The efficacy and safety of nuclear power is constantly understated, misrepresented, and sometimes just undiscussed (“Embrace of nuclear power ignores its downside: Dangers and disruptive shutdowns,” Letters, March 22). It seems that only wind, water, and solar get great investment of time, research, and resources, though this should not be the case. Nuclear power is efficient, cheap, and actually environmentally sustainable, especially when compared with the other three main “sustainable” power sources.
Nuclear power uses almost exclusively concrete and steel. Other sources use a variety of materials — glass, cement, aluminum, silicon — and the concrete they use varies from about 140 percent of what nuclear uses (in the case of geothermal) to almost 2,000 percent (hydro). Considering the intangible cost of waste produced by nuclear power, per terawatt hour, solar produces about 300 times more waste, which is not recyclable, and is chock-full of environmentally damaging heavy metals.
Dangers like “toxic” nuclear waste, ionizing radiation, and events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have all been overstated. It is ridiculous to have people scared over fish from Japan that are no more radioactive than the average banana. Still, it seems as if nuclear power will remain unconsidered and unimplemented.