2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the Editor
Issue date: 11/4/05 Section: Opinions
Dear Editor,
Scott Biancani grossly exaggerates the potential risks associated with nuclear power. In the extremely unlikely event of a serious reactor accident, some radioactive material would be released into the atmosphere, but there is no possibility that large areas will be rendered "inhabitable" for long time periods. Even around Chernobyl, radiation levels have already fallen to within the range of natural background in most areas. Western nuclear plants are not capable of releasing more than a tiny fraction of the radiation that was released by Chernobyl, under ANY circumstances. It is therefore unlikely that even a worst-case accident at a US plant would result in any land area having radiation levels outside the range of natural background, for any significant period of time. Thus, it is very unlikely that any long-term evacuation would be required.
Nuclear plants are already known to among the least effective targets a terrorist could choose. Analyses show that a direct hit with a large aircraft would not cause a significant release of radioactive material. A commando raid is also extremely unlikely to succeed, and the amount of damage (release) that could be caused by even a successful attack has been greatly overestimated. The US is filled with "soft" targets where terrorists could cause as much or more damage, with an infinitely greater chance of success.
The containers used to transport nuclear waste are among the strongest ever constructed by man, and can easily withstand any of the accidents Mr. Biancani discusses without releasing any radioactive material. Even in the event of an extreme accident or a terrorist attack the worst possible result would be a small release and a cleanup operation over a small, local area around the container. A small, local evacuation, similar to those which routinely occur with chemical spills, may be required. No deaths would result. Worldwide, over ~70,000 tons of nuclear waste (roughly equal to the total amount of waste that will be shipped to Yucca Mtn.) and there has never been a release of radioactive material.
Due to the limitations of (intermittent) renewables, and the high cost and limited supply of natural gas, Florida will need to build either a coal plant or a nuclear plant to meet its increasing (baseload) power needs. In terms of overall risks to public health and the environment, there is absolutely no comparison between the two. In addition to being the leading single cause of global warming, EPA estimates that in the US alone, coal plants cause ~25,000 premature deaths every single year, under normal operation. By contrast, US nuclear plants do not pollute, and have never had any measurable impact on public health. Even the worst conceivable accident (or attack) at a US nuclear plant would not cause more than a tiny fraction of the health effects caused ANNUALLY by coal. Based on the actual historical record over the last 40 years, as opposed to wild speculation and imagination, the safety of nuclear power, relative to other energy choices, couldn't be more clear.
James E. Hopf
James Hopf is a nuclear engineer, and is a member of the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society.
Dear Editor,
The massive landscaping renovations begin approximately two months before parents' weekend. It begins quite suddenly, when one morning the campus is swarming with a force of "horticultural engineers" that is roughly equivalent in number to that of the students, and every green space on campus is populated by workers on their hands and knees, plucking meticulously from the earth every foreign object-be it unwanted weeds, beer bottles, or condom wrappers. It begins innocently enough, and the few students who are cognizant of the purpose (or even presence) of these workers toss around light-hearted comments about the misdirection of a $40,000 tuition being spent on palatial palms as opposed to progressive policies.
However, as the weeks become days, the rapid changes on campus become increasingly alarming. Not only does the landscape suffer a facelift as drastic as Joan Rivers', but suddenly campus comes alive with flags as multi-colored as they are multi-culti, claiming to advertise the so-called diversity of the students. About a week before the acclaimed event there is a notable change in the cafeteria food. Scrambled eggs morph miraculously from their usually semi-viscous state and leave smaller puddles of tepid yolks on the mass-produced plates, and at dinner time there are a great deal fewer bread-stick related injuries.
When the fated Friday finally arrives, campus is officially transformed. Every piece of grass is clipped as if with scissors so that it is equidistant from the ground. Hundreds of flags billow, proudly displaying countries that the bulk of students could not even locate on a labeled map. The cafeteria offers chocolate Belgian waffles, only revealing their inexperience with such delicatessens by the charred flesh of the pastry that is impregnable (unlike the female student body) even to the stock forks built for such unappetizing victuals. Students who can usually be found sprawled around campus with cigarettes perched between their lips are suddenly escorting family members with sweaters draped across their shoulders. Classes are full and no one is hung over. Saturday night is as eerily quiet as a club where the music that rattled spleens seconds ago is suddenly extinguished. What was once likenable to the playboy mansion is now as sedate as a retirement home birthday party.
In the end, campus will regain its ornaments of non-recycled liquor bottles, the cafeteria will resume the distribution of Laodicean provisions, and students will undress to their usual levels of quasi-nudity before relighting the cigarettes that are as much a part of their appearance as the Chanel sunglasses and popped collars.
