Nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe

The president is promoting federal loan guarantees to build two new nuclear power plants at a cost of $8.3 billion. Over the last decade, the nuclear industry has spent more than $600 million lobbying the federal government and another $63 million in federal campaign contributions. To advance its cause, the nuclear industry is taking a new tack: the need for jobs and concerns about global warming.

But the nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant reminds us of the many reasons that citizens have been successfully opposing reliance on nuclear energy since the 1970s.

There is the waste issue. Nuclear power generates radioactive waste that is a threat to everyone for centuries to come. There is no repository for the waste and no plan to dispose of it. Two decades and billions of taxpayer dollars later, a proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada is not accepting waste. The cost to taxpayers for resolving this industry problem, if we ever can, will be massive.

There is the production issue. Mining uranium is a dirty business that has resulted in many sick and dying miners and polluted communities. Mined uranium must be processed into fuel — another hazardous and expensive activity.

There is the bottom line. Nuclear power is not cheap. It has always required huge taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. Before this round of government loan guarantees were proposed, private investors were not interested in part because power generated by nuclear plants is not competitive: It costs 30 to 35 percent more than power produced from coal or natural gas plants.

There is the legal liability. The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the National Taxpayers Union have questioned whether it is fiscally responsible for the government to guarantee loans on privately owned nuclear power plants.

There is also the danger factor. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences noted that “successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible,” and that such an attack “could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material.”

Even without terrorism, plants release radiation. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen generated in nuclear power reactors and released into the water and air — it cannot be filtered and has a half-life of 12.3 years, which means it will be dangerous for at least 120 years.

Every nuclear reactor releases tritium as a part of its routine operation and not just as the result of accidental leaks or spills. No feasible technology exists that can remove tritium from a reactor’s waste water or from the reactor’s steam releases into the air. The National Academy of Sciences says there is no safe radiation dose: Even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts.

Nuclear power advocates argue that to reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming we must turn to nuclear power. But the carbon footprint of nuclear power is not small because all phases of producing it must be considered. Mining and processing uranium, the construction of a massive infrastructure, waste disposal and monitoring systems wreck havoc on the environment.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that radiation reached around 20 times normal levels in Tokyo and the emergency at Japan’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant is a six on a seven-point international scale, making it worse than the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, which rated five. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine rated seven and the area is still contaminated by cesium 137 25 years after that meltdown.

The nuclear power industry relentlessly promotes the idea that nuclear energy is clean, safe, inexpensive and efficient.

The vision that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter has proven, in light of experience, to be fraudulent. Radioactive waste storage problems and expense, numerous reactor and waste transport accidents, decommissioning costs, increased risks to humans from exposure to radioactivity and the resultant cost to all of us, environmentally and monetarily demonstrate otherwise.

It is time for citizens to say enough is enough — nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe. It is costly and hazardous to us, our environment and future generations.

Go to beyondnuclear.org for more information.

Charlene LaVoie is the community lawyer in Winsted.

Latest News

Salisbury ski jumpers put on show for students

Gus Tripler prepares to jump from the new 36-meter jump.

Margaret Banker

SALISBURY - With the Winter Olympics just weeks away, Olympic dreams felt a little closer to home for Salisbury Central School students on Feb. 4, when student ski jumpers from the Salisbury Winter Sports Association put on a live demonstration at the Satre Hill Ski Jumping Complex for more than 300 classmates and teachers.

With screams of delight, student-athletes soared through the air, showcasing years of training and focus for an audience of their peers. The atmosphere was electric as the jumpers soaked up the attention like local celebrities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Classifieds - February 5, 2026

Help Wanted

PART-TIME CARE-GIVER NEEDED: possibly LIVE-IN. Bright private STUDIO on 10 acres. Queen Bed, En-Suite Bathroom, Kitchenette & Garage. SHARON 407-620-7777.

The Scoville Memorial Library: is seeking an experienced Development Coordinator to provide high-level support for our fundraising initiatives on a contract basis. This contractor will play a critical role in donor stewardship, database management, and the execution of seasonal appeals and events. The role is ideal for someone who is deeply connected to the local community and skilled at building authentic relationships that lead to meaningful support. For a full description of the role and to submit a letter of interest and resume, contact Library Director Karin Goodell, kgoodell@scovillelibrary.org.

Keep ReadingShow less
Legal Notices - February 5, 2026

Legal Notice

The Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Salisbury will hold a Public Hearing on Special Permit Application #2026-0307 by Amber Construction and Design Inc for vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure at 120 Wells Hill Road, Lakeville, Map 36, Lot 09 per Section 503.2 of the Salisbury Zoning Regulations. The Owners of the property are Joseph Edward Costa and Elyse Catherine Nelson. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 5:45 PM. There is no physical location for this meeting. This meeting will be held virtually via Zoom where interested persons can listen to & speak on the matter. The application, agenda and meeting instructions will be listed at www.salisburyct.us/agendas/. The application materials will be listed at www.salisburyct.us/planning-zoning-meeting-documents/. Written comments may be submitted to the Land Use Office, Salisbury Town Hall, 27 Main Street, P.O. Box 548, Salisbury, CT or via email to landuse@salisburyct.us. Paper copies of the agenda, meeting instructions, and application materials may be reviewed Monday through Thursday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 3:30 PM at the Land Use Office, Salisbury Town Hall, 27 Main Street, Salisbury CT.

Keep ReadingShow less
Putting a stamp on Norfolk

Antonio Alcalá

Provided

As part of the Norfolk Economic Development Commission’s campaign to celebrate the Norfolk Post Office and the three women who run it — Postmaster Michelle Veronesi and mother-and-daughter postal clerks Kathy Bascetta and Jenna Brown — the EDC has invited USPS art director and stamp designer Antonio Alcalá for a visit.

Postage stamps designed by Antonio Alcalá.Provided

Keep ReadingShow less