Two of your esteemed writers recently wrote opposing comments concerning nuclear generation of electricity. After nearly a 30-year hiatus, debate on the subject is welcome news. People are beginning to be concerned about both energy availability and global warming, even as they careen up and down Plandome Road in their gas-guzzling SUVs.

Mr. Klainberg spouted the usual hogwash designed to raise the fear of the unknown. Mr. Theodorsen also raised the fear of a Jane Fonda-Chernobyl-style meltdown, but admitted that nuclear energy might be the future energy of the world while postulating that solar and wind sources have severe limitations in reliability and timing.

I know a little bit about nuclear power. I first learned to be a skilled operator of nuclear power plants in 1953 when only one existed. I both demonstrated and required safe and reliable operations of the nuclear plants I was responsible for, for 21 years, as I advanced through various levels of authority. To operate well-designed nuclear plants safely and reliably requires a high state of training, a meticulous maintenance program, a positive corporate philosophy, and a high level of management willingness to learn together with an understanding of the risks and benefits involved.

There is no such thing as a "spent atomic fuel gathering station." The description is a figment of imagination. The AEC disappeared some 30 years ago. Spent fuel rods are stored by the operators of the 103 operating nuclear power plants. The Department of Energy is responsible for developing a central storage place for the spent fuel rods. They have failed miserably to produce one in spite of both Congressional action and Congressional obstruction. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) supervises the operation of the plants and the onsite storage of the spent fuel. Low-level radioactive waste, such as contaminated clothing and construction materials, is safely transported to and stored at two or three sites in the US.

The volume of waste produced by a coal-fired plant is immense. In addition to the carbon dioxide and heat released to the atmosphere, for every 1,000 tons of coal shipped in to the plant for fuel, about 700 tons of fly ash and clinker must be put in a landfill. Many coal-fired plants consume 20,000 to 30,000 tons of coal per week. Conversely, the volume of waste produced by a nuclear plant amounts to 10s of truckloads per year. It does not produce any carbon dioxide.

Yes, using nuclear energy to produce electricity has its risks. Everything we do has risk, even getting out of bed in the morning. Some risks are acceptable and some are not. In the United States, nearly 50,000 people are killed each year in automobile accidents. Several hundred people die in most years in aircraft accidents. Thousands of people die each year from smoking effects. No one has died in nearly 50 years of civilian nuclear power plant operation in the US.

France generates about 78 percent of its electrical needs with nuclear energy. We generate about 20 percent of ours by nuclear plants. Reliability has improved over the years. In 1980 we generated about 260 billion kilowatt-hours. In 2000 the 103 plants generated 753.9 BKwhs, more than any other country. With the present worldwide energy crisis, France is nearly immune to its major economic impact, but we are not.

The issue with nuclear electric generation is political, not technical, and certainly not risk-based. Antonio Martino, Italy's minister of defense, said in the Wall Street Journal of Oct. 7, that nuclear power is "the cleanest, safest, and cheapest energy source available today." Actually, only hydroelectric power is cheaper in the US. The enriched uranium in spent fuel is a national asset. Spent fuel processing is routinely done in England and France. The US processes its spent fuel from military applications only. This limitation is a political and emotional barrier only. Safety is not an issue. The risks are within reason. The techniques are well established.

Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear accident the US has seen. The core melted catastrophically. Even though it cost the company millions to decontaminate and decommission the plant, not a single member of the public was radiated above the limits established for the general public. An OB/GYN doctor who lived nearby recommended that his patients evacuate at the time. He went to Vermont and received there, from the naturally occurring radiation in the granite, a higher radiation dose than any of the public who remained in the area during and after the event. Medical and dental X-rays, although individually unrecorded, radiate the average person more than is permitted at the perimeter of a nuclear plant, including at Three Mile Island.

Chernobyl was worse. Some Soviet-designed and operated reactors of that type are still operating in some parts of the world, even though international opinion suggested at the time that they all be shut down immediately. Both the design and the operating standards were flawed. Neither the old AEC nor the NRC then and now would permit such a design to be built in this country. Those reactor plants are not safe by our standards. Recent newspaper articles have pointed out that the long-term effects of the Chernobyl accident are much less than was originally thought.

Westchester County insists that evacuation plans and sirens are necessary to safeguard the county citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is another political ploy. The evacuations from New Orleans are a lesson to us all. Think of trying to evacuate lower Manhattan or Nassau County from a large storm surge. The safety of the public around a nuclear plant lies with the design, training, maintenance, and operation of the staff and the plant itself.

Paul Early