Nuclear energy is too risky (The beginning of nuke cycle: uranium mining and milling)

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:13 AM EDT

I have to disagree with Mr. Doug Crowther (Star-Tribune July 7, 2010) on many points of his comments of "Why America needs Nuclear,"

He being a resident of Concord, Va., is like those who were appointed on the subcommittee to gather citizens input on Uranium mining in Pittsylvania, County.

None of these people live in or near where the mining will take place if the moratorium is lifted.

How would he feel if it was right in his back yard?

Should Pittsylvania County citizens give up their rights to have mining and milling of uranium for the good of all Virginia and the Country?

Our founding fathers declared war on England and many Pittsylvania County citizens are also in a battle to protect their property, health of their families and their way of life.

I don't believe that Mr. Crowther will move next to where mining and milling will take place with his family and grandchildren.

This issue is bigger than a landfill or federal prison in our back yard.

I believe that nuclear power is clean energy till something happens. Can we afford a disaster like Chernobyl? Look at the results of that accident. Those citizens will never return to their homes and way of life.

What about Three Mile Island?

Man can take all the precautions and analyze all scenarios of what "if" and we still wound up with the largest Gulf oil disaster known to man.

We need to invest in solar and wind energy production. There are millions of rooftops in which to install towers and panels and not utilize any footprint on the land.

Man has taken the easy path in developing available energy mainly fossil fuels and nuclear.

I believe we can develop small power sources to adapt to individual homes and they would be the answer to truly "clean" energy in America and reduce our dependency on fossil and nuclear fuels.

Marshall A. Ecker
Gretna, VA

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/07/28/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt