The nuclear energy question has been raised on many occasions but the situation in Japan again reflects issues which if not resolved properly have implications for many future generations.
The question is not whether we can supply ourselves with efficient energy but the issue is whether the kind of energy we opt for is really safe.
As long as it proves that even one of the most advanced nations as Japan with modern nuclear plants do not have the abilities to contain the energies being released when things go wrong (in this case as a result of natural disaster), – there is no guarantee that those energies can be contained in times of conflict (war, terrorist attacks) where nuclear plants could be targeted. The risks are not only limited to natural disasters and earthquake prone areas, clear however as they are.
The question of a sustainable energy supply when natural resources are coming to an end at about 2070 can’t be ignored, but the way this question will be resolved can’t be a shortcut in terms of >”easier to offer nuclear energy”< if the use of those energies can’t be guaranteed safely – to be contained.
We can’t turn a blind eye to the dangers on the long -term implications if e.g in over populated areas those energies are uncontrolled released, – either by natural disaster, acts of war, insufficient maintenance, mechanical error or any other human failings. Where some incidents may only have local implications, other incidents may have global implications resulting in radioactive pollution of both air and water, radio-active clouds & rains, upper and lower streams spreading radioactive material at high-speed in the atmospheres. Besides the risks that those energies are used in some countries for the wrong reasons, in other countries the technical know how and the financial resources eventually may prove to be insufficient to keep up their plants in line with the required quality & safety.
Where we have been able to discover forces of nature which can’t be controlled in the very best hands, we should be reluctant to allow it being used, – at least in those countries where international surveillance is insufficient. Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant being badly damaged did affect local waters with radioactive iodine levels more than 1800 times the legal levels. Traces of radioactive iodine 131 have been found at 12 places in the air around South Korea.
Till so far the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history happened on the 26th of April in 1986 at Chernobyl, Ukraine (at that stage part of the Soviet Union). Radioactivity levels being released in the atmosphere were about 400 times higher than the fall out of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Still there is a 30 to 40 km exclusion zone surrounding the plant where over 300000 people had to abandon their homes.
The argument that the use of increasing nuclear power plants would solve or reduce climate change is not valid. If the UK e.g. by 2024 would have some 10 new nuclear reactors being build, the UK carbon emissions would be reduced by only 4%.
Nuclear power plants simply create more nuclear waste for future generations, apart from the implications when things go wrong. At times of war nuclear power plants are most likely prime targets with conventional weapons. If e.g. the power plant in Petten (the Netherlands) would be as such destroyed, the nuclear energies being released would not only affect the Netherlands on its own with its dense population, but surrounding countries as well, – not to speak about the nuclear material being released in the atmosphere, – like it happened in Chernobyl. Needless to say that at times of war more power plants at the same time are at risk of destruction by those who are totally irresponsible, – as history shows there have been many irresponsible minds at the forefront of decision-making.
Just imagine the implications of 10 nuclear power plants being destroyed at the same time. Life on earth would be under potential threat with genetic malformations running in many generations.
At present in Japan drinking half a liter contaminated fresh drinking water would expose any person to their annual safe dose as far as Officials concerned. Needless to say that people need more fresh drinking water to sustain in life and that there will be accumulations with profound health effects on the long-term, not being seen as yet. Radioactive material released into the sea will spread due to the tides.
Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days, however levels of Caesium -137 have a half-life in the range of 30 years and the local levels in Japan recently were close to 80 times the legal maximum. Radioactive iodine, caesium and cobalt levels in water in the turbine buildings next to the reactors 1 and 3 in Japan were 10000 times the normal level.
If the volatile uranium plutonium mix would start to burn really through its steel pressure vessel, there would be a worst case scenario in place, – nearly similar to the destruction of a nuclear power plant as a result of e.g the use of a conventional weapon during an act of war. Total destruction of nuclear power plants at times of conflict or natural disaster may create catastrophic implications, even worse than the Chernobyl disaster. Those implications may affect the food chain including farm and dairy products. At present in Japan the evacuation zone around the plant is 30 km, however still below the 80 km zone as advised by the United States. If such thing would happen in eg Petten (the Netherlands), it would mean evacuation of Amsterdam.
Still the dangers of nuclear energy are often underestimated by the experts in both the national and international discussions and within the arena of politics not everybody seems to be familiar with those dangers, – and at times decisions with little real insight in the dangers of those nuclear energies are often made to short-term interests and not being taken with the long-term future at heart. Some would still say believe that nuclear energies in advanced power plants are safe, but the incidents in Japan proves that they are far from safe.
If backup systems in unforeseen circumstances can’t be modified and/or improved, – if it is still allowed to build nuclear plants at earthquake prone areas (the area of San Fransisco is at risk if there would be nearby power plants), – and if nuclear energies in power plants can’t be secured and prevented from uncontrolled release in case of natural disaster, times of war and other human failure (either intentional or non intentional), – this form of energy will be an energetic liability for our own human genetic structure, where we survive such disasters in the short-term.
after an earthquake in the ? future.
The warnings of the Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant can’t be ignored or wiped underneath the carpet. At this time traces of radioactivity have been found in Europe, Korea and the United States. Rainwater in Ohio has been contaminated. There are significant import restrictions on food from Japan. The potential presence of caesium, iodine and other radioactive material in fish are realistic dangers.
It is clear that the impact of a partial destructed nuclear power plant in Japan has ripple effects all over the world, not to speak about the nightmare scenario’s in case of destruction of nuclear power plants as a result of forces of nature or calculated acts at war, – including terrorist attacks.
We are using powers which can’t be controlled eventually and then there is nothing else we can do than running behind the facts as they will evolve over time. The last if collective reason is not taking over at the early start of this decade and make selective its use. under the proper circumstances with maximum safeguards in place including ongoing quality maintenance. The last will be most questionable if countries will be hit by significant economic crisis or together with natural disaster and even in the most advanced countries it proves that systems are not foolproof
Paul Alexander Wolf
- Japanese volcanologists say several nuclear power plants at risk if major eruptions happen (japandailypress.com)
- Southeast Asia Going Nuclear (asianscientist.com)
- Fifty new nuclear plants could be goal in official energy plans (theguardian.com)
- Thyroid Cancers Surge Among Fukushima Youths (zerohedge.com)
- Energy Security: Would Vietnam’s Ninh Thuan Nuclearise Southeast Asia? – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)
- Fukushima disaster: staff did nothing to prevent nuclear catastrophe (voiceofrussia.com)
- Japan has enough plutonium to build 1,000 nuclear bombs: report (wantchinatimes.com)
- Guest Column: Positive polls signal bright future for nuclear energy (chronicle.augusta.com)
- Mother Jones com: 14 Haunting Portraits of Life After Nuclear Disaster (sjpaderborn.wordpress.com)
- Japanese government panel urges “embracing of nuclear power” (nuclear-news.net)
3 thoughts on “The nuclear energy dangers in our times”
Pingback: helen caldicott md, military drills | will there be a nuclear war in 2011 ?
Some truly select posts on this web site , saved to fav.
You could definitely see your skills within the work you write.
The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who aren’t afraid to say how
they believe. At all times follow your heart.
Comments are closed.