Is Nuclear Power Safe?
- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I recently received an invitation to the following;
FUKUSHIMA: IS NUCLEAR POWER SAFE? (2011)
(60 mins)
Six months after the explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plant and the release of radiation there, Professor Jim Al-Khalili sets out to discover whether nuclear power is safe.
He begins in Japan, where he meets some of the tens of thousands of people who have been evacuated from the exclusion zone. He travels to an abandoned village just outside the zone to witness a nuclear clean-up operation.
Jim draws on the latest scientific findings from Japan and from the previous explosion at Chernobyl to understand how dangerous the release of radiation is likely to be and what that means for our trust in nuclear power.
The Chernobyl Power Plant explosion in April 1986 was the world’s worst nuclear disaster, releasing 300 times the radiation of Hiroshima right across Europe. A similar disaster could happen again, in any country with nuclear installations. That is why the Government and the Nuclear Industry would like us to forget about the terrible risks of nuclear power.
Chernobyl devastated Belarus. Half a million people were forced to flee their homes, never to return and thyroid cancer rose by more than 100 times in the most affected regions of that country. Today, 26 years later, babies are still being born with cancer or genetic defects. Governments and the nuclear industry have combined to minimise the death toll and to discourage proper research into the continuing impact of Chernobyl, just as they tried to do last year with the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. And they still haven’t found a way of safely storing highly radioactive nuclear waste.
But CO2 and soot emissions from coal burning also seem fairly non-containable.To be honest I haven’t made my mind up on this one; I haven’t studied the subject well enough.
Re nuclear power, I would recommend reading anything by Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, who has spent 30+ years trying to educate people internationally about the medical dangers of nuclear power etc, (‘Nuclear Madness’, ‘The New Nuclear Danger’, ‘If you love this planet’ or google her)Today I picked this up: http://www.countercurrents.org/alvarez240412.htm which explains how much more serious the effects of the Japanese nuclear disaster – still progressing – are compared with those of Chernobyl.My feeling is that, although removing the profit motive from any industry, nuclear, fossil fuel or alternative energy will certainly have a massive positive effect on safety practices, the mass of information we have against the use of nuclear energy needs to be more widely understood and dispersed. There really is no way that this can be safe for life or planet.
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/I may be playing devils advocate here but it seems to me that nuclear power is far from our biggest concern.
Agreed, coal is bad. So is the mining, refining and burning of other fossil fuels. The article talks about accidents from nuclear power production. There is much more to it than that. There is no solution to the disposal of nuclear waste – one reason why so much depleted uranium is currently used for production of weapons for the military – pass the problem on. We are all gradually accumulating more radiation in our bodies with detrimental effects. However we can only brush the surface of this topic here. As the decades have passed I have become more convinced that nuclear power should not be part of our future.
I think I agree with Janet and err or on the side of caution but I accept your counter argument , DJP. Of course we recognise that fossil fuel energy is polluting and hazardous to health. SOYMB has posted on dirty air and estimated fatalities from it. 3.6 million premature deaths world wide a year. In 2008, 4,000 people died in London from air pollution and 30,000 died across the whole of the UK, and overall for everybody seven or eight months off a Britons’ life expectancy. I think my view is that the public are debating nuclear energy and we are at a political point that its further future development can be halted. Whereas with fossil fuels we have a tremendous mess to clean up, with stopping nuclear energy now we can stop the mess getting worse before it gets too big also. Our emphasis should always be about sustainable, environmental friendly energy production. If nuclear reactors are needed it is only because capitalism needs them.
Of related interest.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201242181822834480.html “… nuclear officials started to tell the people that their concerns were irrational and unscientific… the chairperson of the Atomic Energy Commission explained that there was no reason to worry since the probability of a nuclear accident in India was “one in infinity”…the nuclear programme contributes only 2.6 per cent of India’s total electricity output…Nuclear electricity in India is significantly more expensive than from non-nuclear alternatives, especially coal-based thermal stations, because of the high capital costs of nuclear reactor… Nuclear power cannot really be justified on the grounds of environmental sustainability, largely due to its production of radioactive wastes that stay hazardous for millenia, and the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents that can never be ruled out. Finally, from the point of view of social equity, nuclear power is an inefficient way to deliver energy to the hundreds of millions of people living in villages spread out over a vast countryside……For these reasons, many of which are common across countries, and especially after Fukushima, there has been a marked decrease in public support for nuclear power. While some government like those in the United States and China have stayed the course, others in Venezuela, Switzerland and Germany have heeded democratic opinion and moved away from atomic energy. In this evolving dynamic, the protest in Koodankulam demonstrates the power of an organised non-violent mass movement. For six months, the people of the region physically stopped the construction of a nuclear plant, while resisting a barrage of governmental propaganda. Whether or not the government is finally able to force the construction of this particular reactor, this enduring movement is likely to serve as an inspiration for environmental groups throughout the world.”
“In this evolving dynamic, the protest in Koodankulam demonstrates the power of an organised non-violent mass movement. For six months, the people of the region physically stopped the construction of a nuclear plant, while resisting a barrage of governmental propaganda. Whether or not the government is finally able to force the construction of this particular reactor, this enduring movement is likely to serve as an inspiration for environmental groups throughout the world.” Yes, these people have been amazing – against all odds. I find events like these can raise lowered spirits and it is possible to reimagine what real democracy could be like. We grew up being told, even believing that our governments were there to represent us and our interests. How they duped us and continue to dupe so many. Well it’s not so easy for them now – the word on the street (and in the ether) spreads more widely and rapidly – and the general feeling of the denial of democracy is growing fast. More people are wising up and putting themselves on the line to get themselves and their demands heard.A groundswell of general raising of consciousness? Now wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing!
Bloomberg NewsFukushima Disaster Was Man-Made,Investigation FindsThe Fukushima nuclear disaster was the result of “man-made” failures before and after last year’s earthquake, according to a report from an independent parliamentary investigation. The breakdowns involved regulators working with the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. to avoid implementing safety measures as well as a government lacking commitment to protect the public, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission said in the report. The March 11 accident, which set off a wave of reactor safety investigations around the world, “cannot be regarded as a natural disaster,” the commission’s chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the report released yesterday in Tokyo. It “could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.” The report said the commission found evidence of “collusion” between Tokyo Electric and regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, to avoid implementing new safety regulations.[My emphasis.]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-05/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-was-man-made-investigation-rules
So a reading of that would infer that nuclear energy is safe if proper procedures are followed. It wasn’t after all the actual technical process out of control, nor an individuals human error causing it but a systematic culture of cutting corners on safety by both the company and its supposed overseers. Socialism would not have a disposition towards such lax standards would it when profit motive and running cost factors are removed from the equation.
alanjjohnstone wrote:So a reading of that would infer that nuclear energy is safe if proper procedures are followed.No. I think the inference is that nuclear energy could be safer than it currently is. The official report found that: “The Tepco Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and [private plant operator] Tepco, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade”…”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718486
Quote:It wasn’t after all the actual technical process out of control, nor an individuals human error causing it but a systematic culture of cutting corners on safety by both the company and its supposed overseers. Socialism would not have a disposition towards such lax standards would it when profit motive and running cost factors are removed from the equation.Yes.All energy production involves risk (even in socialism).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.