Those not concerned about the dangers of nuclear waste need to weigh the threats
I fully agree with the views expressed by Sid Morrison and K.C. Golden [“Decarbonizing our future,” Opinion, Dec. 16].
I believe discussion of nuclear power needs to be broadened. I recently learned that a large part of the nuclear fuel used in this country comes from enriched uranium and plutonium salvaged from nuclear weapons dismantled by Russia and sold to the U.S. as part of a nuclear-arms reduction agreement. Interestingly, there is concern that the cost of nuclear power will soon increase because that source is running out. I regard this as good news in that it represents a reduction in the nuclear weapons threat.
Those of us who are concerned about the dangers of nuclear waste need to seriously weigh the relative threats. Which threat is worse: weapons grade nuclear material or spent fuel?
Of course this Hobson’s choice may be avoided if fast neutron reactors are built to burn existing nuclear waste in addition to dangerous nuclear weapons material. This would reduce three global threats: climate change, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste.
I would like to see our state take the lead in research and discussion of these possibilities.
— Bob Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle