By Jeffrey Page
Never mind the explosions. Never mind the fires. Never mind the leaked radiation drifting to the clouds and that a complete meltdown is possible.

Never mind all that because important voices are telling us – despite our complete understanding of the calamitous news of the last few days – that nuclear energy remains the way to go. And you have to wonder what these people have been reading during the days since Friday when, in fact, the world changed. Surely not the news out of Sendai in northern Japan.

The New York Times, after conceding that what happened in Japan amounts to the worst nuclear “accident” since Chernobyl in 1986, goes on to editorialize that nuclear power will remain “a valuable tool” for the United States.

“But the public needs to know that it is a safe one,” The Times notes, as though you might disagree with the paper’s astute observation.

Meanwhile, upstate, in the 20th Congressional District, the Saratogian newspaper reported that Rep. Chris Gibson’s support of nuclear power remains undiminished following the incident in Japan. “I want it done and I want it done safely,” Gibson declares as if to suggest you might be in the camp that doesn’t want it done safely.

Gibson wants to have a nuclear generator built in his district. “Energy is a passion for me because it can be a game changer for the economy,” Gibson, a member of Congress for 72 days, told the Saratogian.

Needless to say, The Times and Gibson are not alone in wishing for safe sources of energy. The problem, of course, is that Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and now Sendai in Japan have shown us that essentially there’s no such thing as safety when it comes to nuclear power plants. What Gibson and the newspaper are forgetting is that certain forces, completely beyond anyone’s control, were the catalyst that set the Japanese reactor off.

Maybe the plant in Sendai would have survived for another 50 years had last Friday been like any other Friday in northern Japan. But there was the little matter of the earthquake, which measured 9 in intensity, one of the most severe on record.

So let us design a reactor to withstand a quake of 9.0. But if the next earthquake happens to measure 9.5, what then? Rebuild to make the plant safe from a magnitude 10 quake? And what do we tell the people who lose their families when that reactor is fatally damaged? That nuclear power is a valuable tool? That we want it done but safely? That energy is our passion?

When it comes to nuclear energy, the problems never end. The news is about Japan and fires and explosions, but have you seen a story about the other monster problem, that of safe disposal of nuclear waste?

And then there’s Indian Point. NBC reports that federal regulators are trying to figure out how vulnerable the nuclear plant in Buchanan is to earthquakes. MSNBC reported that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found Indian Point the most vulnerable in the nation.

And then there’s terrorism.

One of these days we’re going to get serious and acknowledge that as nice and cheap as it would be to derive our energy needs from a stack of radioactive rocks, nuclear plants will always be a danger.

In the meantime, let’s stop fooling around. Because records are made to be broken, let’s design a nuke for Gibson’s district that’ll withstand a quake with a magnitude of 15. That should do it.

But some questions: Do you think Chris Gibson would move into a terrific new house next door, down the road or even within 20 miles of the plant? Would the Times editorial staff?

Would you?

Jeffrey can be reached at jeffrey@zestoforange.com.

Tags: Jeffrey Page

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 12th, 2011 at 9:50 am and is filed under Jeffrey Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.