Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: nuclear power


ENERGY: Do we really want more nuclear reactors?

According to The Capitol Record: “Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, supported SB 5991 and said Washington is missing out on money the federal government has been investing in nuclear power in other states.

Senate Bill 5991 passed 34-15. It would have to be approved by the House of Representatives and signed by the governor before becoming law.

Nobody can convince me that nuclear anything is safe. We can’t even handle the Fukushima disaster, which is contaminating the world right now. Nor can we handle the Hanford disaster in this state. When scientists figure out how to stop this continuing disaster and

Read more »


ENERGY: Hanford’s ideal for nuclear innovation

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

Congratulations on the editorial suggesting that we look at supporting a new nuclear industry in Washington state. You are right that Hanford is an ideal location for nuclear innovators. Your facts and arguments about nuclear power being safer than coal are solid.

The only item that gave a wrong impression was the paragraph stating that conventional reactors have an Achilles’ heel of requiring pumped cooling water in an emergency, and the new smaller reactors are safer because they have passive cooling incorporated into their design.

The nuclear power industry started including

Read more »


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 »


ENERGY: Nuclear reactors do have carbon footprint

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

You are wise to suggest that we take another look at nuclear power. Not only is it safer and more diverse now, but it needs to be reconsidered in light of global warming concerns.

Nuclear reactors provide a reliable source of baseload electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases. They do, however, have a carbon footprint; this misinformation in your editorial needs to be corrected.

As long as fossil fuels are used in the manufacturing, transporting or site preparation, there is a carbon footprint. This, of course, also applies to other forms

Read more »


HANFORD: Limit public’s access to B Reactor

Re: “Hanford’s B Reactor: A park haunted by the 20th century” (editorial, 8-20).

I believe the B Reactor is fine the way it is, and I believe it’s a mistake to turn it into a park.

I visited the B Reactor in 2009. At that time, public tours were infrequent, space was limited and reservations were hard to come by. My tour group found the building very much as it was when shut down in 1968, save for the necessary clean-up work. There was little sign the place had become a museum.

In the control room, I stood inches

Read more »


ENERGY: No taxpayer giveaways to nuclear power

There are already 23 nuclear reactors of the same model as the Fukushima reactors operating in the United States, with 104 reactors overall. Now President Obama has included $36 billion in taxpayer giveaways to the nuclear industry in his proposed budget to Congress.

Wall Street refuses to invest because they are not economically viable, so nuclear industries are seeking taxpayer money to build new plants.

We all know how dangerous nuclear power can be; we’ve seen the news and how its affecting the Japanese people. Why put that danger in our own backyards if we can stop it? There hasn’t

Read more »


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 »


ENERGY: Let’s fire up the nukes

A toast to flashing digital billboards, empty midnight parking lots, car dealerships brighter than a sunny day and to preternaturally bright street and “security” lights bathing nighttime clouds with the force of a thousand full moons.

Fire up the nukes and turn the night to a Las Vegas dream of excess brilliance. Heaven forbid we should flip the switch before it’s too late.