• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

OPINION: Nuclear Power Not a Solution to Air Quality Woes

Posted on: Wednesday, 3 August 2005, 21:00 CDT

Aug. 3--In his article on nuclear power plants, history professor Randall Beeman forgot his history. If Americans "believed they could no longer do big things" after 1975, it is for many reasons -- he mentions none. Just 12 years earlier our president was assassinated; a war that we did not and could not win had just ended; and for the first time a president resigned. Our national confidence as was dubious.

Beeman uses five examples of "monumental" works that exemplify America's past. We can agree these are historically significant, but should they be works of which we should boast? The Manhattan Project? Should we be proud of developing the most hideous weapons ever devised?

We all agree that a significant problem affecting the Central Valley is air quality. Experts see this as a cumulative problem to be resolved by myriad solutions. Yet Beeman simplifies the reasons for our poor air quality to motor vehicles traversing the valley and "the area's many power plants," none of which he discusses. I can imagine the air quality problem resolved, but not through construction of nuclear power plants.

Beeman fails to relate the history of nuclear projects in Kern County and the Central Valley. Does he know about the attempt by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to construct a nuclear power plant northwest of Wasco? Does he know about concerns of citizens regarding this project, questioning the water source to cool the facility; the disposition of salts from cooling towers on farmland surrounding the plant and impacts on climate from water vapor expelled from the plant?

Since this was a city of Los Angeles facility, none of the power would have been realized by Kern County citizens. Lastly, is he aware that Kern County citizens overwhelmingly rejected this project in an advisory election?

Beeman does not mention that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District built and ran a nuclear power plant for many years, only to shut it down because of maintenance problems and inefficiencies. Travel north on Highway 99. Somewhere near Galt, look east and see the cold, lifeless towers still looming on the horizon, a monument to failure.

Beeman's reasons for building nuclear plants sound more like arguments against construction of them. He says those promoting nuclear power "make a strong argument that it has a fairly strong safety record" (emphasis added).

If there is an accident at a hydroelectric plant, a wind farm or solar collectors, potential problems are very short term and site specific. We may be without power for a minimal amount of time.

However, an accident at a nuclear power plant will result in long-term problems to human life and our land, air and water supplies.

Our solutions for resolving air quality problems should rest with developing efficient transportation that will not pollute; perfecting solar and wind power; reducing our thirst for more electricity; conserving farmland; and making cities more livable. This is how we should use our ingenuity to create a better world, not building nuclear plants.

Fred Simon of Bakersfield is a landscape architect and planner with his own business. Community Voices is an expanded commentary that may contain up to 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint commentaries in all formats, including on its Web page.

-----

To see more of The Bakersfield Californian, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.bakersfield.com.

Copyright (c) 2005, The Bakersfield Californian

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: The Bakersfield Californian

More News in this Category