No longer is lung cancer solely the bane of heavy cigarette smokers. According to a groundbreaking sixteen-year study released last week, prolonged exposure to air tainted by tiny particles of pollution significantly boosts the risk of developing fatal lung cancer. Those who live in congested cities are at highest risk.

The findings add urgency to efforts to curb air pollution caused by coal-fired power plants, factories, and diesel trucks and buses. The study comes as the administration considers scaling back legal action against power plants and refineries that have expanded facilities without installing required anti-pollution equipment.

The White House backs nuclear power as the 'clean' alternative and seeks to spur investment in new plants. The nuclear nightmare scenario, however, is vividly etched in the American psyche - 60% of Americans oppose building new nuclear plants. And despite advances, resulting radioactive waste cannot be safely contained. Plutonium remains deadly for a quarter of a million years - 12,000 generations.

Plans to permanently store radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have been endorsed by President Bush and Congressional leaders. Controversy is mounting over the site, which:

• is located in the Department of Energy's highest risk category for earthquakes and sits atop a major aquifer.
  
  
• would receive waste shipped through 43 states by rail or truck. Studies indicate that 50 accidents could occur.
  
  
• could serve as a focal point for terrorist attack as the critical target in a deadly chain of events.

Experts contend that safe sources of renewable energy could supply as much as 20% of our electricity by 2020 were they given sufficient political and economic support. Such sources now supply just 2%.

Can we safely produce power without deadly side effects like cancer or the risk of nuclear catastrophe? What stands in the way of enforcing rules against air pollution made to safeguard our health?