During spring break there was a shadow hanging over my head like a plume of radiation steam. Every time I turned on the TV or opened a newspaper, fear of a
nuclear catastrophe on the order of Chernobyl was played out in words and
pictures. Japanese families
huddled in makeshift shelters and tense statements about overheating reactors
and contaminated spinach abounded. The
situation in Japan is a tragedy that threatens to take a terrifying turn for
the worse, and, for the rest of the world, it is like watching a train
wreck. It also has troubling
implications for the future of nuclear power. 

Even as Tokyo Electric employees and Japanese military officials frantically try to prevent a total meltdown, environmentalists and alarmists
around the world are dancing on the grave of atomic energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists has
renewed their criticism of nuclear power, and spokesman David Lochbaum
commented that, “It’s like the spinning wheels on a slot machine.” The Sierra Club maintains it is “a
uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity.” The Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group calls atomic energy “inherently
dangerous, potentially catastrophic and a terrible investment for our country.” Most opponents claim that power companies have not taken the necessary
precautions against natural disasters, leaving citizens at risk of radiation
leakage, and, as always, environmentalist groups portray nuclear power as a
source of hazardous pollution and a grave danger to an unsuspecting
public. 

These arguments are
shortsighted, and environmentalists need to relax. Energy companies have been cautious in assessing risks. Most plants, including the Fukushima
Daiichi reactor, are built to withstand earthquakes 10 times more powerful
than the worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, 9.0 Richter scale earthquakes are unpredictable. In response to widespread concern over
the possibility of a similar earthquake disaster near the San Andreas fault in
California, James Becker of the Diablo Canyon plant maintained Pacific Gas
and Electric “employs a fully staffed seismic department.” In response to such concerns, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is undertaking a safety inspection of the country’s
104 reactor plants. Energy
Secretary Stephen Chu acknowledged the incidents in Japan, saying, “Any time
there is a serious accident, we have to learn from those accidents and go
forward.” Oversight agencies such as Concerned
Scientists and the NRC are correct to begin thorough reviews of our atomic
facilities in an effort to minimize inherent risks, but the claim that they are
fundamentally flawed is an overreaction. No pun intended. 

Nuclear power companies, regulation agencies and government
advocates must increase their efforts to inform citizens about the benefits and
the inherent risks of atomic power. The greatest deterrent to using nuclear power is fear. By educating the public on contingency
plans and the massive precautions that are already being made at reactor
facilities, nuclear energy advocates can dispel alarmist claims and popular myths
that feed opposition. The fact is,
few industries in the world are as thoroughly regulated and as critically
inspected as atomic energy. If
people realize the amount of time, money and resources devoted to keeping them
safe, they will feel more comfortable with the reactor facilities in our midst.

There can be no sustainable energy future without atomic
energy. Solar energy depends on
expensive silicon, wind power is undependable and hydroelectric destroys our
rivers. All of these sources
combined provide 10 percent of America’s electricity, a vital part of our
energy portfolio, but hardly enough to fulfill the needs of our industrial
economy. Although there have been
no new plants built since 1974, atomic energy generates 20 percent of the
nation’s electricity, and it is the only source of abundant and dependable
energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses. The most frustrating
thing about renewed opposition to atomic energy is that it leads to a far
bleaker future of global warming and acid rain. Nuclear power is the only proven, available alternative to
fossil fuels, and continuing with a business-as-usual policy that is
responsible for climate change because of unwarranted fear is senseless. What is needed is a pragmatic approach to environmentalism. We must balance
the desire to preserve our climate with the energy needs of our economy and
modern lifestyle, and between these two goals nuclear power is a necessary
compromise.

I have no doubt
that a few weeks from now a friendly voice on the sidewalk with a clipboard
will be asking me if I have a moment for Wisconsin’s lakes. I love lakes. But I might have to be a wiseass and ask them if they have a moment for the state’s nuclear reactors at Kewaunee and Point Beach. 

Charles Godfrey ([email protected]) is a freshman with an undecided major.