Letter to the Editor Closing: Nuclear power poses unacceptable risks. Climate change is not the answer

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, planned for 2025, is located in San Luis Obispo County, California. (Joe Johnston / San Louis Obispo Tribune)

For the editor Jonah Goldberg’s column states, “If Beden is serious about the climate crisis, he must have a nuclear threat on the table.”

The “new, safer, less expensive” nuclear power legend has for decades promised a magical climate solution. Unfortunately, billions of dollars are promised “in the near future” through research and development, subsidies, loan guarantees and accountability, and countless next-generation technologies, but nuclear power will not and will not be the solution.

Climate crises are very slow and expensive to deal with, and as the climate crisis intensifies, it poses insurmountable risks to public health. The radioactive waste generated by nuclear energy remains dangerous for thousands of years, a short-term benefit for future generations.

We need to stop wasting resources on fake solutions that promote and pollute non-economic industries and invest in truly sustainable, community-based solutions.

Denise Dufffield, Santa Monica

The author is an Associate Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility: Los Angeles.


For the editor Goldberg thinks the climate crisis is not a big deal or is too serious.

It is still unthinkable that there is still no plan to store nuclear waste for long-term use in this country. Despite protests from Nevada residents – the state has no nuclear facilities of its own – there are no plans to transport the waste there.

Meanwhile, researchers from Oregon State University found that 1% of our land on solar farms provides additional income to farmers, meets all our electricity needs, and that the land can still produce double grazing or grazing food.

Which electric generator would you prefer to live next to?

Katrina Goldsmith, Cardiff


For the editor I agree with Goldberg on the need for 100% nuclear power. The new technologies are clean and affordable. They are not contaminated. France gets more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear power; 40% for Sweden.

Renewables such as solar and wind are great, but in 2035 we will not only sell electric cars in renewables in California. Math does not work easily. I have a Tesla, and it doubles my monthly electricity bill, but it’s still cheaper than buying gas.

Go nuclear to stop greenhouse gas pollution.

Jerry Marcel, Palo Verdes State


For the editor Considering that the U.S. Department of Energy has not yet been able to determine where to store the growing nuclear waste, why do we want to generate more when it is stored in “temporary” storage facilities, some of which can be easily damaged? Increasing to sea level?

The three-mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are examples of nuclear power that cannot be relied upon as a reliable source of energy. Any mistake made by people or in any other way can have dangerous consequences for people around nuclear plants.

The risks and costs are not worth investing more money into nuclear power.

Philip Rollard, San Diego

This story first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Leave a Comment