With the explosion up north at the nuclear plant in Fukushima (which I briefly mentioned in my last post) confirmed to be one that tore apart the outer layers of the nuclear facility, the public's nerves suddenly made a switch to a potentially more damaging problem, both short- and long-term, of extensive nuclear radiations in the nearby areas. Already, a 20km radius of the affected nuclear plant has been evacuated, leaving the people and the media to worry if actual situation is being hidden from public view and a more devastating second disaster is in waiting.
The mental stress from the quake is still building up. More and more are seemed to be feeling "phantom quakes," or acknowledgment of the ground trembling even though no quake has occurred. The vast number of "phantom quakes" and actual aftershocks felt even now has led many to live through a couple of completely sleepless nights. Physical tiredness can surely only make the fragility of the mind more pronounced and more intolerable.
Yet, for the people up north in the disaster areas damaged by quakes and tsunamis, the prospect of losing their homelands to nuclear radiation could be even more than losing their homes and families. The potential of nuclear disaster is absolutely haunting, not only for Japan for the entire world that has, for the past decades, promoted nuclear energy as safe, environmentally friendly, sustainable alternative power generation to to burning fossil fuels.
Such a mentality is especially true in Japan where fossil fuels of all kinds must be imported from far-away lands, often through militarized areas with high potential for conflict. Yet even the remotest news of nuclear leakage bring fear, especially as the media quickly jump to sensationalist comparison with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. And with Tokyo Power, a company with previous records of concealing previous operational mistakes, operating the nuclear plant, the public is justified in its fear of yet-to-be-released bad news.
Perhaps, however, more than any other country, Japan is dependent on nuclear energy. With the nuclear plant rendered nonoperational by failures of the cooling system, even Tokyo, where electrical infrastructure is largely unaffected by the quake-related damages, is scheduled for periodic power cuts starting next week, officially to divert resources to the disaster zones (even though the electric grid up there is pretty much gone and there is no alternative means of transmitting power from Tokyo area)
So, the now-known sensitivity of a nuclear reactor to natural disturbances raises an important issue about its use. Is nuclear power really safe, especially in an area prone to frequent natural disturbances? Besides, its not like Japan is abundant in uranium or any other raw materials to make nuclear energy happen, so isn't the country still very much in jeopardy when outside supply lines are cut, halting shipments of BOTH fossil fuels AND uranium?
And of course, there is always, somewhere far far in the back of everyone's mind, that fear of nuclear proliferation. With Japan's technical prowess, everyone knows that it can easily make a nuclear bomb in a short period of time. Yet, with little experience of dealing with terrorists and international trafficking in general (well, except of women for brothels, especially from China), how secure these highly valued nuclear materials from attempts of pilfering by rogue parties.
In an age when a dubious claim to possession of nuclear weapons can start wars in certain regions, perhaps Japan, as well as other countries, should have a deeply analytical second look on the suitability of continuing their dependence on nuclear energy. Even if nuclear power is harnessed only for peaceful purposes, the risk of negative consequences in abnormal situations can be too pronounced and too worrisome for the public...as this earthquake showed us, we really do not need any more human-caused traumatic news anymore when nature is already in fury...
The mental stress from the quake is still building up. More and more are seemed to be feeling "phantom quakes," or acknowledgment of the ground trembling even though no quake has occurred. The vast number of "phantom quakes" and actual aftershocks felt even now has led many to live through a couple of completely sleepless nights. Physical tiredness can surely only make the fragility of the mind more pronounced and more intolerable.
Yet, for the people up north in the disaster areas damaged by quakes and tsunamis, the prospect of losing their homelands to nuclear radiation could be even more than losing their homes and families. The potential of nuclear disaster is absolutely haunting, not only for Japan for the entire world that has, for the past decades, promoted nuclear energy as safe, environmentally friendly, sustainable alternative power generation to to burning fossil fuels.
Such a mentality is especially true in Japan where fossil fuels of all kinds must be imported from far-away lands, often through militarized areas with high potential for conflict. Yet even the remotest news of nuclear leakage bring fear, especially as the media quickly jump to sensationalist comparison with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. And with Tokyo Power, a company with previous records of concealing previous operational mistakes, operating the nuclear plant, the public is justified in its fear of yet-to-be-released bad news.
Perhaps, however, more than any other country, Japan is dependent on nuclear energy. With the nuclear plant rendered nonoperational by failures of the cooling system, even Tokyo, where electrical infrastructure is largely unaffected by the quake-related damages, is scheduled for periodic power cuts starting next week, officially to divert resources to the disaster zones (even though the electric grid up there is pretty much gone and there is no alternative means of transmitting power from Tokyo area)
So, the now-known sensitivity of a nuclear reactor to natural disturbances raises an important issue about its use. Is nuclear power really safe, especially in an area prone to frequent natural disturbances? Besides, its not like Japan is abundant in uranium or any other raw materials to make nuclear energy happen, so isn't the country still very much in jeopardy when outside supply lines are cut, halting shipments of BOTH fossil fuels AND uranium?
And of course, there is always, somewhere far far in the back of everyone's mind, that fear of nuclear proliferation. With Japan's technical prowess, everyone knows that it can easily make a nuclear bomb in a short period of time. Yet, with little experience of dealing with terrorists and international trafficking in general (well, except of women for brothels, especially from China), how secure these highly valued nuclear materials from attempts of pilfering by rogue parties.
In an age when a dubious claim to possession of nuclear weapons can start wars in certain regions, perhaps Japan, as well as other countries, should have a deeply analytical second look on the suitability of continuing their dependence on nuclear energy. Even if nuclear power is harnessed only for peaceful purposes, the risk of negative consequences in abnormal situations can be too pronounced and too worrisome for the public...as this earthquake showed us, we really do not need any more human-caused traumatic news anymore when nature is already in fury...
I followed you all the way to the last paragraph. Until mismanagement is proved to be among the causal factors for radiation leaks, it is still the tsunami and the earthquake that are the principal culprits in this tragic
ReplyDeletesituation. As far as I can tell, these particular plants were not designated
sources for the production of nuclear weapons, unlike the situation in other nations that draw upon power plants to boost their nuclear armaments.
Sidney (Skip) Greenblatt
葛熹宁
well, sir, whether the natural or the human factor is the main culprit, I think my point still stands about reducing dependence on nuclear energy. Radiation is of course one worry, and if Japan is any less secure than it happens to be now, nuclear proliferation, especially in cases of weakened law enforcement as now, may be a bigger worry
ReplyDelete