Radicals deprive U.S. of safe energy source Compared to other means of energy production, the history of nuclear power demonstrates its effectiveness and safety beyond reasonable doubt. Yet the radical obstructionists who influence every aspect of society and government continue to have their way in depriving America of a better source of power.

- Frank Fleres, Madison

New energy sources undeveloped, ignored In 1973, I led an organization opposed to the last nuclear power project proposed for Wisconsin by the state's electric utilities. The Koshkonong power plant was never built, defeated because nuclear power was too costly and too dangerous, with no real solution in place to handle the wastes that would remain radioactive for eons. Wisconsin wisely banned the construction of more plants until there was a place to dispose of those wastes.

In 2003, nothing has changed except that nuclear power is more expensive and more dangerous, and spent fuel rods have piled up in nuclear "swimming pools" at Point Beach and elsewhere, still waiting for a nuclear waste repository. Federal insurance is still necessary to underwrite the horrendous damages caused by a catastrophic accident - a catastrophe that's more likely today with terrorists willing to commit previously unthinkable acts against humanity.

How appalling that the nuclear industry is attempting another kick at the old cat. The money they'd pour into building and underwriting more nukes can be used to bring safe, decentralized, technologically-advanced power sources like hydrogen, photovoltaics and fuel cells to market, and develop less electricity-dependent products and manufacturing procedures. Thirty years later, these are still the best solutions.

- Richelle Lisse Lehmann, Middleton

Don't let terror threat stop development In Sunday's debate over future nuclear power development, Charlie Higley states "The fact that nuclear plants are considered potential terrorist targets is reason enough for abandoning any plan for the construction of new reactors or the continued reliance on nuclear power." Applying this argument, shouldn't we also stop building commercial jet aircraft?

People must understand the truth about nuclear power and be smart enough to see the scaremongering anti-nuke activists for what they are.

- Ray W. MacDonald, Madison

Nuclear expert praises safety record I am a retired quality engineer, having participated from inception to start-up on 15 nuclear power plants in Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Virginia and in Taiwan. During those 45 years, the work assignments also included 20 fossil power plants, three solar power plants in the Mojave Desert in California and several refineries and chemical plants in the U.S. and Kuwait. I mention the non-nukes to give you my honest, factual opinions from actual experience, rather than something I read or heard.

The operating reactors in the U.S. are pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. In my opinion, these plants are the safest of any commercial power plants in the world. There are many safety back-up systems and methods such as containment spray, recirculation spray, residual heat, remote shutdown, emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and auxiliary feedwater, to name a few. None of the other energy plants have anything close to these safeguards.

The spent fuel in the U.S. is handled better than in other countries, including Korea, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, India and so on.

Just stop and think if the approximately 200 nuclear plants that were cancelled in the late 1970s were now operational, how much we would have reduced our dependence on Middle East oil. Don't listen to those who would scare you into believing their "costly and dangerous" words.

- William F. Reynolds, Sun Prairie

Uranium mining cause of illness, deaths In making the case for ending the moratorium on new nuclear power plants, Professor Max Carbon makes the bold assertion that "there have been no known radiation-induced deaths from commercial nuclear power in North America in its 45-year history." This is a gross misrepresentation of the record because it ignores the fact that without uranium there is no nuclear power. There are substantial emissions of radioactive radon gas and other radioactive elements from the mining and milling of uranium ore in underground and open pit mines.

The Navajo and Pueblo Indians, along with several thousand white miners, were never told of the dangers from exposure to radon gas when they first entered those underground mines in Arizona and New Mexico in the 1950s. By 1942 the link between cancer and exposure to radiation among uranium miners was well established in the scientific literature. Yet the Atomic Energy Commission, which controlled the U.S. uranium industry, did not share this information with uranium miners. Of the 150 Navajo miners who worked in the Shiprock, N.M., mines in the 1950s, 18 had died of radiation-induced cancer by 1975. An additional 20 were dead by 1980 of the same disease, and another 95 had contracted serious respiratory ailments and cancers.

But that's not the only problem with uranium mining. After the uranium is extracted from the ore and processed into uranium fuel for nuclear power plants there is a substantial amount of waste left over, known as tailings. There are over 200 million tons of these tailings in large piles around uranium mines and processing plants and they are emitting radioactive elements into the air and water. Communities near these tailing piles, mostly next to Indian reservations, report a high rate of miscarriages, cleft palates and other birth defects, bone, reproductive and gastric cancers as related health effects of uranium mining and exposure to contaminated air and water.

If we are going to have a debate about the safety of nuclear power, let's start with the facts about the hazards of uranium mining and milling.

- Al Gedicks, La Crosse

Too much tax money subsidizes nuke power Both sides neglect to tell us that nuclear utilities can only be affordable with huge taxpayer subsidies. It is not cost effective by itself, especially when all life-cycle economic costs are included.

For example: The Yucca Mountain storage facility is a huge government tax sink. Who will pay to keep the waste secure for longer than any civilization has ever lasted? The costs for decommissioning worn out nuclear plants is not included now, and taxpayers will probably have to foot the bill. Will those bills be included in the lifetime cost for new plants?

Nuclear power plants may be relatively safe, but not 100 percent, and the magnitude of harm from possible accidents is catastrophic.

- Rev. Dave Steffenson, education coordinator, Wisconsin Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign, Columbus

Nuclear energy has been opposed by well-meaning persons who have been persuaded by the flood of scare stories by the press which emphasize the possibilities of the effect of radiation on human health and on the toxicity of the end product.

Imagine if such scare stories were written about the automobile as a means of personal transportation. It is clear that the human deaths caused by automobile accidents each year are a very large number, exceeding other hazards by a large margin. It is also clear that the use of automobiles is a major source of "greenhouse gases." Do you think for a moment that such scare stories would persuade us to legislate a moratorium on the use of automobiles?

As Carbon makes clear, the actual number of injuries to humans from the existing U.S. nuclear power plants is vanishingly small, and the effect on the environment is nil.

Let us stop worrying about the hazards of operating power plants fueled by coal, and stop fantasizing about the creation of vast fields of wind-powered generators or of solar converters, and emphasize the practical, economic and safe generation of power from nuclear fission.

- John R. Thomas, Madison

From day one of the nuclear age government, universities and industry worked hand in glove to hide and distort information because of national security and liability interests. Countless people died through mining and processing uranium for weapons and for "peaceful" applications of nuclear technology. Scientists who blew the whistle were no longer employed. Twenty years ago a NIMBY Congress and a president beholden to the nuclear industry decided to "solve" the costly and complex technical issue of selecting a repository for high level radioactive waste through a politically gutless act.

Typical for the nuclear industry, the technical problems at Yucca Mountain have been "solved" by revising standards downward, then claiming the site meets standards.

The moratorium is the only way to protect the public against the dishonesty of the nuclear government-industry-university complex.

- Donald Pay, Madison

Solar energy has the potential to meet much of the demand but arrives in a low-density form that would take significant land mass to collect the required energy. All renewables, as well as methods to sequester greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel production, are quite expensive. Nuclear is a high-density power source with the potential to provide carbon-free power for centuries.

Nuclear, like every potential energy source, does have drawbacks but none are sufficient to eliminate it as an energy production option. We have produced electricity using nuclear energy for over 30 years and we continue to do so safely. To eliminate nuclear energy through a statewide moratorium unnecessarily limits important an option.