Letter: Nuclear fission isn't answer to energy crisis

Nuclear fission isn't answer to energy crisis

To the editor:

Nuclear energy through the fission process is too dangerous to continue and must not be seen as a viable alternative to fossil fuels as a way of combating climate change.

Currently, there are 435 nuclear power plants in 31 countries, which collective produce about 2,000-3,000 metric tons of nuclear waste yearly. Some of this nuclear waste can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. If the entire world were to build nuclear reactors, the world would eventually be inundated with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of barrels of nuclear waste. Poorer nations would most likely not have the money to store this waste and will simply dump it in the ocean or somewhere else where it is out of sight, leaving barrels to rust and leak their toxic, cancer-causing waste into the environment.

Furthermore, futurist and editor of "Share International" magazine Benjamin Creme has put forward the idea that the rise in such disorders as ADD and ADHD, as well as diseases such as Alzheimer's, are the direct result of radiation, unrecognized by our limited scientific devices, leaching from nuclear reactors onto the ethereal (or "dark matter") planes.

The environmentally sound and viable alternative would be to create nuclear energy through the theoretical cold fusion process. Cold fusion would use one isotope of cold water as fuel, instead of uranium, which is used in the hot fission process. There is no radiation, nuclear waste or risk of reactors melting down or exploding from cold fusion, unlike the hot fission process which brought us Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).

Had it not been for those special interests that get power from the world's dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear fission, we may have had cold fusion by now. If a fraction of the amount of money that the US government spends to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, which Oil Change International (an advocacy NGO) estimates to be $37.5 billion yearly, was spent on developing cold fusion, the world could have had a completely clean, safe and robust form of energy production by now, free of polluting carbon and noxious gases as well as radiation.

The world must free itself from nuclear fission, just like fossil fuels, if we not only wish to have a healthy future, but simply any future at all.

Jason Francis, Clarksburg


If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions