France has embraced nuclear power; 75 percent of their electric power comes from nuclear plants, and France exports power to surrounding countries. It uses sodium-cooled breeder reactors (technology similar to that used in the Fast Flux Test Facility in Eastern Washington), and it recycles the fuel, so that unused uranium and plutonium are returned to the reactor as fuel. Fission products, which are very dangerous, are vitrified in glass, placed in corrosion resistant cylinders and then buried in stable geologic formations.

Japan has recognized the importance of nuclear power as an alternative to costly oil imports. Japan would not use nuclear technology if it weren’t safe, and has teamed with France for fuel recycling and radioactive waste disposal. Japan gets 35 percent of its electric power from nuclear power plants.

Why has nuclear power use in the United States lagged behind France, Japan and other countries? Nuclear power has been under attack by a variety of people and organizations that have a variety of objectives. The majority of the people who are against nuclear power have been misinformed about the technology, and when provided with the proper information, are willing to support nuclear power. But some people are modern day Luddites who are against any big power plant for any reason, and would prefer to see the U.S. revert to days of lower power use. They seek to strangle nuclear power by spreading lies about the safety record.

Another tactic is to insist on safety standards that are extremely high priced but aren’t needed. They claim that radioactive products must be isolated from people for hundreds of thousands of years, but they don’t tell people that the radioactive products, after 1000 years, are less radioactive than when the material was mined from the earth originally. Nor do they mention that people living at high altitudes, such as in Denver, or at work in buildings constructed primarily from granite, receive more radiation from naturally occurring background sources than did anyone at the Three Mile Island plant when it had the accident – where no one was hurt.

Many nuclear power plants that were built in the 1960’s and 1970’s are still safely operating. Thirty years later, scientists and engineers have developed new technologies to build and operate inherently safe nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are far safer than cars or airplanes, and don’t release the toxic byproducts from burning coal (including trace amounts of radioactive products, plus heavy metals that can’t be kept from the environment.). I would rather live downwind of a nuclear plant than downstream of a hydroelectric dam that might fail and lacks the in-depth protections that are part of a nuclear plant. I would rather live next to a nuclear plant than near a coal burning power plant, or near the disposal site for the inconceivable amounts of coal slag disposed of every year.

In summary, nuclear power is safe, clean, and affordable. The alternative is more expensive fossil power, along with all of the drawbacks of fossil fuels, or an acceptance of using less power, with a decline in our economy, our life style, and national status of our country. The issues associated with nuclear power need to be debated, honestly and openly, without distortions or misstatements, and without hysteria.

(Editor’s Note: Michael Vineyard, P.E., has 5 years Navy Nuclear Program experience, one year working at the Fast Flux Test Facility and six years working with Combustion Engineering. Inc., a supplier of reactor components for WPPSS #3 and #5 at Satsop).