The nuclear situation

WE SAY the U.S. should be careful to place too much emphasis on a disaster that could have been predicted and possibly prevented.

The nuclear energy question is a complex policy issue in the United States. It combines a mixture of science, opinion and emotion to create odd alliances both for and against the use of nuclear energy.

Prior to the Japanese disaster in Fukushima, support in the United States for new nuclear power plants stood at a record high of 62 percent. Today, support for new plants hovers at about 44 percent. Other polls, such as Pew, put public support even lower. 

In fact, a majority of Americans now support a moratorium on nuclear power plants.
From our perspective, the debate about nuclear energy should not be moved much by this latest disaster, as it is a single disaster on a short list of major nuclear mishaps.
Of course nuclear energy can be dangerous, but didn’t we know of those dangers before the Fukushima disaster? Wasn’t the science and policy in place prior to the horrors in Japan?

Public opinion always hangs on the whims of the latest news cycle. People lead busy lives. Today more than ever, people frequently form opinions based on a news story that made them feel emotionally charged rather than a perspective built during time with historical or scientific depth.

We should be careful to temper such backlash in the wake of things that scare us, but rather take a moment to reevaluate our own positions that may be negatively
influenced by emotion.

It is unfortunate that we sometimes wait until a disaster strikes to call for more oversight, especially when all of the facts are apparent well before the incident.

In the case of nuclear energy, however, we are already fairly safe. We’ve long known about the dangers and risks involved with its use. With very high safety standards, the nuclear industry in America is one of the most regulated in the world. 

And we didn’t actually learn much from the Japanese disaster. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has assured Americans that the U.S. already “has rigorous safety regulations in place” and that U.S. officials have already anticipated and prepared for scenarios similar to what happened in Japan.

In terms of the dangers of nuclear energy, they are no more or less real than they were the day before the quake and tsunami hit. We will most likely strengthen the safeguards for such incidents in the United States, and that is a good thing.

What we shouldn’t do is abandon the idea of a more nuclear America because of a disaster that could have been both predicted and prevented.

Do not mistake this as a flat-out endorsement of nuclear energy. The editorial board is fairly split in support of nuclear energy, and at most we agree that the United States must continue to move cautiously to allow nuclear energy to play a bigger role in our energy portfolio.

With the growing danger of climate change, we need to move fast to phase out the use of fossil fuels. We should not abandon nuclear energy based only on our fears, as it may be able to play a key role in our transition to a sustainable future.

After all, we shouldn’t wait for a climate catastrophe to start weighing all of our options.