SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
Berton Moldow, Laguna Woods
I regret that your paper chose to paper-over the potential disaster San Onofre represents to the people of Southern California. Have you ever asked yourself, “Is the risk worth the consequences?”
What if one of the many things that could go wrong occurred? It could result in a disaster from which California and the nation could not survive. Chernobyl and Fukushima would pale in comparison.
The issue at San Onofre is one that exists at more than 75 other sites around the country where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is negligent in enforcing its own rules when it comes to utility interests. They are remiss in fulfilling its role as protector of the people.
If you have been covering the Community Engagement Panel (CEP) meetings, how could you not help but be aware that Southern California Edison gets unlimited time to address issues. If the opposition brought in the experts, who include even former heads of the NRC as well as former advocates of nuclear power, to describe their concerns and valid objections, they are only entitled to 3 minutes. By now you should realize that CEP is a public relations scheme promoted by Edison.