Nuclear Power - Is The Risk Worth It?

I listened to the NBC science correspondent who seemed to be making the case for nuclear power.  He said no power generation is without risk and that on the whole, nuclear is and has been quite safe.  Only one major accident has occurred in the 50 years of the technology's existence.  While all this is true, I believe he fails to make the case, when comparing this power source to coal production which kills workers, gas production which through explosions kills workers and consumers and damages homes and industries, and oil production, which spills regularly and the last major spill did major damage to the gulf coast and its workers and wildlife.  It is true that no power source is without risk.  It is true that these other power sources have killed many more people than nuclear.   However, despite this, I believe the risk associated with nuclear power is just unacceptable.

The risk of a major accident is one of those very low probability events - events which may only happen once a generation or more, or in the case of Japan, once in its recorded history.  However, the consequences of such an event last for many decades, for many generations, if not centuries.  People are affected immediately and in the long term and the environment of the area is rendered unfit for a long time and the whole world is impacted negatively to some extent.  This is not an accident that is just over.  Twenty five years after Chernobyl the immediate area around the plant is uninhabitable, the area surrounding that has an significantly elevated cancer risk to the inhabitants, and as we learn more about genetics, it is likely that the event will have effects on children yet to be conceived.  The area impacted by the accident is much less desirable as a place to live and work than before. Is this a risk that we really believe is acceptable?  No matter how many redundancies are built into a plant, eventually they will fail and, as in the Japanese experience, it is likely that those failures will cascade into catastrophe.  Is this something we are willing to risk once every thirty years?  Isn't it hubris to believe that we can operate these plants throughout the world perfectly, forever?  Nothing man has ever invented has worked perfectly indefinitely.  These events do not end with the deaths of the people who are killed in the accident like coal miners.  They continue for years and they spread danger far beyond the immediate impact zone.  They also spread anxiety and uncertainty far beyond the immediate fallout.  Japan was dealing with over 300,000 people who are homeless as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but now they are also dealing with another 200,000 people who have homes that in the danger zone from the power plant.  This compounds by almost 100% the supply logistics in providing food, water and shelter to people in need.  Is this really the price we are willing to pay for boiled water?

The impact of accidents are only the beginning of the trail of hazards from nuclear power.  These begin with uranium mining, then processing where dozens to hundreds are killed or die each year, likely as many as coal miners.  Then once the fuel rods are spent, the issue of nuclear waste becomes huge.  We have no technological fix for nuclear waste.  We have almost no other fix.  Transportation of the waste is a continuing issue anywhere it is proposed.  So much is stored on-site.  We store it and hope that it remains quiescent.  But now, in Japan, the on-site waste rods are being exposed and are creating resulting crises in addition to the reactor problems.  Hopefully, this crisis will be resolved with a minimum of additional death and injury.  But even if it is, I question whether the risk from such a long lasting environmental and human impact is really the fuel of the future.  We moved into very deep water to drill for oil without knowing how we would contain an accident and then an accident occurred. It was clear that they could have prevented the accident but did not and they also did not have the capability to respond once the accident occurred.  It was a terrible environmental and human tragedy, but it will mostly be resolved in a few years.  Eventually, a really bad nuclear accident will occur in a nuclear plant or with the waste, that accident will have been preventable but not prevented.  The response will be less than optimum because we are human.  The after effects will last for generations.  Is it really worth it just because it doesn't happen often.  Is it really worth it to expand the use of this fuel as a major source of power despite the forever consequences of an accident and the waste?