Several statements in Mr. Klainberg's most recent column cannot go unchallenged because they continue a litany of falsehoods from environmental activists that have no basis in fact. The two operating plants at Indian Point have been operating since the early 1970s. There are over 100 others in the country. Most have operated for about 30 years and some have operated for nearly 40 years and are having their licenses renewed for another 20 years. There have been no fatalities relating to nuclear operations. While there may have been industrial accidents resulting in deaths, the troubles they may have had have not caused any harm to the general population.

Mr. Klainberg travels frequently by air. He understands that the planes must be carefully maintained and the pilots well-trained, licensed, and examined periodically for competence. Similarly nuclear power plant operation requires a very high standard of care and training because the risks are recognized as significant. Air travel has a far greater risk of death to the crews and passengers yet we all accept that and most of us fly. Auto travel is even more dangerous, yet we all go by car almost every day. The operation of the plants, like flying, is not inherently safe. It must be made safe through constant efforts in the areas of maintenance and operational performance.

The dismantling of Shoreham saddled the ratepayers of Long Island with a $5 billion debt that is being paid off in addition to the cost of the electricity they are consuming today. That's why our rates are still higher than those in California. Shoreham's 800 megawatts (MW) of power was needed then and is needed now as is shown by the 150 MW plant subsequently built near Holtsville; the need to run the emergency diesel generators still in place at Shoreham during peak loads (some 20 MW); the effort by LIPA to get a new 300 MW transmission line put across the Sound from New Haven; and the continued use of aged and antiquated high-emission plants that LILCO had planned to scrap.

The high-level radioactive waste from a nuclear generating plant amounts to about one to two truckloads per year in weight and volume. It consists of spent fuel elements and a barrel or two of used resin. The United States has the proven capability of handling this material safely. It does not have the political will to address the problem of environmental obstructionism. The same materials from our nuclear powered ships for years have been recycled or consolidated and stored in government facilities. France does this for its own nuclear generating stations and those from the rest of the western world. It is done safely, surely, and securely, and sometimes in spite of the obstructionists to try to disrupt the shipments. Shoreham's essentially unused nuclear fuel was shipped without incident to generating stations in Pennsylvania. Today the spent nuclear fuel is being stored in vaults under guard at each of the sites of the nuclear plants. This is because the US government has failed to meet its commitment to provide a central storage place by about 1980. The cost of this failure is being borne by the taxpayers and the ratepayers.

Yes, the radioactivity in the spent fuel will take thousands of years to decay to a safe level. Chemical waste, on the other hand, never decays. Cadmium, arsenic, PCBs, and MTBE are toxic forever. The volumes of chemical waste that we produce in industrial nations all must be safeguarded to protect human health. We won't stop making new chemical combinations that may prove toxic years hence. We need to bring a little perspective to the problem. There are important benefits to nuclear generation besides electricity. The most important one is low volumes of emissions. Zero carbon dioxide. Zero nitrous oxides that cause acid rain.

Paul Early