Lessons from Chernobyl for nuclear advocates

I WAS dismayed to read Tony Lodge’s article extolling the virtues of nuclear power (Yorkshire Post, November 24). Unfortunately, like most academics, he has been so busy number-crunching, that he hasn’t seen the elephant in the room. The fact is, no one knows the true cost of nuclear; how can they? What is the cost of dealing with the radioactive legacy?

The potential cost of nuclear must also be considered. Unlike Mr Lodge, I appertain to the school of common sense. If an accident/terrorist attack can happen, then sooner or later it probably will. It has been 26 years since the accident at Chernobyl, yet it was only this year, that the final movement restrictions on contaminated livestock were lifted.

Chernobyl is 5,000 miles away from the UK. What would be the effects of a home-grown disaster? The costs are incalculable and unimaginable. How do you put a price on a UK rendered uninhabitable by nuclear disaster?

The point of renewable energy is that it’s clean and it doesn’t have to be the cheapest or the most efficient. If wind and solar energy are double, or more, the cost of nuclear, it is still a price worth paying. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that nuclear is the way forward should go and live in Chernobyl. They say property is very cheap out there. I can’t think why!