Here
and
Now

opinions

Can a weakened nuclear industry survive its deadly repeating history?

39 Comments
By Lucas Whitefield Hixson

The nuclear industry is a global affair, especially when something goes wrong, requiring transparency to ensure the safety of children and families around the world. History has shown that significant releases of radiation that effect the environment and population can be released long before any hope of containment or control can be expected. Nuclear disasters can not only threaten the health of first responders, but also cripple critical systems that allow complex situations to be analyzed and reported effectively.

While the amount of time it takes before officials act can be measured in days and weeks, the amount of time before radiation can spread and effect those outside of the nation’s borders can be a matter of minutes or hours. After the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, it was noted that radioactivity from the damaged station could reach the opposite end of the Pacific Ocean within a matter of days.

The immeasurable consequences of nuclear disasters have always prevented the immediate reporting or full disclosure of risk to a nation or the world after a significant release. While many eyes watch the unfolding events in Japan, more critical attention is being paid to aged nuclear power plants in operation around the world.

Who has to prove nuclear reactors are safe?

During this past week, reports followed six international nuclear incidents in France, Britain, the United States and the on-going Japanese disaster. Scandals were also exposed in Britain and Japan as further evidence of treachery and bribery rocked the headlines. Many argue that the increasing recent revelations of deceit and countless other actions leading to the irreparable harm to people and the environment are proving the promotion of self-interest and preservation over national and global health and safety.

The amassing of power and prevalence pocketed politicians is an example of how the focus has been to keep things status quo at any cost. The industry has spent its entire existence justifying its necessity and safety to the world. Despite many nuclear disasters that have effected the population, the repeated reaction is to push forward, despite the ever-present ethical and safety questions that have done little to slow its expansion to date.

In an industry where corruption, collusion, and outright criminal actions are committed each year, the ability to deny responsibility and culpability, have allowed the nuclear industry to stand on a soapbox preaching its safe, responsible, and most debatable, ultimate necessity. After the events at Fukushima Daiichi, the entire nuclear industry is rushing to extinguish the world-wide debate that threatens to expose its undeniable ineptitude, global danger, and unwillingness to adapt.

Public trust is shattered even if that fact is not accepted by industry

The facts coming out of Japan and other countries have shaken the public trust, no matter how much the fact is ignored and denied. Records obtained from international freedom of information act (FOIA) requests show the imbalance between the limited amount of effective inspections compared to the multiple records of falsifying safety reports. Without factual data being compiled, and extensive international inspections, nuclear power utilities around the world are putting pressure on every available resource to extend the shelf-life of aging nuclear plants to 60 years, double what experts designed plants for initially.

Much to the chagrin of politicians and institutions around the world, the call for a halt to all current nuclear expansion is increasing in every country. The Fukushima disaster has raised global awareness to the many questions about the adequacy of regulating agencies, and efficiency of operating license terms that are supposed to ensure nuclear power stations do not pose unacceptable risks to public health and safety, and the environment.

The nuclear industry has never been forced to operate under any international laws that define “unacceptable” and have avoided the issue as much as possible. Further investigation into the annals of nuclear history, show a glaring lack of interest in the collection and analysis of facts, on which to make a statutorily-required evaluation of the “hazards” presented from a nuclear reactor.

Instead of a system promoting effective regulation and control, the nuclear industry has created its own circus. The constant flood of opinion-based publications produced each year by the IAEA and other regulating agencies alone should be enough to prove the unwillingness to incorporate lessons learned from nuclear disasters to any open mind. Beyond the usual bullying, posturing, and ritualistic sacrifice of those that are unfortunate enough to be caught in the public crosshairs, the nuclear industry is ramping up efforts to deflect attention from the real issues it faces. If history does in fact repeat itself, the nuclear industry will not be held accountable for any of the recent incidents in Japan, and around the world.

How far is too far? How much is too much?

Despite many nuclear accidents, the nuclear industry has managed to defend itself throughout history from any question of criminal guilt and regulations hindering expansion or re-licensing. Many tools have been used to prevent the understanding of the true nature of nuclear disasters, the most glaring is an ability to acquire accurate information, and, delay, distort, and/or compartmentalize the critical updates

By allowing the continuous use of rhetoric designed to downplay the severity of an incident, international governments have condoned the nuclear industries ability to mislead the general public.

In permitting the re-licensing of nuclear reactors that were built outside of initial designs, or with known deficiencies, officials have failed to protect their constituents from many reactors around the world that present a probable risk within the next 10 years.

Decades of misdirection, information restriction, and the noted lack of published data analysis have conditioned the public to accept information provided without question.

The motivation is simple: the exposure of collusion between governments, regulating agencies, and the nuclear industry to provide a fake sense of deniable plausibility would trigger a massive overhaul of the entire nuclear industry and likely lead to the imprisonment of many of its leading members around the world.

This element of transparency is missing by design. The information that is provided during nuclear disaster is produced in a manner designed intentionally to be difficult to understand, unless the receiver is intimately knowledgeable of the many industry-specific terms, codes, and expected responsive actions.

The majority of the public attempting to interpret the original reports for accurate information are uninformed of this obfuscation, forcing them to either wait for a sanitized and simplified explanation, or draw dangerous conclusions about something which they know relatively little about, and understand even less. Those that do have a critical mindset, and do attempt to gain a deeper understanding are easily rebutted by top officials who conveniently point out their lack of ‘industry experience and knowledge’.

There has never been an international attempt to educate the public more about the real risks involved with nuclear reactors, allowing an educated decision to be made. The majority of the population remains unaware of nuclear power except for when a nuclear disaster becomes too real to hide.

What is the typical human reaction of facing a threat which is not clearly understood? The nuclear industry withholds the privilege of full disclosure from the general public to prevent ‘more confusion and panic leading to abnormal behaviors’. This type of formal education program has never been initiated so that the restriction of information can be justified by utilities, regulating agencies, and governments around the world.

Instead of addressing the issue, the repeated decision has been to make no effort to increase public awareness of potential risks or hazards during periods of time where a nuclear disaster is not occurring. Those that do have a critical mindset, and do attempt to gain a deeper understanding are easily rebutted by top officials who conveniently point out their lack of ‘industry experience and knowledge’.

There has also been no effort to change the presentation to a more comprehensible format or hasten the dissemination of information provided to the public. Rather, reports are delayed; data and up-to-date developments are restricted to those in a need-to-know basis, until the threat reaches a scale that mandates international attention. Yet everyone has a need-to-know when radiation leaks airborne, seaborne, or in the food chain.

Gaining independent data is not an easy task either, immediately after the disaster national governments bought up the majority of the stock of detection devices, and supplements used to combat potential radiation exposure in many markets, leading to an escalation in price and long lapse of availability. In Japan the government strongly advocated against citizens attempting independent analysis citing the costs and lack of reputable testing facilities and their possible motivations.

The fact remains that the data provided to the public from the government after every nuclear disaster has been heavily censored to downplay any potential reports that could incite panic. There is a large need for an international independent resource to be used to accumulate data that can be used to produce accurate up to date information for any interested individuals that is able to act at the capacity and volume required to ensure national monitoring systems are accurate.

The nuclear industry rushes forward despite factual data

In Japan, while most recent studies and independent research chart radiation from the Fukushima disaster traveling across the planet, officials maintain the public stance that there is no current or expected risk of contamination to those living in Japan or internationally. Instead, efforts have been made across the world at the national level to limit the spread of “rampant rumors” and “irreparable damage” which are a direct result of multiple concurrent cover-ups in the media today being exposed.

The stakes today are higher than ever. Plans to build more powerful facilities and increase the production of enriched weapons-grade material are proliferating throughout the world. For example: despite the catastrophic overall failure of the Monju Fast Breeder Reactor in Japan, efforts to expand nuclear power production have increased despite the glaring limit of fuel supply, which is expected to run out within one hundred fifty years.

If the nuclear industry in Japan is forced to admit the extent of the lack of safety in their nuclear reactors, every nuclear facility around the world will also be brought into question. Until the disaster in March, the Japanese nuclear program was the shining example used by every other national program to demonstrate safety, effectiveness, and profitability.

There is no mention of the use of antiquated reactors associated with many systematic problems that have been left uncorrected throughout the last fifty years. It would put a significant damper on current attempts to relicense many reactors, extending their production long past design. A nuclear power plant is an expensive operation to build, relying on government aid in many cases, and does not provide any financial return until the reactor is fired up.

Once running however, a nuclear power station is a gold-mine, whose profit margins increase exponentially each year of production. This is a heavily contested fact among many pro-nuclear parties, who claim the costs to maintain and retro-fit old equipment is much higher than thought.

