nuclear-news

Government secrecy on the litany of nuclear accidents

Windscale nuclear reactor, U.K. (1957); Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, U.S. (1961); Three Mile Island power plant, U.S. (1979); Chernobyl power plant, Russia (1986); Seversk, Russia (1993); the Tokai-Mura nuclear fuel processing facility, Japan (1989); Mihama power plant, Japan (2004); Fukushima Daiichi power plant, Japan (2011) and the Marcoule nuclear site, France (2011).

All these incidents and many more unreported ones including from India have obviously raised questions about the desirability of nuclear energy and any real possibility of it being “safe.”

Desirability of nuclear power is the real question, THE HINDU, 28 Sept 12 MADHUMITA DUTTA “….. The claim [is that]modern technology, maintenance and safety standards will make it “safe.” Notwithstanding of course the ideal scientifically “controlled” conditions vs ground realities.
If one looks at the dubious track record of nuclear power plants across the world and its horrendous reputation of regularly exposing its workers and residents to dangerous levels of ionising radiations, the disconnect is pretty obvious.

In 1957, a fault in the cooling system in Kyshtym nuclear complex in Russia led to a chemical explosion and the release of 70-80 tonnes of radioactive material into the air, exposing thousands of people and leading to the evacuation of thousands more. Major accidents, which have killed, maimed and exposed large populations of worker and local
residents, have been reported from various other nuclear facilities —
Windscale nuclear reactor, U.K. (1957); Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, U.S. (1961); Three Mile Island power plant, U.S. (1979); Chernobyl power plant, Russia (1986); Seversk, Russia (1993); the Tokai-Mura nuclear fuel processing facility, Japan (1989); Mihama power plant, Japan (2004); Fukushima Daiichi power plant, Japan (2011)
and the Marcoule nuclear site, France (2011).

All these incidents and many more unreported ones including from India have obviously raised questions about the desirability of nuclear energy and any real possibility of it being “safe.” While environmental and health risks
of radiation are now scientifically known, the magnitude of the impact
of accidents such as a Fukushima or Chernobyl takes a long time to
play out in a real world situation. The fact that in each of these
places people have not been able to return to their homes, that their
lives have never been normal again, and that they constantly live
under the shadow of diseases and death makes nuclear energy patently
dangerous.

And on top of it, the obtuseness of governments to disclose
information related to nuclear, civilian or military, makes it even
worse. Take for instance the confession by the Japanese government in
June 2012 that it had withheld from the public important radiation
maps provided by the U.S. Energy Department post-Fukushima. The
information revealed that residents in an area northwest of the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were being exposed to their
annual permissible dose of radiation within eight hours. This meant
that these residents were not evacuated by the government to a safer
place, an act that can be termed criminal…..

In the case of Kudankulam, the fisherfolk have been raising
questions. They have been asking to see the disaster management plan
which, till date, remains a secret, even under the Right to
Information Act. Given the inherent uncertainties of natural
disasters, questions about preparedness to mitigate impact of
calamities such as tsunami waves of higher magnitude are being asked.
An inadequate reserve of fresh water for cooling as well as a lack of
back up electricity are concerns that have been raised by people and
their expert committee many times but consistently dodged by the
government and officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Ltd. Secrecy shrouds the fate of the radioactive spent fuel, its
reprocessing and transportation. All these questions and more remain
unanswered. Are all these issues a debate in abstraction? Is
questioning the “desirability” of nuclear power not a valid one given
the above track record? If this is not concrete, what is?
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/desirability-of-nuclear-power-is-the-real-question/article3939373.ece

September 28, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, history, safety