|
Nuclear power Vs humanity’s survival
April 01, 2011
![]()
Incidences of thyroid and cancer in children continue to increase and will peak around 2010. The 'Belarusian necklace' is a common sight amongst children there. It refers to the scar left after thyroid surgery. The overall increase in all cancers is incalculable. Only 1% of the agricultural land is safe, according to international standards. Now, ask the citizens of Belarus (a country with no nuclear power stations of its own), if they think nuclear power is safe. When a coal mine collapses, coal miners die, few other people are affected. When a nuclear power station goes into meltdown, or there is a nuclear release, people who have nothing to do with the reactor are affected, whether in the case of the release in Japan affecting people within 500 metres, or in the worst case, people who live kilometers away.
|
Human kind is deputation on earth as a living fissure for many more thousand years to come. According to the theory of probabilities, it is just a question of time when the next serious accident takes place. The problem being, that radiation once leaked will persist in its abhorrent effects such as cancer, gene deformation etc., almost forever. The nuclear accident in Japan shows that nuclear power is not safe, even in developed countries. The magnitude and frequency of problems that would occur if developing countries turn to nuclear power is frightening.
Not only is the safety of nuclear plants a major issue, but also the disposal of the high level radioactive waste. Nuclear power cannot be considered as a safe and sustainable choice if our descendants for the next 2000 years need to deal with the nuclear waste that is being produced now. As the history tells the result of the Chernobyl disaster, 400,000 people were forced to abandon their homes forever. About 2000 villages in the area were evacuated. An area of 160,000 square kilometers was unhygienic and food cannot be grown on this land for 25,000 years. Some 9 million people were affected, of which 3-4 million are children.
Incidences of thyroid and cancer in children continue to increase and will peak around 2010. The 'Belarusian necklace' is a common sight amongst children there. It refers to the scar left after thyroid surgery. The overall increase in all cancers is incalculable. Only 1% of the agricultural land is safe, according to international standards. Now, ask the citizens of Belarus (a country with no nuclear power stations of its own), if they think nuclear power is safe. When a coal mine collapses, coal miners die, few other people are affected. When a nuclear power station goes into meltdown, or there is a nuclear release, people who have nothing to do with the reactor are affected, whether in the case of the release in Japan affecting people within 500 metres, or in the worst case, people who live kilometers away.
The odd thing about the nuclear industry is not that it is so dangerous, but that it is perceived as such. With the possible exception of the aviation industry, no other area of human endeavour has such a wide gulf between the actual risk, and the perceived risk. Whilst the levels of safety required of nuclear facilities is very high indeed, the actual harm caused by nuclear accidents even including the odd disaster, such as at Chernobyl, pales alongside the appalling death and injury rates directly caused by the chemical industry.
I would advocate the expenditure of similar levels of effort and indignation at both industries - Nuclear power may not be totally safe, but there are more pressing things to worry about in the modern industrial world. Notwithstanding the above, it does take a special kind of idiocy to produce a highly toxic waste product from a new industry before you have worked out how to cope with it. A rising Asia needs energy, and faces uncertainties of fuel oil supply, especially in the wake of events in the Middle East. Countries have set plans for nuclear power to ensure their energy security. This is notwithstanding many experts’ argument that energy efficiency should be the first and more cost effective effort, and the calls to explore the potential of renewable sources such as geo-thermal energy.
China is speeding up construction plans for nuclear power plants, especially in its Southern provinces and Guangdong. Across Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand are moving towards nuclear power, while Malaysia and Singapore are open to the possibility. None have experience in nuclear power generation on this scale. China has 13 working reactors delivering some 11 gigawatts; it has not had a major nuclear disaster so far. But its plants occasionally leak, such as during the incident last year in Shenzhen which is just next to Hong Kong. Looking ahead, China’s plans are to expand its production of nuclear-generated power to at least 40 gigawatts by 2020 — enough to power Spain. And with the country’s growing hunger for energy, the goal might even increase exponentially to 400 gigawatts by 2050.
This would rank China’s nuclear program as among the most ambitious on record, and such rapid expansion can strain the capacity to build and manage plants safely.
The plans of some Southeast Asian nations are on a smaller scale, but are also based on a rushed timescale. Vietnam is committed to building two plants by 2021, the first by Russians and the second by Japanese. Another eight more plants are being proposed, according to sources.
The Japanese situation is a sharp reminder to be humble in the face of the risks and to bring a pause to breakneck ambitions. Countries that have been exposed to earthquakes — especially Indonesia, but also some provinces in China — would be well served to re-look at safety issues. Even for countries without active seismic activity, there are cautionary lessons about risk management. This is especially as many do not have the high safety culture that Japan has.
This is not to say that no nuclear power plants should or can be built. But following the Japan quake and tsunami, there must be a welcomed and renewed awareness of the risks, and greater deliberation in the process. The appropriate response is for greater transparency and consultation within each society, and also with neighboring states that could be affected. In the wake of the latest happenings, Chinese authorities have already responded by announcing that they will strengthen the evaluation of their plans.
There are gains to be made from greater regional cooperation. These include safeguards, financing and questions of nuclear liability and insurance. Issues of relations between governments and nuclear energy suppliers who will build and perhaps operate the plants also need to be discussed. Only when all this is done — and seen to be done by their populations — can Asian governments expect their people to have sufficient confidence in bureaucrats’ nuclear dreams. The task of getting such buy-in will now be even more difficult, and not just in Asia where online forums are already abuzz. In Europe, policy-makers such as those in Britain are braced for stronger opposition to nuclear plans.
The Japanese have lived with energy insecurity and nuclear power for many decades. In cycle with establishing Japan as a world leader in energy efficiency and alternative energy, they have developed their nuclear energy capabilities over the decades with what appear to be the strictest safeguards — although fresh doubts are being cast by the Japanese media and international groups.
In the wake of the tragic quake and unfolding nuclear concerns in Tokyo, other Asian countries that wish to pursue the reward of nuclear power must be advised to take the time to ensure they meet the highest standards.
Even if they do, they and their people must also understand, and be prepared, that even the highest standards may still not prove to be enough. As what happened in Japan did not happen in a third world country, but a highly sophisticated industrial nation, according to prevailing standards of sophistication, what I understand that nobody can claim ignorance. Should we or our children find ourselves in the future under direct threat due to failure in a nuclear plant or subsidiary industries? Given the importance of nuclear energy, we should organise a functional competent international committee, which could assess cost benefits of employing nuclear energy under optimum conditions. I think we still have yet to come up with a painstaking conclusion.
• Shut down a large proportion of the world's industry until a "green" power source can be found
• Remove the autonomy of governments of countries with nuclear reactors to enforce higher safety standards with an international government
• Bewilderment on as we are going, accepting a few deaths in the name of the "greater good", I expect that no. 3 will be the only acceptable option
|