Madam, - Contrary to the opinion of James Lovelock, a scientist whom Dr Edward Walsh quotes when criticising media reports (Opinion & Analysis, April 26th), nuclear energy cannot simply be described as "the safest of all" forms of energy. The nuclear process is intrinsically catastrophic no matter how many layers of concrete and assurance you wrap it up in.
Advocates of nuclear energy who criticise the media usually ignore temperate journalism on the subject. Would we, for example, have learnt about recent cracks in critical storage facilities at Sellafield were it not for detailed reports in the Guardian? Is adopting nuclear energy or destroying the earth through carbon emissions really the only scientific option?
My own book Fearing Sellafield (Gill & Macmillan, 2003) was the result of considerable research and was deemed "clear and insightful" by the Engineers Journal of Ireland. The only general book on the subject, it demonstrates that the current use of Sellafield as a storage facility for highly radioactive waste is fraught and inappropriate. Such findings require rational remedies rather than scientific bravado.
One thing that struck me when writing the book is that some "experts" are specialist scientists with tunnel vision who know about only one piece of the jigsaw that is nuclear power. They may dismiss the media as confused and simplisitc, but they seldom admit their own limitations publicly, or in some cases their financial connections with the nuclear industry.
What we need is ongoing vigilance, independent of state or commercial interests, rather than "scientific" assertion or media sensationalism. You can favour nuclear power, in the context of global warming, while fairly acknowledging the gamble that is involved. Dams burst, and coalminers die, but a nuclear catastrophe could have far worse consequences.
There are hard choices to be made in the context of climate change. - Yours, etc,
Dr COLUM KENNY, School of Communications, Dublin City University, Dublin 9.