To the editor:

The April 9 Saturday Column stated: “Unfortunately, there has been far too little discussion of nuclear energy, a low-cost, clean energy source.” As a physician, I submit that this statement is misleading and false. We have over 100 nuclear plants in the United States now, and no one has a viable solution to the problem of transportation and storage of the nuclear waste.

It is rarely mentioned that the spent fuel is much more dangerous (highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years) than the starting enriched uranium. This spent fuel is now stored to near capacity at each plant and has been identified as a potential terrorist target. Near meltdowns have occurred (other than Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) but little public debate has resulted due to “reassurance” from the industry.

The high costs of nuclear power, all aspects included, have kept new plants from being built in the last 25 years. Higher oil prices do not justify a “nuclear renaissance.” How do you place a value on the immediate death and illness resulting from a nuclear accident or the resulting cancers and birth defects that would arise over the subsequent 20 years?

We have to be better stewards of our planet and, as a developed nation, move forward with alternative technologies and conservation. We should lead the world away form nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle which includes material to make nuclear weapons. How’s that for a foreign policy cornerstone?

Dr. Peter Bock,

Eudora