I thought long and hard about responding to this post.

For one thing, I am a supporter of nuclear power, I always have been, ever since I worked as a publicist for that industry, and I am sincerely convinced that it is the only technology which will get us out the energy bind the world is now in. I have little faith that any of the forseeable alternatives will be able to do this, and even a severe, even Draconic, energy conservation program, which I support, will not be able to do anything but postpone the inevitable day of reckoning.

Second, I have no problems with the article itself. Everything said there is technically accurate, and it is the truth. I don't think anyone on this board will dispute that; indeed, I feel our fellow Zoners, regardless of their political persuasion, are fairly comfortable with the idea of nuclear power and could be counted on as supporters of this technology. In fact, I am puzzled why TB even felt it was worthwhile reproducing here.

But at the risk of provoking yet another exchange of pointless controversy, I nonetheless feel compelled to respond to this post, if for no other reason than it is so reminiscent of copy I have delivered myself, as well as written with my own hand. As is the case with this sort of communication, it follows a tried and true formula. It systematically points out the benefits of nuclear power, which I wholeheartedly agree with. It explains how so many of the objections to it are grossly exaggerated. It also demolishes the myths promulgated by misguided opponents of this technology in their uninformed (and cynical) attempts to discredit it.

But the article also sets off alarm bells for me, and they have a very familiar ring. The very real objections connected to nuclear electric generation are glossed over and trivialized; albeit more by omission than by outright falsehood: the primary danger of this technology is the generation and disposal of nuclear waste: spent nuclear fuel rods. This is a problem so all-encompassing and so potentially deadly that until it is completely resolved I cannot endorse the building of even one more nuclear plant. In fact, if it were not for the fact that this problem is already in place and an extreme danger to all of us, I would recommend the complete abandonment of nuclear steam plants all together. Unfortunately, it is too late now to even justify this drastic step. If every nuclear facility in the world now simply disappeared, we would still have a colossal waste disposal problem on our hands.

Look how this issue is dealt with in the text:

"These rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves."

This is true. Fresh fuel elements are not really a safety hazard.

"The fuel rods come out looking exactly as they did going in, except that they are now more highly radioactive."

True, but a gross misrepresentation of the facts. They are so highly radioactive that they are impossible to approach, and if they were breached, the contamination would be immediate and force the immediate evacuation of the facility, not just as a precaution, but to prevent loss of life. Furthermore, the rods may look exactly as they did before, but they have spent months in a hellish environment, and they are considerably weaker than when they went in. Although not an immediate danger if properly handled, they are compromised and must be continuously monitored and protected from corrosion, damage or terrorist action. All of this is difficult because they are too hot to approach--not just too hot in the radiation sense, they are too hot to touch. They are thermally hot, filled with corrosive chemicals, physically stressed, their metallic cladding compromised by severe neutron bombardment, and extremely dangerous from the fission products produced inside. That is why they are placed in pools of water, not just for radiation sheilding, but to keep them cool.

"The replaced rods will be removed and transferred to a storage pool inside the containment structure, where they can remain indefinitely (three feet of water blocks the radiation)."

False. They cannot remain there indefinitely. Sooner or later they will start to leak, and the released radio-isotopes will now contaminate the cooling pond itself. The "blocking" water will now become the means by which this poison will be transported into the environment. This method of storage was always meant to be temporary, until the rods could be removed to a fuel reprocessing and recovery facility. These facilities do not currently exist in this country.

I could go on, but this post has lingered too long already. But please allow me to close on an optimistic note. The problem of spent nuclear rod recycling is not impossible, and it has been done successfully in other countries. But it is extremely expensive, and not without risk: the entire operation of storing, transporting, dismantling and recovering unspent Uranium from these rods, as well as disposing of the fission products, must be carried out by remote control, and it also generates a lot of low level wastes as well, even after the high level wastes are successfully stabilized and buried.

I personally believe this can be done, and that we should start doing it right now so our nuclear electric program can be quickly reconstituted. But until we have done this, the nuclear genie must remain in the bottle, and we should be very suspicious of industry spokesmen who simply refuse to bring these issues up. In my opinion, they are much more interested in restarting the industry than they are in dealing with the inevitable consequences.