Letter: Fear-mongering over nuclear power accident

Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2001 | 8:50 a.m.

I really have to take exception to your Nov. 20 editorial concerning the federal "insurance" that would cover any costs due to an accident to the nuclear power industry in excess of $9.5 billion.

First, you talk of a "Chernobyl-like" accident, as if that were a possibility in the United States. It's like saying that tax dollars may someday be spent to clean up an "Exxon Valdez-like" accident on Lake Mead. The design and containments of Russian and U.S. reactors are near complete opposites. The Russians have to work very hard to keep their reactor from going super critical (blowing up). The American have to work very hard to keep our reactors critical (not shutting down).

Of course, you could have used Three Mile Island as an example, and I would have had to say: "And ..." I know there were no deaths associated with Three Mile Island and I believe there were no taxpayer costs associated with the cleanup. Does the word fear-mongering come to mind?

Second, this money is not like the $15 billion already given to the polluting, moribund, deadly airline industry. This money is like Social Security, it's not really there until it's needed, it's promissory.

If you have a nuclear accident and the cost of cleanup is more then $9.5 billion then the government will pick up the remainder of the tab. The government is not putting money in a "lock box" to cover a potential nuclear accident any more then it is putting money in a "lock box" for Social Security.

It is very disingenuous of Rep. Shelley Berkley to talk of "highway robbery" and "... government subsidy of the worst kind," when no money is going anywhere except in the very unlikely event there is a nuclear accident.

OSCAR R. FICK