Nancy Braus , a retired independent bookseller, is a longtime activist.
GUILFORD-Vermont Yankee, a nuclear reactor in Vernon, was opposed from the first moment of its conception. The struggle to close the aging reactor was epic in our region, and dozens of us who were most engaged in the protests, the legal challenges, the civil disobedience, and the legislative work continue to be grateful that the reactor is well into the decommission process.
Even with this history, a group of mainly Republican state legislators has quietly slipped in a bill to "let's consider" small nuclear reactors - as if seven or eight small, radioactive-waste-producing reactors would be safer than one.
And the waste is still a huge issue - as in, there is no safe method for eternal storage of this poison, and parts of the radioactive mix remain lethal for thousands of years.
They've introduced this effort very quietly, because they know the power of our local anti-nuclear movement. And we are still here.
* * *
My annual update on the condition of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors after the meltdowns and radiation releases beginning with the tsunami on March 11, 2011 begins with a pretty unfortunate, but not at all surprising, piece of news.
The only criminal trial to determine culpability in the deaths and damage ended with the acquittal of corporate executives of TEPCO, which owns the plant.
Ruiko Muto, the chief prosecutor, called the ruling "cold blooded" and added that it tramples on the rights of the victims of the nuclear disaster.
There should have been much legal culpability: The company made many mistakes, but the bottom line is that building many nuclear reactors in one location - in this case, six - on the ocean, where climate change has made storms into mega-events, made Fukushima-Daiichi a perfect target for the tsunami that caused the meltdowns.
Although we hear very little about Fukushima these days, it is still hot, still producing lethal radiation and, from my reading, its management still continues to have no clue how to end its nuclear reactions.
A constant water flow from helicopters is necessary to keep radiation from engulfing the area. The water is then instantly contaminated with radiation, needs to be kept isolated until it can undergo the process that removes much of the radiation, and then they dump it into the Pacific. This has been a strong concern for the fishing industry, but the Japanese government claims that this water is not contaminating the Pacific Ocean. Greenpeace does not agree.
* * *
We still see a minority of climate scientists promoting nuclear as a great alternative to fossil fuels, but at this point, the alternatives of solar, wind, geothermal, and other newer technologies are becoming more affordable every day, even with Trump's extreme stupidity on the energy issue.
Nukes are expensive. Due to the necessity of centralization, the power companies continue to promote them. You really are not going to have your own nuclear power station in your yard, as you can with solar or wind, which are potentially decentralizing technologies.
Meanwhile, the terrifying attacks on Ukraine have revived interest and fear of the radiation at Chernobyl. A drone smashed through the shield that is supposed to be protecting the area from the ruined reactor's radiation. Russia denies responsibility, but who else is attacking Ukraine?
The possibility of a nuclear reactor releasing its lethal radioactivity due to an act of war is yet another reason, and maybe the major reason, this technology is too dangerous for the flawed humans who are needed to keep us safe.
* * *
I have been writing a Fukushima update for a number of years since the tsunami - this is year 14. What is most frustrating and discouraging is that in all the "progress" reports from TEPCO or from the government of Japan, the conclusion is always the same: It will take 30 to 40 years until an actual shutdown.
Until that number changes, I believe that the authorities continue to have no idea how to end the mess.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].