Currently retired from 21 year career in commercial Pressurized Water Reactors nuclear power R&D test facility (including rapid response testing to support mitigation efforts for TMI.) I too am familiar with " nuclear power issues" (disclosed and undisclosed under the label company proprietary). In fact, I was glued to Japan broadcasts, following tsunami, and “reactor problems”. I was wondering when they would disclose info on spent fuel pits (not in containment, and most likely packed very densely because, over time, the lack of space and alternatives for fuel bundles led to compacting of assemblies into limited pit sizes). After 3 days, disclosed that initial concern and resources were focused at the fuel pits, (even before some focus on reactors themselves) because of the severity of the fuel pit crisis. WE know how that has gone. I am familiar with, Emergency Core Cooling, Steam Generator issues, waste disposal issues, Reactor coolant pumps, plant chemistries, sensor qualifications, etc. Much research focused on LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accidents) basis worst case, double guillotine coolant water pipe break. I am familiar with (DBA) Design Basis Analysis, FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Reports), waste disposal research, “enhanced fuel pit storage” and more. My comment to you: your own tunnel vision bias is showing. Such is summed up by your ad hominem “anti-science ideologues” and “left wing side” attacks. Factually, Mr. Schechter may not realize how accurate some of his assertions are. I do. I suspect your position may also be somewhat on denial side of his main point…it’s about reconciling risk vs reward, not proclaiming invincibility via science. Risk analysis is absolutely a priority in this industry yet data has been tampered with, and frankly I know of no documented studies that put risk, for any of the systems, at zero. Apologetics for any industry should not include “lulled-into-security” industry speak. Such lacks reason and logic.

Thank you for the intelligent comment. However, nowhere did I say or claim that nuclear power is totally safe, that the risk is “zero” as you seem to suggest at the end of your comment.

My point is that ill-informed commentators like Schechter have been jumping on the earthquake and tsunami and making claims about nuclear power risks without any perspective, not even knowing what the effects will turn out to be. All nuclear power plant accidents combined (leaving out Chornobyl, as there is no agreement on the number of deaths directly and from radiation exposure, though it will likely in the end be well under 1000 deaths and some health experts estimate under 100) have killed fewer people than die in coal mining accidents every year. Thus I would maintain that the risk vs reward issue favors nuclear power over coal power, but not in any way that nuclear (or coal) power is perfect.

Surely you must find his comments uninformed and his sources largely irrelevant. I could find only one scientist (possibly, an "anthropologist") among the 11 persons he quotes or names as a source, and only Ann Coulter’s comment reports on actual science. You and I know more about the subject than he and all of his sources combined know.

That really defines bad journalism: trying to manufacture the appearance of a scientific analysis without referencing any science (except, again, Coulter’s comment, though she is not a direct scientific source). That is why I gave the piece a very negative review. I would have done the same for a piece claiming nuclear power is perfectly safe, cheap and can supply all the world’s energy needs (the exact opposite of what Schechter claims).

And, finally, surely you agree that the fate of the dead, homeless and starving people due to the earthquake and tsunami is a more urgent matter than commenting on nuclear power without even knowing the facts. That was another major factor in rating the opinion piece so low.