Madam, - Edward Walsh's evangelical espousal of nuclear energy (April 26th) - published, somewhat bizarrely, on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster - should not pass uncorrected.
Firstly, while the World Health Organisation may indeed have found only 56 current deaths as a result of the Chernobyl radiation release, Dr Walsh neglects to mention that five other independent studies published recently - including one by the Russian Academy of Sciences - give an estimated final toll of between 30,000 and 250,000 people.
Given that the release amounted to the radiation equivalent of roughly 100 medium-sized atomic bombs, the higher estimates seem far more likely to prove correct.
Secondly, in terms of safety, climate change itself imposes an entirely new context. Dr Walsh neglects to mention the near-failure of the much-vaunted French nuclear system in 2003. The heatwave that summer caused the rivers which cool half the French nuclear system to lose cooling capacity, threatening a shutdown of the reactors if legal temperature limits were to be respected. The French government opted to change the law overnight in order to keep the power on.
It is simply impossible to guarantee any proposed new nuclear plant as unequivocally safe over a 50-year lifespan (and beyond,) given that climate change means we are already venturing into completely unknown territory in terms of future environmental conditions.
Thirdly, Dr Walsh neglects to mention recent problems with the new Finnish reactor he considers so exemplary. Concrete poured for its foundations was recently found to be substandard, as was some of the steelwork. This 1,600-megawatt reactor was first planned in 2002. It is now not scheduled to be online before 2010.
By way of contrast, Portugal, Italy and the UK all managed to install over 450 MW of wind power each during 2005. Even in Ireland we managed nearly 200 MW last year. We could connect another 633 MW almost immediately if the ESB would only allow it, as you reported in your edition of April 20th.
Why spend 10 years waiting for unpopular and unsafe nuclear capacity in Ireland when we could connect the same amount of utterly safe and clean renewable energy in less time than it takes to build a shopping centre? - Yours, etc,
PAT FINNEGAN, Co-ordinator, Grian, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Edward Walsh suggests we need to look at the facts regarding nuclear power, steer away from media fiction and be mindful of our economic competitiveness. Yet he himself looks at only some of the facts.
While Finland's decision to go nuclear "was driven primarily by environmental considerations and the facts", its neighbour Sweden has decided to do the opposite and decommission its nuclear stations for exactly the same reasons.
The nuclear industry itself produces significant greenhouse gas emissions: research carried out for the EU concluded that when looking at the full cycle of nuclear generation, from mining uranium to decommissioning the plants, nuclear power stations would produce around 50 per cent more emissions than wind power.
Dr Walsh's old University of Limerick stands near one of Europe's greatest resources - the North Atlantic. Successive Irish governments have ignored its vast potential of tidal and wind energy, while many of our European neighbours (notably Denmark) have demonstrated what can be achieved with the right policies and some strategic investment.
While the three recorded major incidents at nuclear stations (the Windscale fire, Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster) may be numerically small compared with the total number of reactors, they are surely significant. And there is still no long-term solution to nuclear waste stockpiles - other than send them to Sellafield or bury them. - Yours, etc,
JARLATH MOLLOY, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.