted text>The fear is Chernobyl- a reactor design never used in the USA. The reality of safety is 3-Mile Island- no deaths and no uncontrolled release if radiation. LOL

Two graphite core reactors -- identical to the Chernobyl reactor -- were in use at the Hanford nuclear plant in the state of Washington; they were shutdown after the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl.

In 1979, Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburg ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and small children from the five mile radius surrounding the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant because of the intentional release of radioactive gasses. The radioactive gasses had to be released at TMI because it was feared a buildup of a hydrogen bubble would rupture the containment vessel. One half of the uranium core had melted down at TMI.

Thousands of women in Belarus and Ukraine demanded abortions after the Chernobyl disaster -- radioactive iodine can cross the placenta to the fetus.

At a two day seminar conducted by the National Council on Radiation Protection, on the twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, it was reported that over 4000 children manifested an early onset of Thyroid cancer due to radioactive fallout.

Safe operation of a nuclear plant is not at issue in S.E. Florida. However, the heightened risk of a terrorist attack is the issue being ignored by local politicians and the PSC.

let me suggest "Power to save the World-the truth about nuclear energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, to everyone who left a comment. the original writer is so wrong, it's harmful. She quotes greenpeace, but co-founder, Patrick Moore, is traveling the world touting nuclear energy as the answer to global warming.

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:

<quoted text>and as always you provide nothing to back up your empty rant against anything that improves the quality of life for all

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA -- Read the Sun-Sentinel article dated Jan 14th, "Adding nuclear plants makes for disaster." The artilcle also draws the conclusion that de-centralized co-generation provides energy efficiency that makes more nuclear power unnecessary.

captstan wrote:

<quoted text>
Safe operation of a nuclear plant is not at issue in S.E. Florida. However, the heightened risk of a terrorist attack is the issue being ignored by local politicians and the PSC.

What is this risk of terrorist attack you speak of, could you be more specific like, I don't know, what exactly would terrorists do to a commercial generating nuke? Also, which units at Hanford were identical to Chernobyl? There's only one commercial plant there and its still operating and is a boiling water reactor. The plutonium producing reactors were shut down as they reached the end of their designed lifespans. FFTF has only been shut down for a few years.

captstan wrote:

<quoted text>
Two graphite core reactors -- identical to the Chernobyl reactor -- were in use at the Hanford nuclear plant in the state of Washington; they were shutdown after the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl.
In 1979, Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburg ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and small children from the five mile radius surrounding the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant because of the intentional release of radioactive gasses. The radioactive gasses had to be released at TMI because it was feared a buildup of a hydrogen bubble would rupture the containment vessel. One half of the uranium core had melted down at TMI.
Thousands of women in Belarus and Ukraine demanded abortions after the Chernobyl disaster -- radioactive iodine can cross the placenta to the fetus.
At a two day seminar conducted by the National Council on Radiation Protection, on the twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, it was reported that over 4000 children manifested an early onset of Thyroid cancer due to radioactive fallout.
Safe operation of a nuclear plant is not at issue in S.E. Florida. However, the heightened risk of a terrorist attack is the issue being ignored by local politicians and the PSC.

I should have been more precise about two points. 1. Referring only to sole power producing Nuke plants in the USA. The 1944 vintage Hanford N-Reactor was a weapons plant for the A bombs used on Japan. It was not designed for power production initially. 2. Like Chernobyl, and in contrast to the standard commerical designs in use in this country, the N-Reactor used graphite blocks to facilitate the nuclear reaction. It also lacked the steel and concrete containment buildings that surround commercial reactors. "BUT, because of design differences, it is NOT subject to the same instability that triggered the Chernobyl disaster." Taken from the Senate Panel report on Hanford closing/reopening...agreed?