Jessica Jarrett
Jessica Jarrett is an Arts and Sciences student.
Scott Biancani grossly exaggerates the potential risks associated with nuclear power. In the extremely unlikely event of a serious reactor accident, some radioactive material would be released into the atmosphere, but there is no possibility that large areas will be rendered "inhabitable" for long time periods. Even around Chernobyl, radiation levels have already fallen to within the range of natural background in most areas. Western nuclear plants are not capable of releasing more than a tiny fraction of the radiation that was released by Chernobyl, under ANY circumstances. It is therefore unlikely that even a worst-case accident at a US plant would result in any land area having radiation levels outside the range of natural background, for any significant period of time. Thus, it is very unlikely that any long-term evacuation would be required.
Nuclear plants are already known to among the least effective targets a terrorist could choose. Analyses show that a direct hit with a large aircraft would not cause a significant release of radioactive material. A commando raid is also extremely unlikely to succeed, and the amount of damage (release) that could be caused by even a successful attack has been greatly overestimated. The US is filled with "soft" targets where terrorists could cause as much or more damage, with an infinitely greater chance of success.
The containers used to transport nuclear waste are among the strongest ever constructed by man, and can easily withstand any of the accidents Mr. Biancani discusses without releasing any radioactive material. Even in the event of an extreme accident or a terrorist attack the worst possible result would be a small release and a cleanup operation over a small, local area around the container. A small, local evacuation, similar to those which routinely occur with chemical spills, may be required. No deaths would result. Worldwide, over ~70,000 tons of nuclear waste (roughly equal to the total amount of waste that will be shipped to Yucca Mtn.) and there has never been a release of radioactive material.
Due to the limitations of (intermittent) renewables, and the high cost and limited supply of natural gas, Florida will need to build either a coal plant or a nuclear plant to meet its increasing (baseload) power needs. In terms of overall risks to public health and the environment, there is absolutely no comparison between the two. In addition to being the leading single cause of global warming, EPA estimates that in the US alone, coal plants cause ~25,000 premature deaths every single year, under normal operation. By contrast, US nuclear plants do not pollute, and have never had any measurable impact on public health. Even the worst conceivable accident (or attack) at a US nuclear plant would not cause more than a tiny fraction of the health effects caused ANNUALLY by coal. Based on the actual historical record over the last 40 years, as opposed to wild speculation and imagination, the safety of nuclear power, relative to other energy choices, couldn't be more clear.
James E. Hopf
James Hopf is a nuclear engineer, and is a member of the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society.
Dear Editor,
The massive landscaping renovations begin approximately two months before parents' weekend. It begins quite suddenly, when one morning the campus is swarming with a force of "horticultural engineers" that is roughly equivalent in number to that of the students, and every green space on campus is populated by workers on their hands and knees, plucking meticulously from the earth every foreign object-be it unwanted weeds, beer bottles, or condom wrappers. It begins innocently enough, and the few students who are cognizant of the purpose (or even presence) of these workers toss around light-hearted comments about the misdirection of a $40,000 tuition being spent on palatial palms as opposed to progressive policies.
However, as the weeks become days, the rapid changes on campus become increasingly alarming. Not only does the landscape suffer a facelift as drastic as Joan Rivers', but suddenly campus comes alive with flags as multi-colored as they are multi-culti, claiming to advertise the so-called diversity of the students. About a week before the acclaimed event there is a notable change in the cafeteria food. Scrambled eggs morph miraculously from their usually semi-viscous state and leave smaller puddles of tepid yolks on the mass-produced plates, and at dinner time there are a great deal fewer bread-stick related injuries.
When the fated Friday finally arrives, campus is officially transformed. Every piece of grass is clipped as if with scissors so that it is equidistant from the ground. Hundreds of flags billow, proudly displaying countries that the bulk of students could not even locate on a labeled map. The cafeteria offers chocolate Belgian waffles, only revealing their inexperience with such delicatessens by the charred flesh of the pastry that is impregnable (unlike the female student body) even to the stock forks built for such unappetizing victuals. Students who can usually be found sprawled around campus with cigarettes perched between their lips are suddenly escorting family members with sweaters draped across their shoulders. Classes are full and no one is hung over. Saturday night is as eerily quiet as a club where the music that rattled spleens seconds ago is suddenly extinguished. What was once likenable to the playboy mansion is now as sedate as a retirement home birthday party.
In the end, campus will regain its ornaments of non-recycled liquor bottles, the cafeteria will resume the distribution of Laodicean provisions, and students will undress to their usual levels of quasi-nudity before relighting the cigarettes that are as much a part of their appearance as the Chanel sunglasses and popped collars.
Jessica Jarrett
Jessica Jarrett is an Arts and Sciences student.