Robert R. Holt | Letter to the Editor (Cape Cod Times)
After describing the recommendations of the NRC’s post-Fukushima task force, your editorial of March 21 then assumes that they are already improvements, neglecting the fact that the industry has five years to adopt them! It’s also an elementary error to treat “safe” as an all-or-none term. When NRC declares that all U.S. nuclear reactors are safe, they mean “safe enough for Americans,” even though Germany realizes that one disaster every dozen years (the industry’s present record) isn’t safe enough for them. Why should Entergy assume the right to put at risk many millions of people all over the world, who don’t benefit from nuclear power, so they can enjoy big profits? Because nuclear spews less greenhouse gases than fossil fuel plants? Several experts, notably Amory Lovins (www.reinventingfire.com), demonstrate a better alternative: adopting easily available, cost-effective ways of using energy efficiently creates more good jobs than lost by abandoning fossil fuels, saves enough money to accelerate renewables, and cuts CO2, avoiding catastrophic climate change. We can do more with enough less electricity to close down, not build more, coal plants while phasing out nuclear power as well. Pilgrim can’t be made safe enough to extend its license; let it die now!
