More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “We’re Thinking About Nuclear Waste All Wrong,” by Madison Hilly (Opinion guest essay, May 1):

Ms. Hilly states that spent nuclear fuel is safe and should be “a chief selling point” for nuclear energy. In fact, it is an extremely hazardous material that requires considerable effort to manage safely and protect people and the environment from its hazards.

Long-term aboveground storage for hundreds of years, as recommended by Ms. Hilly, allows too many opportunities for system failure and dangerous radioactivity release.

On the other hand, I agree that nuclear energy should remain part of our energy mix. Disposal in a mined underground repository, for example at Yucca Mountain, can safely isolate nuclear waste for very long periods, tens or hundreds of thousands of years, without the need for further intervention.

Implementing such a site requires consent-based siting through rational discussion, compromise, and a societal and political will to succeed, which our country has not demonstrated recently. Simply continuing temporary storage and minimizing the complexity of the problem is irresponsible and foolhardy.

Gerald Frankel
Columbus, Ohio
The writer is a professor of materials science and engineering at The Ohio State University. He was a member of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

To the Editor:

Madison Hilly has learned to stop worrying about nuclear waste. The rest of us can’t be so flip. Ounce for ounce, spent nuclear fuel may be the Earth’s most toxic substance, and it will remain a danger “for time spans seemingly beyond human comprehension,” as the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit observed in Nuclear Energy Institute Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency.

Because of these well-defined dangers, the consensus view of industry, government and environmental experts since 1957 has been that this waste must end up in deep geologic repositories, permanently isolated from the human and natural environments. Time and science have only reinforced that conclusion.

But because of botched federal policy, we don’t have scientifically defensible and publicly accepted final resting places. That failure shouldn’t mean that we pretend that everything is all right. It’s not.

We need a new process to find repositories based on the genuine consent of states and foundational environmental law. Ms. Hilly should join us in working on a real solution to this difficult problem — instead of trying to wish all the very real risks away.

Geoff Fettus
Washington
The writer is director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s nuclear program.

To the Editor:

It was a pleasure to read some sanity about nuclear power. The fear of an accident torpedoed the $5 billion Shoreham nuclear facility on Long Island and has delayed the construction of new plants. The noisy town meetings with screaming homeowners trumped the fact-by-fact enumeration of benefits.

The media is captive to sensation, not logic. “Atoms for Peace” never had a chance.

Kevin Morris
Pelham, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Madison Hilly paints a rosy picture of nuclear power. But nuclear reactors have other problems besides their radioactive wastes.

Low-level pollution. Reactors routinely emit low-level radiation, which results in physical and genetic damage to the nearby residents and environment.

Cost. Although promoted since inception as a low-cost source of electricity, nuclear-powered electricity has always been costly, and is now far more expensive than alternatives such as solar, wind and energy efficiency.

Meltdowns. All our machines sometimes have accidents, as we know from watching the super-safe aviation industry. Nuclear meltdowns at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima show us that nuclear plants are not exempt from devastating core meltdowns.

Proliferation. All fission reactors create plutonium, the stuff of nuclear bombs. It’s not easy to separate the plutonium from the rest of the nuclear wastes. But if we were to export nuclear power plants around the world, we would essentially be exporting the means to make nuclear weapons.

William W. Smith III
Jamestown, R.I.

PVC Pipes Pose Health Risks

To the Editor:

Re “What Are the Plastic Particles in Our Bodies Doing to Us?” (Opinion guest essay, April 23):

Mark O’Connell perfectly elucidated the prevalence of plastic in our bodies and how helpless we are in avoiding it. You might stop giving your child water in a plastic cup, he says, but what about the polyvinyl chloride pipes that the water passed through to get to your home?

Coincidentally, a Beyond Plastics report released this month warned that communities opting to replace their lead service lines with PVC plastic pipes may well be leaping from the frying pan into the fire, as PVC poses concerns to human health.

The report was prompted by Congress’s decision to provide municipalities with $15 billion to replace their lead lines. While this was a positive move, the Environmental Protection Agency failed to support it with science-backed guidance about alternative materials so communities could make safe choices for themselves and their families.

It’s time to move beyond plastic — and it’s possible with political action that demands less of it in our lives.

Judith Enck
Poestenkill, N.Y.
The writer is a former E.P.A. regional administrator and current president of Beyond Plastics.

Source: Read Full Article