Dear Editor:

As a well-published cancer epidemiologist (over 230 articles in peer-reviewed journals), public health professional, and concerned citizen who has followed the nuclear energy debate for the past 30 years I am strongly opposed to proposed nuclear power plant construction near Columbia.

From a health perspective, there is plenty of evidence that ionizing radiation is extremely deleterious to human health in the moderate to long term. Cancers in adults have an average latency period of around 20-30 years; in children, this period of cancer development can be much shorter. There is no way to guarantee containment of the very carcinogenic materials associated with nuclear power over a moderate period of time (i.e., decades).  So, it is very likely that rates of cancers and birth defects (which can appear relatively quickly) will increase if this very poorly thought out plan were put into effect.

From an economic perspective, irrespective of the huge costs that may be incurred when health risks are increased, this plan is equally absurd. Alternative forms of energy will be less expensive (and much less toxic), even in the short term.  They will become much cheaper with serious investments in research and development that are promised by the new administration.  Reverse (or net) metering will allow inventive individuals to generate electricity for the grid, thus accelerating innovation and reducing costs to an even greater extent.  Amortizing costs will make alternatives, such as wind and solar, much less expensive in the moderate to long term; and especially when costs of waste disposal (which appear simply to be discounted to zero by passing them on to future generations) are taken into account.

Sincerely, Dr. James R. Hebert, Columbia