Nuclear energy not worth the risk

ALLOW me to comment on your report (September 19) of the Association for the Study of Peal Oil and Gas conference in Cork.

Dr Michael Dittmar mentioned that the slow rate of uranium mining would cause supply problems for nuclear facilities.

The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), the official body monitoring nuclear facilities throughout the world, has stated that at present usage rates, supplies of high grade uranium (which is the only type currently worth mining) will be exhausted in about 80 years.

Are we therefore going permanently and irrevocably to contaminate the earth for the sake of eight decades of dubious power?

And of course the more reactors we build, the quicker the uranium will be used up.

Dr Philip Walton lauds the safety record of nuclear energy. We have only to look at the record of Sellafield, though admittedly not a reactor for energy production, to get an idea of the ‘incidents’ that can arise.

The nuclear industry does not broadcast its failures, which are numerous.

Dr Walton quotes the now infamous 50 deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl disaster by the World Health Organisation, which is contractually obliged not to release information to the media damaging to the reputation of the nuclear industry.

In a recent communication from doctors in the Ukraine I understand that the truth is that 5.5 million people have been affected, thyroid cancer cases are continuing to increase and the economic prospects of the surrounding area for hundreds of miles have been blighted, possibly for centuries.

We certainly need new energy sources, but not at the expense of rendering large parts of the earth uninhabitable.

A recent paper in the European Journal of Cancer Care showed that children and young people living near nuclear facilities have elevated leukaemia rates.

No thanks!

Dr Philip Michael

Chair

Irish Doctors’ Environmental

Association

Millbrook Medical Centre

Bandon

Co Cork