"Nuclear Power is the only form of energy production which requires an evacuation plan. There are safer, more economic, and certainly more environmentally benign ways to boil water." - Ralph Nader

SLO County is one of the most desirable places to live in the entire country. Property values are going through the roof. Yet, from one minute to the next, large portions of the County could become permanently uninhabitable. Such is the damage potential of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Be it from a successful terrorist attack or from a "worst case scenario" accident or even from a major earthquake, a massive radiation release would undoubtedly create a "historic disaster of national proportions" (1).

9/11 has heightened long-standing concerns. Nuclear terrorism expert Gordon Thompson sees nuclear power plants and their "spent fuel" [Industry euphemism for highly radioactive waste] as "pre-deployed radiological weapons that await activation by an enemy" (2). Since 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has consistently maintained that nuclear plants cannot be protected against acts of malice without turning them into "impenetrable fortresses." The NRC thinks this would be cost-prohibitive, spelling the end of the industry itself. "Because such attacks could never happen on US soil," the NRC hasn't require the plant operators to prepare for them. In light of 9/11, perhaps it should have.

A successful attack on any one of the nations 65 operating plants would almost certainly also be an economic disaster of national proportions. The public outcry to close all of them would be overwhelming. At once, the nation would lose 20% of its total electricity production . Ironically, a phase-out of nuclear power altogether would likely trigger an economic boom.

So let's imagine SLO County without Diablo. A golden age for small businesses, manufacturers and contractors would dawn. Preceding Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power, the German GREEN Party sponsored an economic impact study. It showed that every job lost in the nuclear industry would be offset by three to four new jobs gained in the manufacturing of renewable energy sources and the application of improved conservation and efficiency. Given California's sunshine, every home in the State could be turned into a small power plant. Utility costs would plummet for residents and businesses alike, putting vast sums of additional money into the pockets of consumers and investors. Additionally, our County's tax base would be diversified, making it less dependent on the fortunes of a bankrupt corporation.

The US is the most energy-wasting nation on Earth. It has been estimated that effective conservation and efficiency measures could cut consumption by up to 50% without compromising the standard of living. Just a little bit of conservation at the height of our state's "energy crisis" a couple of years ago resulted in a 15% cut in consumption. By comparison, Diablo produces just 9.7% of California's electricity. Future additional demands could be easily met by developing solar, wind, bio-mass, geothermal, and other renewable sources. All of these made huge advances in recent years and all produce far more jobs than the highly centralized and subsidized nuclear industry.

Europe has begun to abandon nuclear power. Even Belgium, which depends on nuclear power for 60% of its electricity, has recently decided to join Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Spain in either phasing out the plants or declaring moratoriums. The European Union has embarked on a plan to produce 20% of its electricity needs through wind power while envying the wind potential in the US on its coast lines and the central plains.

So why continue to expose SLO residents to the threat of nuclear catastrophe if it isn't necessary? Why continue to rely on risky dinosaurs and boondoggles from the cold war era when we can switch to simple, benign and sustainable 21st-century technologies? The AP New Year's poll shows that two out three Americans expect further terrorist attacks in the US if we start a war against Iraq. We now know that nuclear power plants are on Al Qaeda's list of primary targets. The recent space shuttle disaster proved once again that highly complicated technologies come with risks of accidents. But we simply cannot afford a single nuclear disaster before we start protecting against it. There have already been close calls such as Three Mile Island and, more recently, Davis-Besse. As the plants age they will become even more susceptible to such events.

Do we owe the industry any favors? I don't think so. After all, the promise to produce "power too cheap to meter" never materialized. SLO residents and businesses still pay one of the highest rates in the nation, about 50% more than the average. Moreover, with every passing day, the amount of highly radioactive waste increases at Diablo. Under PG&E's current proposals, nine times as much waste would be stored out there than the plant was originally designed, licensed and built for. With the ever-increasing amounts, risks and damage potential increase as well.

Nuclear scientist Arjun Makhijani (3) states: "The time at which a nuclear power plant runs out of storage space for spent fuel is an appropriate time to consider alternatives to its continued operation, since building new storage requires significant new regulatory and economic decisions." This time at Diablo is NOW. But who, besides of a handful of activists, is talking about it?

On March 23 and 24 the NRC comes to town to receive public input. Please, everybody, reserve a time slot to speak your mind [see ad below]. Donate some tax deductible money to Mothers for Peace to help with the contentions filed with the NRC which are headed for costly court appeals [P.O.Box 164, Pismo Beach, Ca. 93448]. And, most of all, get involved by letting your County/Federal officials know how you feel about Diablo. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the County EIR for dry cask storage at Diablo require discussion of a "no action" alternative which would shut the plant down by 2006.

NOTE: the California GREEN Party's platform states in its "Nuclear Contamination" plank:

"Rapidly phase out production of electric power from nuclear sources."

(1) Gordon Thompson, executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies and research professor at Clark University, in "Robust Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel," Jan. 2003.

(2) Thompson, ibid.

(3) Arjun Makhijani, chief scientist at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, in "Short- and Medium-Management of Highly Radioactive Wastes in the United States," IEER: Energy & Security No. 9, May 1999.