Empowerment

This situation in Japan seems worse at every turn. Nuclear plant failures have moved to the front of the headlines, with reports of new radiation leaks, explosions, evacuations and other problems emerging hourly. This of course is reviving conversations about the safety of nuclear power in this country, and has given some nuclear proponents fears that their agenda will stall again, just as it was (pardon the expression) gaining steam.

Their agenda may well have been doomed anyway, for reasons other than the disasters in Japan. Which is regrettable, I think.

I am a reluctant supporter of nuclear energy at best, and I think the complications attached to it are enormous, but properly managed, it probably causes less environmental harm (and harm to water systems in particular) than, say, mountaintop removal coal mining or "frakking" for natural gas.

Over at Talking Points Memo the other day, Josh Marshall had an interesting take on the fossil fuel vs. nuclear question. Nuclear power poses some alarming risks, he acknowledged. But--

...the proper and planned use of fossil fuels -- in other words, when everything goes just according to plan -- is creating what appears to be catastrophic damage on a planetary scale. What's more, setting aside global warming, there is a detailed scientific literature showing the number of deaths and chronic illnesses tied to the release of fossil fuel pollution into the air -- lung diseases, asthma, cancer, etc. Again, when all goes just according to plan.

Conceivably, he argues, nuclear may be safer in the long run.

But as in so many other cases, the least harmful course of action (assuming this is one) isn't the cheapest. And this is a cost conscious time--occasionally to the point of foolishness. So we'll likely keep burning the gas.