Was it serendipity that The Boston Globe’s editorial “Too risky to wait for Pilgrim plant’s shutdown” appeared at about the same time that Cape Cod’s Downwinders hand-delivered a letter to Governor Baker requesting immediate closing of Plymouth’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station?
This group has been calling for the plant’s closing for years. One might say that such a move is a function of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not the state. Yet aren’t the health and welfare of the residents a responsibility of the Commonwealth?
From the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 to the Chernobyl accident in 1986 to Fukushima in 2011, we see that nuclear power is not what it was cracked up to be.
John Dent, site vice president at Pilgrim Station, tells us, after recent shutdowns, that the plant is safe, reliable, and cost-effective (“Pilgrim committed to safe, reliable operation through 2019 shutdown,” Letters, Sept. 20). So why is Entergy planning to close it in three years?
Clean energy must be produced. But nuclear is not the answer.
The prosperity that Denmark, Sweden, and Norway enjoy today was built with free-market reforms in the past.Continue reading »
Four years after the rollout of the measure, health care workers still have no right to safety.Continue reading »
Massive Internet companies have neither the will nor inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions.Continue reading »
We toss this word around so lightly that it is losing its power to shock.Continue reading »
In recent months protest movements are being defined by new urgency –and efficacy.Continue reading »
These two worlds enrich each other, and all of us.Continue reading »
If WBUR is to change, shouldn’t the “crony culture” change, too?Continue reading »
The label ‘white male’ has become as disparaging a pejorative label as any other.Continue reading »
The movie falsely romanticizes an exploitative relationship between a grown man and a teenager.Continue reading »