Nuclear energy, radiation not safe

Dear editor:

Many people think that damage is only what is seen or can be visibly verified. This is not the case. Numerous things have been approved by the US government (Agent Orange, Red Dye 45) that were deadly. Their effects were not noticed until they were already in use. One of my examples, Agent Orange, was a military test project, so some people can dismiss it by saying it was an experimental unknown in the first place. Red #5, on the other hand, was approved by the FDA for human consumption. The fact that it caused cancer was not discovered until it was on the market and was being used to make the suddenly popular Bubblicious. I say all this to make one point: just because something has passed certain tests does not make it safe.

Nuclear energy is a MAJORLY experimental science. We, as a people, have known about it for well over 50 years, and we are still learning about it. There are certain things that are known about it, though. For one, nuclear energy is created from disturbance of the protons and neutrons in atoms, causing them to escape out in electric flux.

This process is called splitting atoms. There are multiple ways to do so, but whether it is fission or fusion, the elemental science that causes the energy to escape is the same. You probably have heard that one is better than the other, and that is true.

With the current method it is far easier to control the level of disturbance, and thus it is not probable for a nuclear meltdown to occur. You have probably also heard that it is completely safe. That is not true.

Nuclear reactions of ANY kind are not entirely under control; they still can get past "safe" levels. Of course, this is not apt to happen if managed correctly, but has anyone heard of human error?!? The machines aren't infallible either. It is a precise reaction in an environment in constant flux.

But this only addresses the well-knon issue of a self-destructing nuclear meltdown. What most people don't know is that a nuclear meltdown can be caused by direct and sometimes indirect hit. In other words, nuclear plants are prime targets if someone desires to destroy and/or disable something in it's vicinity.

A salesman who's sales pitch's purpose is to try to make people be comfortable with nuclear energy will tell you that's impossible. Why? Because it's never happened with their new-fangled reactors before! If you wonder what could be a nice and juicy target within 75 miles of the planned reactor site, there is one of the top three most important Air Force bases in the world just around the corner.

What almost nobody knows is that nothing stops radiation. Oh yes, there are things that slow it down, such as concrete, lead and dirt, but it is never stopped. Radiation is not a thing, it is a reaction. Anybody ought to know one of the most well known laws of physics: "EVERY action has an equal and opposite reaction."

Radiation is the disruption and mutation of the molecules that things are made up with. Another known form of radiation is X-rays. Those are also dangerous, but that is not the subject at hand. Over the years, any kind of constant, persistent nuclear reaction will (not might, not possibly, but will) seep out.

The first thing that is affected is the groundwater and the underground life; the underground life being the insects and microbes that build and take care of the soil.

Of course, that affects plants, which affects everything else. You might say, "Hey! That's ridiculous! Even if that was true, it wouldn't affect us for a long time!"

The fact is that it will take an eternally long amount of time before the affects are noticeable on a Geiger counter. The affects on humans come far sooner than the eons it will take to realize that the cause was residual radiation.

I do not have anything against any energy companies, but I believe they should consider human life and safety above and before monetary gain. There are many alternative energy options, and, PLEASE, do not let anybody try to tell you how green nuclear energy is. If somebody honestly wishes to be green and create electrical energy, then why not use hydro, solar and wind?!?

All I ask is that the people of the great state of Idaho stand up and keep creating a better future for our families; which means looking and planning for the future. Do not be deceived because the smooth words of a salesman sound nice. Make your own educated decision based on the facts, and play it safe when there's an unknown.

Wesley Farnham