1 Comment

I'm struggling with this one. On a larger level, I agree with a lot of what Ms. Lights is saying, but a lot of the specifics didn't seem to be correct -- though I rush to point out I'm not an expert, and my understanding may be wrong. For example, the idea that you can just shut down a reactor and it's then just fine if, say, it were to be bombed, or that a reactor is totally safe in general once it's "shut down." A shut down reactor is still fissioning, and still producing high radioactivity. If you do not have water flowing under most current production designs (which were from the 50s/ 60s), it will melt down at some point. There are several newer designs that have yet to be approved that are much more "default safe" but that is not the case with current reactors.

Also, while Fukushima was nothing so bad as Chernobyl, there was a significant release of radioactive materials (mostly shorter-lived isotopes as I understand it). It was a very serious accident.

I think nuclear is a very important part of our energy future. I'm not sure its advocacy is well-served by not taking the risks seriously enough, and one key risk is that we *must* begin using more modern designs.

Points about the excessive fear of nuclear are right on; fears far outweigh actual risks based on what has happened in the past. But there *are* risks and we should be doing more to mitigate them.

Expand full comment