By Dr. Letty Lutzker—Support for nuclear power is strongest among people who live near nuclear plants. Of course, the major reason is the safe operation of those plants.
According to one national poll, 81 percent of residents who live within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear plant favor the use of nuclear power, 47 percent strongly, and even among the general public, 68 percent favor nuclear power, 29 percent strongly.
Moreover, an overwhelming majority of plant neighbors — 86 percent — said they have a favorable impression of the nuclear plant closest to where they live and the way it has operated in recent years. Safety is the prime reason for this impression: 84 percent gave their local plant a high rating for safety.
The NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude does not apply, in most cases, to those who live near nuclear plants. Of those polled, 68 percent said that, if more generating capacity were needed to supply electricity, it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant. The poll, conducted by Bisconti Research, was done for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents suppliers of nuclear technology and electric utilities with nuclear plants.
It is also worth noting that studies of nuclear industry workers reveal they are among the healthiest worldwide, with greater life expectancies than members of the general population. Epidemiological studies of people living near nuclear power plants have shown no adverse health effects from these facilities.
Yet such favorable views are drowned out by the voices of opponents. The same old anti-nuclear voices claim with absolutely no backup data that the tiniest amount of low-level radiation is a health hazard. Opponents claim we cannot ship steel casks containing used nuclear fuel to regional storage sites and recycle it to produce more electricity. They will not consider nuclear power to maintain a balanced mix of energy sources. They oppose using environmentally clean nuclear power to maintain our electricity-dependent economy, and envision a future powered principally by solar panels and wind turbines that must commandeer massive amounts of land use.
The reality is that our country’s nuclear plants, including, of course, those in New Jersey, are safe, reliable and environmentally benign. Nuclear plants in the United States are among the safest technologies for producing economical power.
And moreover, our fleet of 100 nuclear plants is a powerful economic engine that pumps large sums into state and local economies. For example, a newly-completed study determined that the annual impact of the Seabrook nuclear plant on the economies of New Hampshire and Massachusetts is almost $1 billion, while providing environmental benefits and affordable electricity. New Jersey’s four reactors have a payroll of $40 million and contribute $470 million to the local economy.
With Congress gridlocked over nuclear power issues and fiddling while the environment and the economy encounter increasing stress, states are taking the lead in pushing for the renewal of operating licenses at nuclear plants like Indian Point in New York, Limerick in Pennsylvania, Seabrook in New Hampshire and Pilgrim in Massachusetts. Some plants might close if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t take action soon to renew plant licenses. That would harm energy security throughout the Northeast.
We should keep our current nuclear plants running and also increase the percentage of electricity generated by building additional nuclear capacity. Fortunately, we have both the new designs under construction and the public support to make it happen. Let’s get the NRC on board, too.
Comments are closed.