Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: Chernobyl

Jan.
8th

ENERGY: Nuclear power isn’t worth the risks

Re: “Small, modular reactors for Hanford?” (editorial, 1-7).

Here they come again, the nuclear power profiteers with a new “product,” a miniaturized power plant whose primary “new” attribute is “safety.” I believe we’ve heard that promise before, and it didn’t quite pan out at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. No deaths due to radiation at Fukushima? Not yet; wait a decade or two and see.

Meanwhile, what we do have at both Chernobyl and Fukushima are “exclusion” (read dead) zones. The dead zone around Chernobyl extends to 2,600 kilometers. We might hope that the dead zone from Fukushima

Read more »

March
24th

JAPAN: Nuclear danger cannot be wished away

Re: “Fukushima threat: 1 part real, 10 parts psychological” (editorial, 3-22).

The editorial on the Japanese nuclear plant crisis glossed over the long-term health effects of radiation exposure. When talking about deaths from nuclear power accidents, it is important to look beyond the immediate casualties, as grim as they are, and see the cancer deaths resulting decades later.

Citing Chernobyl, the editorial states that “to this day, it’s hard to identify more than a hundred deaths caused by Chernobyl.”

Sure it’s hard to identify, but some respected studies show that Chernobyl radiation has caused more than 50,000 human cancer deaths.

Read more »