Daily News Editorial: Should we dump nuclear energy plans?

FOR years, nuclear power has been considered a viable way to address global warming concerns and lessen environmentally harmful coal and oil energy production. But Japan's current nuclear crisis has the U.S. rethinking its future nuclear energy pursuits.

In the wake of the 30-year anniversary this week of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear plant and continued devastation brought on by the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine, those in favor of greater nuclear energy reliance are reminded that it too has its risks.

Is it worth it? Is it time to recommit to nuclear energy, or to renounce it?

Some say the risks are too high - much higher and potentially more harmful to human health than coal or oil. Take the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico nearly a year ago. Proponents point out that recovery from a disaster like that massive oil spill pales in comparison to a nuclear crisis because radioactive leaks can't be cleaned up.

Still, proponents of nuclear energy proliferation persist that the day-to-day effects of coal and oil extraction are far more costly to our environment than the rare and unexpected nuclear slip up.

What do you think?

Should the U.S. dump its future nuclear energy plans? Or is Japan's nuclear disaster an unfortunate occurrence that shouldn't thwart our nuclear ambitions?

Is Japan's nuclear crisis a signal that our environmentally conscious aspirations may be just

as unsafe as our current practices?

Send your responses to opinionated@dailynews.com. Please include your full name, the community or city in which you live and your daytime phone number. We'll print as many as we can in Sunday's Opinionated section.

Amanda Marcum Amanda Peet Ananda Lewis Tamie Sheffield Kristanna Loken