Next Score View the next score


    State ought to have an interest in closing Pilgrim nuclear plant

    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?

    Get Today in Opinion in your inbox:
    Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday-Friday.
    Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

    Clean energy must be produced. But nuclear is not the answer.

    Juliet R. Bernstein