I note Charles Hemmings’ advocacy of nuclear energy (CNN 401) and suggest that no one is implying that converting to a renewable energy economy is without challenge.
But at core, concerns are both ethical and economic.
We often hear about our moral responsibility to stop burning fossil fuels because of the impact on global carbon dioxide levels, rises in global temperature and sea levels and the long-lasting consequences for future generations.
No doubt too, we shall hear more about the economic costs as we progress with ‘green’ technologies.
Also, we hear occasionally about nuclear energy’s questionable economics—its massive establishment and end-of-life dismantling costs.
However there is little discussion these days about the risks of major technological breakdown in nuclear generation of energy, presumably because modern technologies make the probability of accident small.
But let’s be clear – the potential for a major accident with any technology can never be totally abolished.
And a major nuclear accident is like no other.
In the event, many people might die in the short term or suffer cancers and associated injuries for the rest of their truncated lives.
But that is not even the key moral issue.
It is that large areas of land could be alienated for thousands of years.
I ask that readers consider this: is it ethical to risk denying perhaps hundreds of future generations access to large areas of our county’s landscape for our economic convenience?
I say no.
Email, Aug 6
Sonne Hopkins, Tascott
fukashima happen 12 years ago people cant have such short memories they are still deciding what to do with the waste water 12 years after that accident. People are watching Ukraine its a miracle the reactor has not gone critical at Zapareshia, people died in 2022 of hot ground exposure because they dug trenches at Chernobyl which is also in Ukraine they were dead within 2 weeks from the radiation exposure that is 37 years and was from the dust from the event just the dust. People who suggest nuclear is safe never take into account the full story they love cover ups dont like full exposure and they talk up the science of which they always say in 10 years time is the frame work and i just spoke about 12 years yet just last year people were exposed again to a nuclear incident that happen 37 years ago they still cant clean it up. what hope is there in nuclear if they cant clean up a mess from 37 ago or a mess from 12 years ago I can not believe we are still having this conversation Russia is actively targetting a nuclear reactor Iran has the same battle tactic China has aslo said it would do the same. Every reactor is a giant nuclear bomb the largest in the nothern hemisphere is currently being targeted by Russia they dont care they have choosen its an acceptable lose. So I suggest we forget the science of the sun and focus on safety sustainable solar or wind wave or anything other than nuclear the dark connections to military and national defence is a very merky topic that never gets talked about because nuclear is not about power supply at all.