Captain Atom he ain't

March 26, 2009 12:46 am

CONCURRENT with President Obama's release of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research a couple of weeks ago, the White House published a memorandum stating that, with the action, the administration was "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." The clear implication: The Bush crew, blinded by ideology, had ditched objective science. Mr. Obama, by golly, would reverse that foolishness.

Fine. Then let's talk nuclear energy.

Achieving energy independence, moderating climate change, and stimulating economic growth are three clear Obama goals. All would benefit from a renewed effort to embrace nuclear power as an alternative energy source. Yet that focus is fuzzed: We're still stuck in 1979, when an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., frightened the nation back into the nuclear Dark Ages.

The timing was unlucky: Just two weeks before, Hollywood had released a film called "The China Syndrome," which depicted the terrifying results of a nuclear-plant meltdown. Whereupon, a combination of mechanical failure and human error at TMI caused a tiny release of radiation--and a huge public reaction.

In the three decades since the TMI incident, a dozen studies have concluded that those who lived near TMI suffered no ill health effects from the episode. The plant has been cleaned up and Reactor 2 placed in "monitored storage." There was no catastrophe, and in fact, TMI validated the effectiveness of federal containment regulations. Yet the incident, with some human assistance, haunts U.S. nuclear-power policy.

Safety measures at nuclear-power plants worldwide are extensive. The one exception has been Soviet Union plants, which Moscow built without adequate containment facilities. Thus, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

These days, the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors the 439 reactors operating worldwide. Operators undergo rigorous training; inspections are rigorous. Consequently, nuclear is proving a safe, relatively cheap energy source. Pakistan, Japan, China, and India are among countries swiftly pursuing atomic power. In France, 78 percent of the electricity comes from the atom, giving that country the cleanest air and cheapest voltage in the entire world.

Currently, 104 reactors produce electricity in the United States, including those at Lake Anna and Surry. All of these facilities generate about 20 percent of the nation's energy--and 70 percent of all clean energy, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.

The downside of nuclear is the question of what to do with the radioactive waste from spent rods. With atomic material's long half-life, that'sa 10,000-year decision--yet one that many imagined this country had resolved.

A bipartisan group in Congress, consulting with nuclear scientists, geologists, and others, pegged Nevada's Yucca Mountain to receive the nation's nuclear waste. Department of Energy studies confirmed that Yucca was one of the safest possible repositories. But after 22 years and $13.5 billion of preparation--and no scientific evidence to refute its selection--Mr. Obama has defunded Yucca Mountain.

Granted, no one wants a nuclear-waste dump in his backyard, but no one lives anywhere near Yucca Mountain. The decision to banish it from consideration is manifestly political: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delivered the swing state for Mr. Obama, who is proving that he is apparently not as devoted to objective science when it comes to protons as to pre-borns.

Preening about "restoring scientific integrity" on stem cells while ignoring research on Yucca Mountain and nuclear energy is disingenuous hypocritical pick your word. In the pursuit of alternative energy sources, nuclear must be in the mix. And Yucca Mountain should be back on the map.