I feel inclined to side with the point Chip is arguing about this topic. There are indeed benefits to nuclear energy over other more environmentally destructive forms of energy, but it can also result in catastrophic mishaps, as demonstrated by the recent disaster in Japan.

In looking through the New York Times at recent articles about this, I found an interesting post on an environmental blog. Eleven short days after Japan was struck by the tragic 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that leveled the northern countryside and the nuclear power station in the city of Fukushima, environmentalists were debating the strengths of and flaws with nuclear energy. That article can be found here, and links to the full articles referenced in the piece embedded within.

It's especially intriguing because the two environmentalists quoted take two opposing viewpoints; one arguing for the danger of nuclear energy, as demonstrated by the disaster in Japan, and the other having been convinced by the disaster that nuclear energy is the way of the future, and that the most recent catastrophe was an isolated incident.

I can't help but side with the prior. In his argument entitled "Japan’s horror reveals how thin is the edge we live on," environmentalist Bill McKibben cites the technological sophistication of Japan, using this as evidence for the unpredictability of natural disasters and the destruction that they leave in their wake. "There’s not a country in the world more modern and civilized than Japan; its building codes and engineering prowess kept its great buildings from collapsing when the much milder quake in Haiti last year flattened everything. But clearly it’s not enough." If a country that is this far advanced cannot protect itself from the force that Mother Nature unleashes, it's difficult to make the argument that another disaster like this could be seen in the future, with perhaps much more devastating consequences.

On the other side of the argument, environmentalist George Monbiot discusses "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power." He emphasizes that there are much more severe outcomes that could result from the use of coal, and other "products of the land," which he asserts are far more damaging than nuclear energy. He also makes a point of exposing what he refers to as "A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting." Essentially, Japan did a pretty bad job on construction, and should have known that a natural disaster described by the adjectives "monster" and "vast" would soon destroy it.

While "products of the land" in terms of energy from coal, gas, and nuclear plants all come with the weight of environmental and atmospheric destruction (some obviously pose greater risks than others), I don't think we can look at these options as the only ones we have. As Chip brought up in his post, less environmentally damaging paths such as wind, solar, and hydropower sources of energy are still viable.

McKibben also suggests that "The other possibility is to try to build down a little: to focus on resilience, on safety. And to do that – here’s the controversial part – instead of focusing on growth." In his view, we need to both protect our citizens and look toward the sustainable future, not just what will advance us most quickly.

_Diana Pitcher.