[ RadSafe ] New York Times Editorial: The Nuclear Power Opti on

[Baratta, Edmond J]

What else would someone expect from the New York Times?  They aren't know to
speak well of President Bush at anytime.

Edmond J. Baratta
Radiation Safety Officer
Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728
FAX: 781-729-3593

This my own personal opinion and not that of my Agency!!


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of John Jacobus
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 3:44 PM
To: radsafe; know_nukes at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ RadSafe ] New York Times Editorial: The Nuclear Power Option

>From yesterday's New York Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/opinion/04wed3.html?th=&oref=login&emc=th&

Basically, they are a reiteration of pervious
statements.
--------------

May 4, 2005
EDITORIAL 
T
 
n his sketchy speech on energy policy last week,
President Bush placed a high priority on nuclear
energy, which he described as "one of the safest,
cleanest sources of power in the world." The president
had good reason to suggest an important role for this
much-feared energy source. 

The price of natural gas, the current fuel of choice
for power plants, has risen sharply. And there is
mounting evidence that damage from global warming may
dwarf any environmental risk posed by nuclear power.
It is therefore critical to keep nuclear power as part
of the nation's energy mix. But Mr. Bush will have to
address some crucial concerns before the public will
follow him down the nuclear path with much enthusiasm.

For starters, there is the awkward fact that nuclear
power plants pose a risk of proliferating the
materials and skills to make nuclear weapons. That is
not an issue in the United States, which already has a
mammoth nuclear arsenal. But if the United States
resurrects its stagnant nuclear industry, other
nations may also turn to nuclear power, with the risk
that rogue nations may someday use the fuel to make
bombs. The Bush administration will need to find ways,
perhaps through the nuclear nonproliferation review
that started yesterday, to ensure that power plants do
not become an easy route to nuclear weapons. 

Beyond that, Mr. Bush will need to ensure that the
pools holding spent fuel at domestic nuclear plants
can be made safe from terrorists. He will have to
devise a backup plan for storing nuclear waste, should
the proposed burial site at Yucca Mountain prove
untenable after legal and regulatory setbacks. He will
need to invest in new, potentially safer reactor
designs to allay longstanding concerns about
accidents.

Finally, one familiar impediment to nuclear power -
the high capital costs required up front - could
remain troublesome, unless the cost of competing fuels
soars higher. 

None of these concerns need rule out this promising
source of power. But they will need to be addressed
forthrightly.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the
result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/