To the editor: Jonah Goldberg’s column, “If Biden is serious about the climate crisis, he should put nuclear on the table,” is misleading.
The myth of “newer, safer, less expensive” nuclear power has promised for decades to deliver a magical climate solution. Unfortunately, despite billions of dollars in research and development, subsidies, loan guarantees and liability waivers, and countless promises that next-generation technology was “just around the corner,” nuclear power is not and will never be that solution.
It is far too slow and costly to impact the climate crisis, and it presents insurmountable threats to public health that will worsen as the climate crisis grows. Radioactive waste generated by nuclear power will remain dangerous for thousands of years, burdening future generations for our short-sighted gain.
Denise Duffield, Santa Monica
The writer is associate director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles.
To the editor: Considering that the U.S. Department of Energy can’t even decide where to put the nuclear waste that is already mounting up, why would we want to generate even more of it when it will sit in “temporary” storage areas, some of which are susceptible to sea-level rise?
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples of why nuclear power generation cannot be trusted as a safe source of power. Whether it is because of human error or otherwise, any mistake presents dangerous consequences to people in the areas surrounding nuclear plants.
The risks and costs are not worth investing more money into nuclear power.
Phillip Roullard, San Diego
Read more at Letters to the Editor: Nuclear power poses unacceptable risks. It’s not a climate change solution