Letters to the Editor

A costly fusion reactor

Charles Rousseaux rightly laments the enormous cost of the proposed International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) fusion reactor that President Bush is supporting (“Wishing on a star,” Commentary, Wednesday). The construction cost alone of the ITER fusion boondoggle is $5 billion (U.S.). After 10 years of construction, there will be 20 years of operating costs and then decommissioning.

Nor is ITER environmentally benign. Its own designers admit that it will result in 30,000 metric tons of radioactive waste, deadly for 100 years. ITER also uses large amounts of radioactive tritium for fuel, and emissions will increase the cancer risk in downwind populations.

Nor is there any practical benefit from the ITER reactor. It is purely experimental and will not produce any electricity — a commercial fusion reactor is at least 50 years away. The seven international ITER partners are expected to meet in the District Dec. 15 to decide on a host country for the reactor. All the partner countries will be losers. The Sierra Club of Canada opposes the siting of ITER in Canada because it is a senseless waste of taxpayers’ money and a ridiculous direction for energy policy. The real answers to our energy problems are available now: efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

DAVID H. MARTIN

Policy adviser

Sierra Club of Canada

Toronto

Assessing the California recall

Tod Lindberg, in his column “The California recall and beyond” (Op-Ed, Tuesday), has given an accurate picture of the bizarre recall election. However, he failed to capture the anger most voters felt over the failure of Gov. Gray Davis to deal with the immigration issue.

Story Continues →