Nuclear Energy, another Bush Policy Debate?

In the Bush Administration’s National Energy Policy(NEP): Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future, Vice President Cheney and an energy taskforce wrote that nuclear power is a safe and reliable energy source and the industry has a good record. This is evidenced by the NEP’s statement that nuclear reactors “have dependable record” and they “discharge no greenhouse gases”. [Bush Administration’s National Energy Policy (NEP): Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future] Nuclear power also generates 20 percent of the nation’s power and for ten states it accounts for 40 percent according NEP. Although this excerpt, found in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing, brief edition, forth edition, by John D. Ramage, John C Bean, and June Johnson, pg 91, does not give us all the information that is surrounding the article, it can be seen that there is not an argument for the other side of the topic. There is no discussion of meltdowns, accidents, or other hazards, such as what to do with the waste. In the next article we get to see the other side a little.
This next article written by columnist Marianne Means in an op-ed piece published by Hearst Newspapers on April 12th, 2001, entitled “Bush, Cheney Will face Wall of Opposition If They Try to Resurrect Nuclear Power” is a definite challenge to the idea of nuclear power. Marianne Means’ point of view here is that people will not stand for such a potentially deadly power source to be used. Ms. Means stated that “The industry has been moribund in this country since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island more than two decades ago set off fierce emotional resistance to an unreliable technology capable of accidentally spreading deadly radiation”. [Means, Marianne, op-ed, “Bush, Cheney Will face Wall of Opposition If they Try to Resurrect Nuclear Power”, published by Hearst Newspapers, April 12th, 2001] Ms. Means also brings up the argument about the waste. The NEP only said “Provide for the safe expansion of nuclear energy by establishing a national repository for nuclear waste”. [NEP] Ms Means points out “No state wants to be the repository of the more than 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste currently accumulating at 103 commercial reactor sites around the country.” [Means] However, she like the NEP does not give the other side. Ms. Means neglects to discuss improvements in reactor functions, and safeguards that have been put in place since the meltdown or to propose an idea for the safe disposal of waste.
A point to make about both articles, neither article says anything specific about the problems or benefits of nuclear energy. NEP only says, provides no proof, that reactors or plants are safe and effective. Means mainly points out the human perspective. For a person to really understand the debate one must look in depth by researching the nuclear power industry, safety upgrades and regulations, waste disposal proposals, and efficiency and economic factors.