A Fresh Look at Nuclear Power, from Fukushima to the Hudson Tonight, the PBS program Frontline is running "Nuclear Aftershocks," a 50-minute documentary examining the implications of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear calamity for the future of nuclear power in the United States and elsewhere. Over the weekend I watched a near-final version of the program, and I found it a powerful, fair and - given the time constraints - comprehensive report on the benefits and risks of one of the handful of energy technologies that can provide electric power in bulk without greenhouse gases. The guide to the issues is Miles O'Brien, a veteran television science reporter (foolishly fired by CNN in 2008) who traveled to three continents to tell the tale. He examines Japan's difficult and costly cleanup, the resulting pulse of public fears about radiation there (and elsewhere) and corporate and government decisions that resulted in the construction of such a vulnerable power plant complex in a tsunami zone. He shifts to Germany, which abruptly pulled the plug on its nuclear program and now faces a looming power gap that analysts say, despite growth in solar and other renewable power sources there, can only be filled with fossil fuels (mainly coal) - raising concerns of climate scientists. The program contains a fresh interview with James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who's become an energetic advocate for new nuclear technologies, splitting on this issue with some other climate campaigners focused on solar and other renewable energy technologies. Then O'Brien travels up the Hudson to the Indian Point nuclear power plant to examine the debate over efforts by its owner, Entergy, to renew the plant's license for another 20 years. O'Brien visits the building housing the pool for spent nuclear fuel that I toured last year). Toward the end of the film, he gets stuck in a routine traffic jam on a village road that is theoretically an official evacuation route. Public concerns about the plant are addressed through that scene and at other points - including an interview with Lynn Sykes, an emeritus geology professor at Columbia University who insists the earthquake risk to the plant is greater than Entergy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have calculated. But the piece doesn't exploit the high "dread to risk ratio" on nuclear energy, as some in the media have. For example, an interview with David Lochbaum, the lead nuclear analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, includes his longstanding concerns about the tendency of nuclear regulators to routinely approve exemptions to some longstanding safety rules (this is also a big concern of Richard Brodsky, a former state legislator from the region). But the interview includes important nuances (a rare thing). One is Lochbaum crediting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry with at least a couple of proactive decisions - including the commission insisting on flood protections that had been fought by the owners of the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant north of Omaha, Neb. - and that proved critical in limiting risk from last year's floods. "Fort Calhoun was a stellar example of the NRC taking proactive action to protect people living in Nebraska," Lochbaum says. What is lacking at the commission, he stresses, is consistency. I encourage you to watch the show (a trailer is above). Here's a brief exchange I had with O'Brien (with a few bits of e-mail shorthand cleaned up): You powerfully captured the issue of "disaster memory" (or amnesia!), which transcends nuclear risk. Did you come away with your own sense of whether we, as a species, can overcome that bad habit? I am afraid it is human nature. A lifetime is 100 years if we are lucky and eat well - and it is hard for us to comprehend the time scales of the universe. Even if we are careful students of the historical record, it is not enough in this case to give us a proper sense of the risk. For instance, the assumption is the Ramapo fault [near Indian Point] is inactive. How can we be certain? Certainly the historical record of the "New World" barely scratches the surface (if you will). Tectonic time is a whole different ballgame. It is interesting how this brings us into the climate change debate. And at its core (again, if you will) is whether we truly believe that science and scientists are worth listening to. It seems we only listen when we hear things that are indeed convenient. It appears that was the case at Tepco [relevant Times story]. In the program, the radiation fears of folks in Japan, Germany and New York were counterposed against a couple of experts on risk, but the piece might have benefitted from the voice of one of the environmentalists who've become nuclear proponents (Stewart Brand, George Monbiot, or the like) or an expert in the psychology of risk (Paul Slovic, David Ropeik, etc.). Jim Hansen's worries are all focused on [the greenhouse gas] CO2 so he's not directly addressing the risk question (for example, the reality that coal produces more radiation and deaths than nuclear, etc.). My guess is this is also a time/space issue, but I'd be eager to hear your thoughts. It was a matter of time. We thought about including all of those people at one point or another, but in the end I felt Hansen was most on point for the Germany conundrum. I think a lot of what the others would say is infused in the piece anyway. But the short answer is, even 50 minutes is not enough! One technical element that's missing is dry cask storage, which has gained credence as a safe mid- to long-term on-site storage option (at Indian Point and elsewhere). It's certainly earthquake- and flood-proof (and almost certainly terror-proof). I'm presuming you did some reporting on that that couldn't fit. If so what are your impressions? We did, and we saw the casks at Indian Point. It is the only reasonable solution that I can see to that problem. Centralizing the waste is never going to happen - just as reprocessing remains a nonstarter. So the casks are becoming the default solution - and it does not seem to be such a bad way to go. The waste issue is not an easy one to get into - and so again, for time, we saved it for another piece. It's a credit to PBS and the program's backers that this film was made; it would also be great to see this kind of inquiry continue. I hope O'Brien and his team get the chance to do a sequel.