Should Seabrook Station be Closed? Cons and Pros

Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) / Related Environmental Issues

Date posted: 04/20/15

Brenda Buote selectively solicited opinions for this exchange - Cons, as presented by nuclear adversaries, suggest that 1. In 2011, a tsunami destroyed the Japan Fukushima nuclear plant, 2. It took two weeks to stabilize four nuclear reactors, 3. more than 100,000 people were evacuated, 4. The economic loss is estimated to be as much as 500 billion dollars, 5. Today, radiation remains at dangerously high levels, preventing residents from returning home, 6. Fukushima officials had claimed that the plant was absolutely safe. Seabrook Director of Safety makes this same hollow claim, 7. NRC unfamiliarity with ASR., and 8. The area can not be evacuated safely. Intermediate response Re 1. - The plant was not destroyed but damaged by an unusual natural event, Re 2.- even a fast recovery time, Re 3. - Better safe than sorry, Re 4. - Tsunami related. Re 5. - Only at the reactor site, no where else and many have returned home. Re 6. - It was safe, except for tsunami preparedness by elevating standby power source to run pumps, Re 7. - NRC is familiar with ASR and approved the cement job, Re 8. - With proper planning, minimal evacuation is possible. Pros, a perspective as presented by local resident, suggests the plants are producing safe, clean, reliable electricity right here in our own backyard, and is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for the community. The plant is an irreplaceable asset and an economic engine for this region, generating a half billion dollars annually in local economic activity while supporting thousands of good-paying jobs in New Hampshire. The Seabrook Station generates more than half of New Hampshire total electricity while avoiding the emissions of nearly 4 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of taking almost 700,000 cars off the road.