NUCLEAR ENERGY REDUX: IS ANYONE DEBATING SAFETY STANDARDS?

Ten years ago, when the number of nuclear power plants in the U.S. reached its peak of 110, it looked as though economics alone would eventually shut down the nuclear power industry. Plants were hugely expensive to build and maintain, given government regulations. Then, of course, there was the fact that decades of debate about the safety of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste had soured the public on the fantasy of clean, abundant, affordable power.

But nuclear energy isn't dead yet. In the last decade, almost sixty reactors have, according to the New York Times, "quietly received the [Nuclear Regulatory] commission's permission to increase heat output and thus electric production"-- in other words, deregulation. What that means, given recent electricity shortages and the soaring price of natural gas, is that nuclear power has become more cost effective-- a fact that thrills many planners in that industry. Plants that have strained the bank accounts of their original builder/owners are now being bought by new owners who are making the plants more profitable under today's economy. At the same time, both new and old owners are pushing their plants harder and running them longer between down-times than ever before. The Times reports that one plant "now shuts for refueling every 18 months [while]... in the 1970s and 1980s, it would shut down every year for 60 or 70 days."

The Times also reports that "in the early days, emergency shutdowns came every couple of months of so; now they are so infrequent plant managers remember each one, and every manual shutdown." Which says to us that in an effort to make an economic go of it this time, plant owners are redefining safety-- in their terms, and without as much public input as when this was a burning issue.

We don't know what the safety standards should be; do you? Does anybody know how to re-think the whole issue of safety, when it comes to nuclear power? The point is that there is precious little public discussion of this issue and it's time to get one going again-- especially since our track lights and stereo systems and refrigerators and hair dryers, and the plants that manufacture our cell phones and batteries and cars and sneakers, are using more power than ever. Some nuclear plants are 40 years old and are being re-licensed for another 20 years; parts of their structure are decaying, yet because of computers and new materials used for repairs, owners are saying that plants are safer than ever. One one hand, that may be true. On the other, has anyone solved the problem of disposal of nuclear waste? Aren't we still just planning to cram it down the throat of Mother Earth, even if in some remote spot that's in nobody's back yard? Aren't we still kinda soft-pedaling the fact that's been staring us in the face ever since nuclear power began-- that the waste is the most toxic substance ever known and it stays toxic for millennia?