Nuclear proponents often proclaim that nuclear energy is safe, and that worries about its safety are irrational and emotionally laden. When challenged, they will quickly assert that nuclear energy has had a near perfect safety record since the disasters of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (as if those disasters don't count). They will say that Chernobyl (1986) and Three Mile Island (1979) could never happen again.
Yet, just recently, there was a near disaster in one of Japan's largest nuclear plants, resulting from an earthquake, measuring 6.8 or the Richter Scale, reportedly double the strength for which the reactors were designed. Nuclear proponents proclaim that a disaster was averted by the plant design, but the facts are otherwise noted:
Tokyo Electric Power, the plant's operator, said the tremors last week were more than twice as strong as the plant's design limits. So the plant's vulnerability to damage has distressed many Japanese.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/24/news/japan.php
The fire at the nuclear plant can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glClKSstwRE
To make matters worse, the 6.8 earthquake was strong enough to suggest that Japan's largest nuclear facility was built above an active earthquake fault. Japan's head nuclear engineer seems to minimize this oversight:
"Not finding the fault was a miss on our part," said Toshiaki Sakai, who heads the engineering group in charge of Tokyo Electric's nuclear plants. "But it was not a fatal miss by any means."
It would seem, however, that a nuclear disaster didn't happen in Japan more as a function of luck than of design.
Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, was critical of plant officials, stating that there were delays in notifiying the public. "I have sent stern instructions that such alerts must be raised seriously and swiftly," Abe said.
The Washington Post further reports that "Japan's 55 nuclear reactors, which supply 30 percent of the country's electricity, have had a long string of accidents and coverups."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700130.html
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant, one of the world's largest, is presently shut down.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/18/asia/japan.php
Japan experienced another nuclear accident in 1999, which was contained on-site at the Tokaimura fuel reprocessing plant, but "...inadvertently started a nuclear chain reaction when adding enriched uranium to a tank at the plant."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991206072234.htm
Finally, if you think that nuclear problems are unique to Japan, you would be wrong. Germany, without benefit of much publicity, also closed two nuclear facilities, resulting from a fire in one and a short circuit in another. Germany is, admittedly, moving away from nuclear energy, and these closings might have come eventually, anyway. However, the nuclear plant at Krummel has had 15 such incidents within the past year, and has been conrtroversial, "...with critics holding it responsible for a high incidence of leukemia cases in the region."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
My professor thinks that the use of coal is really bad for the environment as well. He isn't from West Virginia, as I am, and doesn't understand what a huge role it plays in the economy of the state. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the coal industry.
Thanks for a well-written, informative article, Steve. :)
Not really alot of need for it. Already, many businesses are beginning to build out a rennewable infrastructure for profit. We just don't need nuclear and fossils to get in the way, e.g., with $50Billion in federal loan guarantees that nuclear is lobbying congress for.
Marsha: "He isn't from West Virginia, as I am, and doesn't understand what a huge role it plays in the economy of the state."
It's playing less and less of a role in the state's economy, with companies needing fewer and fewer workers to operate bigger and bigger machines. I probably don't need to tell you the havoc that mountain-top removal is wreaking in your home state. I don't know, but I'd guess most people in your state are hurt more than helped by the coal industry.
Wil: "I know a lot of countries are looking for alternatives to coal-fired power stations, but I really hope they don't go for nuclear."
China is a perfect example, and they have been putting up alot of coal plants. However, there are signs that that may be turning around. I recently read that the Chinese are investing $265Billion in renewables through 2020. I hope we aren't foolish enough to forfeit a wide open arena for technological development/deployment, with its accompanying business opportunities, to the Chinese.
Additionally, for young Marsha, I'd like to recommend you rent an old movie: The China Syndrome. This movie shows what catastrophic consequences a nuclear meltdown would have, should it happen. And if Japan's got a plant atop a fault line, seems to me that unless they get rid of it, we all could pay the price for THAT one day.
Note also that insurance companies normally only cover the risks of human error and natural disasters (while often excluding risks of earthquakes and flooding). Insurance companies will not even insure risks associated with war, civil unrest and terrorist attacks. Add to that the cost of the security required to deal with theft, sabotage and civil protests, the legal actions, the need for staff to manage all such issues and it becomes clear how much of the real costs have until now been hidden within the budgets of police, military, education and research and all kinds of collaborating government departments. In short, a nuclear power plant is a huge sitting duck waiting for an accident to happen, without the authorities having much of a clue what to do if such an accident did occur.
The powerful military-industrial complex has long supported nuclear power plants, as it felt a need to maintain access to nuclear expertise and technology. But in practice, the military prefers non-radiation type of weapons such as the BLU-82 daisy cutter that was used in Vietnam and its descendent, the MOAB. More recent developments are the Russian vacuum bomb and the "thermobaric" bomb used by US forces in campaigns against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Such weapons will create very high temperatures that evaporate anything alive, without contaminating the area with radiation (see article and video). Multiple strikes with lower yield bombs and missiles carrying smaller conventional loads can be even more effective, as they can be self-directed to their targets using video cameras and military strength GPS navigation for pin-point accuracy.
In conclusion, even the military has little or no need for nuclear bombs or nuclear technology and it's time politicians stood up to ban both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants worldwide.
Reported as first MAJOR reactor accident in U.S.A. An explosion occurred, cause of which is still not known. Three men were killed instantly - their bodies were so severely irradiated that their exposed hands and heads had to be severed from their bodies and buried in a dump for radioactive waste. It took years to disassemble the wrecked plant and the burial ground will have to be guarded forever. Rescuers received high radiation doses. (Sources Goffman - Taplin, Poisoned Power, Rodale Preen, 1971; "Accidents, near Accidents and Leaks in the Nuclear Industry" Penelope Coeling for M.A.U.M.; "Les Amis de la Terre"; Jean Geue A.A.E.C.)
http://prop1.org/2000/accident/facts2.htm
There has been a lot of these accidents over the past 40 years, and some with very high levels of threat.
Nearly nothing but novels
Chemisty for a sustainable world