Letters
Japan’s Lessons for U.S. Nuclear Power
Published: March 25, 2011
To the Editor:
Re “Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Does Not Signal Urgent Changes for U.S., Regulators Say” (news article, March 22):
It is unfortunate that more studies on nuclear plant safety and methods to dispose of spent nuclear fuel have not been carried out since the first commercial reactor went online in 1958, over 50 years ago. Instead, power companies, in their greed, focused on profits.
What could the power companies have been thinking when they built reactors on geologically active faults both in Japan and California? Although reactors need to be near a large body of water for cooling purposes, there are many such locations without active faults.
Nuclear power can be a safe source of power, without carbon emissions, if we would only spend the money to make it safe. Since many countries have reactors, it makes sense to form a nuclear reactor consortium, financed by those countries with nuclear power, to do research on how to build safe reactors and how to dispose of nuclear waste.
Too much time has already been spent on dealing with accidents that could have been avoided if we had the proper knowledge, and we are continually frustrated by the lack of a solution for waste disposal.
Robert Ackerberg
Massapequa, N.Y., March 22, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Contrary to what Frank N. von Hippel writes in “It Could Happen Here” (Op-Ed, March 24), America’s nuclear power plants are well equipped to handle the impacts of severe events, whatever the cause. In recent years, nuclear plants have maintained safety in the direct path of Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew. Nonetheless, our industry is taking steps to make nuclear energy facilities even safer.
Companies are verifying each power station’s capability to withstand conditions that result from severe events, including the loss of significant operational and safety systems. They are also verifying that the capability to maintain safety of reactors even in a total loss of electric power is proper and functional.
The global nuclear industry is providing technical assistance and equipment as Japan continues to restore cooling systems at the Fukushima reactors. Significant changes after Three Mile Island have led to high safety and reliability at 104 reactors in the United States. As utilities do after significant events such as this, we will apply safety and security upgrades as warranted as part of our commitment to generate electricity safely and reliably.
Scott Peterson
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington, March 24, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Are we to take seriously Frank N. von Hippel’s argument that the ultimate deaths of a mere 10,000 people as a result of Chernobyl, compared with the tens of thousands of people killed by particulates from coal, suggest that the nuclear industry is “remarkably safe”?
Mr. von Hippel’s assertion that running nuclear power plants is “relatively cheap” once construction costs have been paid conveniently ignores the costs of decommissioning, security for the plant post-closure and radioactive waste storage in perpetuity. Advocates for nuclear power who fail to address this staggering legacy of hidden costs are misleading the public.
H. James Quigley Jr.
Stony Brook, N.Y., March 24, 2011
The writer is a lecturer in the Sustainability Studies Program at Stony Brook University.
•
To the Editor:
The detection of radioactive iodine 131 in Tokyo’s drinking water (“Anxiety Up as Tokyo Issues Warning on Its Tap Water,” front page, March 24), in amounts considered unhealthy for children, makes clear that potassium iodide must be administered if children are to be adequately protected against thyroid cancer caused by ingested and inhaled iodine 131. Interdiction of milk supplies, though important, is plainly insufficient.
Japan’s apparent preparedness with potassium iodide contrasts with the situation in the United States. In response to 9/11, Congress passed a law to create stockpiles of potassium iodide for populations within a 20-mile radius of nuclear reactors, rather than the 10-mile radius within which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission offers it to states that request it.
But the N.R.C., which had opposed the law, fought successfully to keep it from taking effect. In 2008 President George W. Bush’s science adviser, John H. Marburger III, declared that potassium iodide was not needed beyond the 10-mile radius, and that the law therefore would not be implemented.
The events in Japan demand that the Obama administration act quickly to reverse this unjustified rejection of a sensible law.
Peter Crane
Seattle, March 24, 2011
The writer is a retired lawyer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
It is unfortunate that more studies on nuclear plant safety and methods to dispose of spent nuclear fuel have not been carried out since the first commercial reactor went online in 1958, over 50 years ago. Instead, power companies, in their greed, focused on profits.
What could the power companies have been thinking when they built reactors on geologically active faults both in Japan and California? Although reactors need to be near a large body of water for cooling purposes, there are many such locations without active faults.
Nuclear power can be a safe source of power, without carbon emissions, if we would only spend the money to make it safe. Since many countries have reactors, it makes sense to form a nuclear reactor consortium, financed by those countries with nuclear power, to do research on how to build safe reactors and how to dispose of nuclear waste.
Too much time has already been spent on dealing with accidents that could have been avoided if we had the proper knowledge, and we are continually frustrated by the lack of a solution for waste disposal.
Robert Ackerberg
Massapequa, N.Y., March 22, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Contrary to what Frank N. von Hippel writes in “It Could Happen Here” (Op-Ed, March 24), America’s nuclear power plants are well equipped to handle the impacts of severe events, whatever the cause. In recent years, nuclear plants have maintained safety in the direct path of Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew. Nonetheless, our industry is taking steps to make nuclear energy facilities even safer.
Companies are verifying each power station’s capability to withstand conditions that result from severe events, including the loss of significant operational and safety systems. They are also verifying that the capability to maintain safety of reactors even in a total loss of electric power is proper and functional.
The global nuclear industry is providing technical assistance and equipment as Japan continues to restore cooling systems at the Fukushima reactors. Significant changes after Three Mile Island have led to high safety and reliability at 104 reactors in the United States. As utilities do after significant events such as this, we will apply safety and security upgrades as warranted as part of our commitment to generate electricity safely and reliably.
Scott Peterson
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington, March 24, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Are we to take seriously Frank N. von Hippel’s argument that the ultimate deaths of a mere 10,000 people as a result of Chernobyl, compared with the tens of thousands of people killed by particulates from coal, suggest that the nuclear industry is “remarkably safe”?
Mr. von Hippel’s assertion that running nuclear power plants is “relatively cheap” once construction costs have been paid conveniently ignores the costs of decommissioning, security for the plant post-closure and radioactive waste storage in perpetuity. Advocates for nuclear power who fail to address this staggering legacy of hidden costs are misleading the public.
H. James Quigley Jr.
Stony Brook, N.Y., March 24, 2011
The writer is a lecturer in the Sustainability Studies Program at Stony Brook University.
•
To the Editor:
The detection of radioactive iodine 131 in Tokyo’s drinking water (“Anxiety Up as Tokyo Issues Warning on Its Tap Water,” front page, March 24), in amounts considered unhealthy for children, makes clear that potassium iodide must be administered if children are to be adequately protected against thyroid cancer caused by ingested and inhaled iodine 131. Interdiction of milk supplies, though important, is plainly insufficient.
Japan’s apparent preparedness with potassium iodide contrasts with the situation in the United States. In response to 9/11, Congress passed a law to create stockpiles of potassium iodide for populations within a 20-mile radius of nuclear reactors, rather than the 10-mile radius within which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission offers it to states that request it.
But the N.R.C., which had opposed the law, fought successfully to keep it from taking effect. In 2008 President George W. Bush’s science adviser, John H. Marburger III, declared that potassium iodide was not needed beyond the 10-mile radius, and that the law therefore would not be implemented.
The events in Japan demand that the Obama administration act quickly to reverse this unjustified rejection of a sensible law.
Peter Crane
Seattle, March 24, 2011
The writer is a retired lawyer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 | |
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics
Log in to see what your friends are sharing on nytimes.com. Privacy Policy | What’s This?
What’s Popular Now 
165 articles in the past month
ganzermark@yahoo.com
PRESENTED BY
Advertisements
