NUCLEAR POWER RISKS

WHAT HAPPENS IF A REACTOR BREAKS DOWN & THE NUCLEAR FUEL ESCAPES? WHAT ARE THE RISKS & PROBLEMS OF SHIPPING & STORING NUCLEAR WASTE? HOW DO THE RISKS FOR OTHER ENERGY SOURCES COMPARE WITH THE NUCLEAR RISK? THESE ARE QUESTIONS FOR WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN SEEKING SATISFACTORY ANSWERS, & FAILURE TO PROVIDE THEM IN PLAIN, UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGE HAS CAUSED THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY & THE AEC TO LOSE CREDIBILITY. REASONABLE ANSWERS TO THESE & OTHER QUESTIONS ARE AVAILABLE, & CAN BE GIVEN WITHOUT TECHNICAL JARGON. REACTOR BREAKDOWNS ARE FREQUENT, LIKE THOSE OF ANY MACHINE, BUT MOSTLY TRIVIAL IN NATURE. FAILURE OF THE ULTIMATE LAYER OF REACTOR CONTAINMENT, & ESCAPE OF THE FUEL, WHILE QUITE RARE, COULD CREATE A PUBLIC HAZARD COMMENSURATE WITH OTHER INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS, BUT NOT A CATASTROPHE AS OFTEN DEPICTED. NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE IS A VERY MINOR PUBLIC RISK BECAUSE OF 2 LITTLE-UNDERSTOOD FACTS: THE VOLUME OF THE WASTE TO BE STORED IS MINUTE, & THE PENETRATING RADIATION IT EMITS LASTS ONLY ABOUT 350 YEARS, NOT THE MILLENNIA OFTEN MENTIONED BY FEARMONGERS. REGARDLESS OF PRECAUTIONS & SAFEGUARDS, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME DEGREE OF RESIDUAL HAZARD FROM A MUCLEAR POWER STATION, & THE SAME IS TRUE OF ANY OTHER ENERGY SOURCE. THE BEST WE CAN ASK IS THAT THE NUCLEAR SYSTEM BE AT LEAST AS SAFE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM. HERE THE CHOICE IS CLEAR: COAL IS THE ONLY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR SOME DECADES TO COME, & THE PROVEN RISKS & ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF COAL EXCEED THOSE OF NUCLEAR PLANTS BY FACTORS OF 100 TO 1,000. THERE ARE NO COMPLETELY SAFE ALTERNATIVES, SO SUCH COMPARATIVE CHOICES MUST BE MADE. 1 FIGURE. AA.