I try to refrain from doing this. Neither political party can claim exclusive rights to stupidity. And yet sometimes it is impossible not to wonder if certain members of the state Legislature have their heads screwed on right.

Such is the case with the state Assembly Democrats? opposition to lifting a de facto statewide ban on the construction of nuclear power plants in Wisconsin. Current state statute effectively prohibits any additional nuclear power in the state by prohibiting the production of a nuclear plant until a permanent waste storage site is found, and it can be proven that Wisconsin residents would save money through the operation of such a facility.

The 57-38 vote took place along what were essentially party lines, meaning the Republicans who make up the majority of the Assembly managed to pass the legislation. Because the Democratic Senate will almost undoubtedly kill the proposal, however, it is reasonable to expect that this last salvo of legislative progress on the part of Republicans will be tossed. The flimsy justifications the Democrats have given merit to further investigation.

The most valid arguments the Democrats could produce are the provisions of the ban itself ?? nuclear energy will not currently save energy users much money, and there is nowhere to permanently store the waste.

First to the economics. Rep. Chuck Benedict, D-Beloit, a leading proponent of upholding the ban, believes that ?Wisconsin should invest in viable, cleaner, renewable alternatives.?

Although the financial incentives of nuclear power in the state do not currently compare with fossil fuels, this neglects the acknowledged specter of the future ? fossil fuels will only get more expensive, because they are running out. More problematically for the ban, other potential energy investments such as biofuels or natural gas also require substantial amounts of subsidies before biofuel facilities can even be built, much less exist competitively.

Thus the difference between nuclear power and the most commonly pushed alternative ? biofuels ? is a colossal one. Nuclear energy can be effectively produced now at competitive prices. Biofuels would require subsidies only so that more research could be done without any tangible benefit in the short run. Ethanol is one such an example. Even with massive federal investment, the miracle that was to liberate us from our dependence on foreign energy has failed to do, well, anything at all.

Most tellingly, continual defense of the ban neglects the vast intellectual resources present in the state itself. This university also has one of the most advanced nuclear programs in the country. Since the research infrastructure is already in place, I have to wonder why university administrators are not fighting the ban more ardently, especially considering the limitless potential for cooperation between our own nuclear researchers and the corporate moguls on the business side of the equation.

Preventing nuclear facilities from being built is also a self-fufilling prophecy ? they will never be economically viable if we refuse to allow companies to build them in the first place.

Finding a practical and responsible method of cooling and permanently storing nuclear waste, on the other hand, is a valid concern, and the Democrats are right in expressing it. Massive amounts of water are traditionally used to cool the spent fuel rods, which make up the greatest proportion of radioactive waste from a nuclear plant.

With the development of advanced Generation 4 reactors, which use helium or liquid sodium to cool spent nuclear fuel, the question of water usage seems to be answered. And as for permanent storage, despite how much it might irk U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, all signs point to Yucca.

Technical arguments aside, the question should be asked: Why should I give a damn?

Global warming, environmental pollution, the lack of affordable energy ? all of these shake the very notion of our existence to its core by posing a fundamental question: Are we, as human beings, capable of sustaining ourselves?

The answer is yes. Unequivocally. But as ridiculous as ignoring the question may be, ignoring the answer is far worse.

Sam Clegg ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in political science and economics.