Mother Jones touts nuke energy

By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News

Published April 12, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

• 1 Comment
• Email
• Print

Is this a misprint?

Mother Jones magazine, known for its hard-hitting investigative pieces and coverage of environmental issues, is publishing a cover story on the green benefits of nuclear power.

"Whether we like it or not, there is a very lively discussion of nuclear power these days," said Jay Harris, publisher of Mother Jones. "We didn't bring this issue to the table. But it's here."

His comments came Friday afternoon at one of the closing sessions of the University of Colorado's Conference on World Affairs. Joining him were longtime No Nukes activist Harvey Wasserman and Mike Moore, retired editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

As the climate warms and levels of greenhouse gases generated by coal and other fossil fuels rise, nuclear energy is being touted more and more often as a way to power the future.

Harris, citing statistics published in the upcoming issue, said research shows that nuclear power emits roughly the same amount of carbon as is produced by solar energy. The calculations include the energy it takes to mine and transport uranium and the operations of the plants themselves. But they don't include the emissions generated when the waste from the plants has to be stored and monitored.

The viability of nuclear power is cropping up lately as states such as Colorado launch CO2 reduction plans and eye the potential of nuclear power.

Activists such as Wasserman, who've tracked nuclear disasters from Chernobyl to Three Mile Island, said the idea that nuclear energy might somehow be viable is "criminal."

"Two reactors are being proposed in Florida right next to the Everglades," Wasserman said. "That's an outrage."

Still more worrisome, according to Moore, is that any more reliance on nuclear power could propel the world into a nuclear arms race because the waste from the plants is used to build nuclear bombs.

In addition, he said, the world would need several thousand more plants to significantly reduce the carbon load in the atmosphere.

"If I could wave a wand and suddenly have 4,000 more reactors, then you would have a huge proliferation risk. It's not a great leap from building a nuclear power plant to building weapons."

"If we do this, we are going to be in real trouble," he said.

• April 12, 2008

  5:51 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LoFat writes:

  Who cares? According to the crazies on the History channel the Cascadia Fault off America's west coast is going to let go in a 9+ earthquake and wipe out approximately 20% of the earth's population. Then we can all start over.

  This is as valid a statement as that in the article, ridiculuous as it is.

Featured

• DNC in Denver

  

  Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

• The Crevasse

  

  A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.

• Deadly denial

  

  Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.

• Final Salute

  

  The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.

• 'Colorado's burning'

  

  Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.

• Columbine shootings

  

  Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.

• The Crossing

  

  Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.

• Osveli's journey

  

  Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.

• Wake for an Indian warrior

  

  Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.