The biblical tale of the Tower of Babel, whether one is a believer or not, firmly warns against human hubris in competition against God or nature. There is nothing we can build that will last forever and not deteriorate, and our knowledge in any matter, however advanced, will often fail to foresee potential disasters. The incomprehensibly tragic aftermath of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan two weeks ago, followed by a ferocious tsunami, re-exposed the dangers of civilian applications of nuclear power thatfores has not been part of the rhetoric supporting alternative energy sources on either side.

Consumer electricity generated by nuclear power plants is being seen as the answer in the world’s drive towards sustainability. It seems that, at least in the U.S., both political parties have plans to rebuild and expand the nation’s nuclear energy capacity. Not only in North America – nations in Western and Eastern Europe; some in South America and Asia – exalt nuclear power as the energy source appropriate to nations with few fossil fuel deposits such as France and Japan. Opposition to nuclear power usually comprises one of the many views espoused by protesters of the radical left and leftist environmentalist groups. Everyone else seems to see it as the perfect answer to the world’s alleged energy crisis.

Nuclear power creates electricity from nuclear fission – the splitting of fissile material, usually Uranium, to release large amounts of energy – which heats water to create steam for turbines to convert to electricity. This generates power with a volume to energy production efficiency unattainable by the regular burning of fossil fuels. To better illustrate the technological leap attained when atomic fission was given a non-explosive use, is to compare it to the nearest established alternative; the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use is almost as old as humans discovering how to control and use fire. Coal, today’s primary alternative to nuclear energy in the U.S., has been used since before recorded history. But none in the ancient world had the slightest idea of  nuclear physics and a caveman would never have stumbled upon and then split an atom with his stone hatchet. The complexity of nuclear fission, I believe, is responsible for our inability to control it in a safe way.

This April marks the quarter century anniversary of the Chernobyl power plant accident. I know this date well, because I was born on the same date and the same year, in the USSR, only hours away from the tragedy. I was actually born in the tiny Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan, which is ironically known for its fossil fuel production. You might say that I have a natural dislike for nuclear energy, but I assure that I am not biased from this coincidence. The year before Chernobyl, the Soviet Union had just suffered their most deadly nuclear submarine disaster, which took the lives of ten people and effected 49 others. We make mistakes naturally as human beings; therefore I see nuclear energy as something that we currently are unable to safely control, despite what we think.

We are unable to ever do anything that is completely immune to mistakes, and often we are unable to foresee potential problems that may arise in time. Likewise, everything we build deteriorates. We always say with something we know is dangerous that the increased level of scrutiny we award it will dispel safety concerns. But how about when we are faced with an economic dilemma? Many of the U.S.’s nuclear power plants are aging. Although federal agencies vow to reinvigorate our nation’s nuclear power program, much of today’s economic reality necessitates that instead of closing down old facilities, we restore and re-commission them. It is more feasible to revamp old plants, bandaging up their deteriorated state at safety’s expense. Much like NASA’s space shuttle program that operated their shuttles until disasters showed that despite intense inspection and repairs, they had become too unsafe to meet our nation’s space safety standards. Our bureaucrats seem willing to risk the well-being of its citizens and workers by sticking bubble gum in the cracks of nuclear facilities, hoping that they will stay together long enough for their investment in nuclear electricity to pay off.

It is important to clarify that Japan’s disaster was not due to human error or lack of proper maintenance. Japan was bravely at the forefront of nuclear power generation. The construction of their power plants accounted for all but the worst of possible natural disasters. But the 9.0 earthquake that was thought nearly impossible happened. Such disasters do not happen nearly as often in the U.S., which in turn means that nuclear power-plants are constructed to a much lower standard of natural disaster tolerance. Using Japan  as an example, we gather that we can never predict such things. Our under-preparedness, that might look like wasteful over-preparation if built otherwise, will backfire – and as we usually see in hindsight, it will cause a reassessment.

Terrorism is yet another nearly unavoidable threat. No matter how well guarded nuclear facilities are, there always are ways that crafty groups or individuals who wish to harm our nation could attack nuclear plants, which would facilitate a major disaster.

As we at one time settled people near lung-clogging factories and plants without realizing the harm it caused, and we may be similarly ignorant of externalities brought about through our investment in nuclear power. I am not speaking of the almost negligible effects of radioactive waste that is the main focus of those who protest nuclear energy. Whether or not there are dangers that we haven’t discovered yet, the observable disasters paint a grim picture of the current state of nuclear power.

No matter how cheap, clean or environmentally friendly nuclear power currently is believed to be, I think none of these factors is worth trading a single human life in even a rare occurrence. If unforeseen black-lung sounds frightening, nuclear contamination and radiation is much worse. Death, sickness, birth defects and fatigue are some of the byproducts of a nuclear disaster, not to mention ecological damage that in my view negates certain benefits of the cleanliness of a nuclear power plant’s emissions. I feel justified to doubt that we don’t yet, or maybe ever, have safe enough technology for nuclear power plants to morally justify risking the fallout from a disaster. We all hope that the precedence of human dignity over pecuniary concerns is firmly established in our society from lessons learned from industrialization. I fear that there is now a new and dangerous trend that trades human dignity for environmental concerns. Many who push in this direction mask their true carelessness under the guise of environmentalism and sustainability, doing everything to diminish viable doubts and concerns that are raised in opposition.

Lastly, nuclear power generation stifles competition in the energy sector. The construction of these plants is so expensive, and the risk of danger so high, that they require adherence to government regulations and oversight in all its aspects. Only large utility companies and governments have the means of running and operating them. Private firms can rarely afford to invest in them. If nuclear power becomes the norm, electricity may become the domain of government control or of monopolies and oligopolies, further stifling free market competition in this important segment. It will be detrimental to consumers and our economy – as if energy prices where not already high due to regional energy monopolies. Meanwhile, the federal government’s investment in these plants only takes away from what they contribute to developing alternative energy sources. At this time, it may also be better to continue encouraging clean coal technology and push for efficiency in fossil fuel plants.

I am not implying that research and development of nuclear technology should be stopped. On the contrary, all research can lead to solutions or other discoveries. I also support its extensive use in the military. But there is a risk that is assumed when one joins the military, of possible dangers from enemies or equipment that justifies its safe use if it can benefit soldiers by giving them tactical advantages and technological superiority. Civilians often have little say in such matters, and therefore should not be exposed to potential dangers they didn’t voluntarily agree to.

The historic propensity of the Japanese people to join together and re-build, either to modernize or recover from disaster as we are now seeing in news reports, makes me confident that upon recovery, their success will offer the world a glowing example of the policies and ethics required after such events – that today, having witnessed disasters in New Orleans, Haiti, and elsewhere – the world is badly in need of. While we should fervently aid the people of Japan, we should reflect upon our own vulnerability to nature, error, and decay. We should heed Socrates’ quotation of the muses in Plato’s “Republic” who say “since everything that comes-to-be must decay, not even one so constituted will last forever. On the contrary, it, too, must face dissolution.”

Dmitriy Shapiro is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].