Fewer Ecological Risks with Nuclear Energy

Mr. Sinclair is GIS Manager for the Housatonic Valley Association.

In December I submitted an article titled "Managing Growth Wisely." I was impressed that The Voice chose to print the entire article [December 20]; I also approve of some of the minor editorial changes made to the original article to improve the style.

One editorial change affected content rather than style, however. In so doing it took a true statement and made it a potentially false statement. While making an analogy in the article I made a reference to the ecological benefits of nuclear energy over fossil fuels. This statement was changed to read "the supposed ecological benefits over fossil fuels." The alteration creates a doubt as to whether the reader (or even the writer) should take the claim seriously.

I am not a proponent of nuclear energy, and I should have made a reference to fewer ecological risks rather than greater ecological benefits. Personally, I believe we should not change our dependence on fossil fuels until we convert to renewable resources (a conversion which has to happen at some point in time). The fact remains, however, that fossil fuels have presented greater ecological risks in the past than nuclear energy.

More people have died from coal mining accidents and black lung than from nuclear meltdowns; the difference in numbers is not even close. While nuclear power plants altered river habitats, coal mines have stripped the land and acidified total hydrologic systems. While we still face the problem of how to store nuclear waste, this has not yet created impacts of the same magnitude as some oil spills.

This leaves out entirely the question of global warming. Some people still consider it a question, yet even the most conservative research estimates acknowledge a warming trend that the production of carbon dioxide aggravates. The question dwells only on how much.

Perhaps this question prompted the editor to insert the qualifier "supposed," not wanting my article to get sidetracked with emphatic statements on one side of the global warming debate or the other. While I appreciate the thought, I urge the editors of The Voice not to assume such a role. Changing content is vastly different from changing style. And in this case, the editor created a false statement by inserting the word "supposed." Global warming can be left completely out of the equation but the truth is unaltered: fossil fuels have in the past created more ecological problems than nuclear energy.

Editor's Note — We regret having altered Mr. Sinclair's text in a way that suggested a bias he does not have. Mr. Sinclair mentioned nuclear power in just a short paragraph in an otherwise unrelated 2,000-word article about a proposed real estate development in Norfolk and North Canaan. Our goal in inserting the word "supposed" was to avoid making a statement that we felt was not accurate: that nuclear power is unquestionably better for the environment than the burning of fossil fuels. We are sure that there are many people with strong views and facts to present on both sides of this issue. We invite anyone with an opinion on this issue to weigh in on the topic.