NUCLEAR POWER CAN'T BE SAFE; WHAT OF SOLAR?

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, February 16, 1992                   TAG: 9202170216
SECTION: HORIZON                    PAGE: E2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short
NUCLEAR POWER CAN'T BE SAFE; WHAT OF SOLAR?
I WAS PLEASED to see you point out the dangers inherent in nuclear energy (editorial, Feb. 4, "Is nuclear making a comeback?"), but puzzled when you also endorsed a possible renewed dependency on nuclear power: "AEP does not rule out nuclear power for the future. Nor should it."
Once again, political and economic considerations threaten to overshadow common-sense concern for the preservation of our fragile planet. Fossil fuels do of course constitute a significant threat to environmental health, but that threat is, overall, considerably less in comparison.
Have we given up on solar power? Was it ever really given a chance? Surely, our billion-dollar-a-day expenditure for "the liberation of Kuwait" (i.e., the war to safeguard U.S. dependency on foreign oil) could have been better applied to developing safe, clean solar-power alternatives (to be used perhaps in conjunction with reduced fossil-fuel consumption, if necessary).
Nuclear-waste transportation and disposal; plant-design flaws; closed-down, forever highly radioactive facilities, and human error combine to pose serious dangers that no degree of economic advantage can justify. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the many covered-up/glossed-over/unpublicized near disasters and screw-ups worldwide should be ample proof for everyone that there simply is no such thing as "safe" nuclear power. BECKY MADDEN ROANOKE

by Bhavesh Jinadra by CNB