However, most regulations are based off of voluntary actions taken by utilities, and no international regulations are enforced. International inspections and investigations after the Fukushima disaster show that little maintenance and preventive measures have been taken that would significantly increase a stations ability to withstand natural disasters, multiple onsite incidents, loss of external power for extended periods, or loss of back-up generators.

History has proved that nuclear accidents disrupt every facet of a nation. The effects can threaten the global economy and food supply. In Japan, this fact has been repeated, families living hundreds of miles from the exclusion zone are reeling from the devastating loss, massive drop in quality of life, and threat of contamination from the environment and food they are able to acquire. Businesses have been forced to adapt to limited power supply, forcing drastic reactions including shifting hours of operation, putting further strain on family life.

Why continue with a limited and uninformed understanding?

With the nuclear question on lips around the world spreading, all opinions should be based on accurate data, and ability to understand the full complexity of the situation. It is a question that should not be limited, but should expand to incorporate risks, technology, and events not previously required at power stations.

The current official response of making decisions to extend the nuclear future should be suspended until the current global nuclear situation has been brought under control. A thorough official review has been presented detailing the lessons learned and how they will be applied to every nuclear reactor. This information should be presented to the public in its complete form -- along with a future energy plan developed by each country to ensure that the future we experience is the future that we choose.

The author is a nuclear researcher in Chicago.

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

Do terms not mean anything anymore? This guy advertises himself as a 'nuclear researcher' which would imply a nuclear physicist or engineer, a specialist in plant design or something similar. But no, go to his website and you see he is a guy with no education (seems to be his website after high school and the army) in nuclear science, and who's only goal seems to be to bring down the nuclear industry. From his site:

"I also work with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, media, elected officials, and government regulators with the critical analysis necessary to move towards a future without nuclear power."

This commentary, and everything I have seen on his site, is just unverified ramblings with no citations. And this is coming from someone who deceptively advertises as a "nuclear researcher". Why not the more appropriate "anti-nuclear activist with no background in nuclear science"?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Thanks for such a great article JT! Thank you for sharing the truth!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Excellent reasons why we should abandon the nuclear danger surrounding us. I am sharing this with friends

http://enenews.com http://lucaswhitefieldhixson.com

Together let us face this problem and never make such mistakes again.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@smorkian

This guy advertises himself as a 'nuclear researcher' which would imply a nuclear physicist or engineer

Although I agree, that this guy is probably not doing him self any favors by using the term 'nuclear researcher'. A researcher is defined in Wiktionary (and I guess other dictionaries) as 'One who researches'

And then the first definition of research is defined as: 'Diligent inquiry or examination to seek or revise facts, principles, theories, applications, et cetera; laborious or continued search after truth.'

I would argue that this can in fact be done without academic background, although academic institutions are usually the place where the acceptable methods of research are taught.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@smorkian

Having looked at his site, I see lots of time and effort put into the research. Being in Tokyo is not easy right now, life is so difficult without real information, I am so angry that the reporters aren't doing their jobs. (and haven't been for a while to be honest) I also believe that might

Regardless of what personal thoughts one may have on a background, the article is accurate and pertinent and stands on its own legs, far more than I can say for many other articles we get here in Tokyo, which just seem to be bits and pieces.

I value the opinions of those willing to display information in an accurate and meaningful form, and hope to see more honesty in our news/media soon.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on the topic rather than the writer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you Lucas! You've been doing a great job following Fukushima. Please keep up the great work! SHUT ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS DOWN!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

There are plenty of problems with the nuclear power industry and its regulators, but this is a truly rubbish piece of commentary, so full of oddly forced phrasing that I had to stop reading. I have been reading reams of arguments about nuclear power since this thing began, and the the anti-nuclear side always seems to be poorly written, poorly punctuated, poorly argued, and poorly documented. That's unfortunate. Is this really the best that the anti-nuclear side has to offer?

And by the way, given the amount of fear out there regarding the dangers of radiation, even a perfectly run and perfectly regulated nuclear power industry (which we don't have) would still have to spend a tremendous amount of time and energy convincing everyone of its safety.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Funny how some posters are coming out and putting down one the BEST Bloggers on Japan since 3/11. That's right. Stay in your BOX, keep watching the Propaganda TV - and wait for more bad news. Guess what? It's already here in the USA:

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/baby-death-spike-w-canada-blamed-on-parents-not-radiation?CID=examiner_alerts_article http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/06/30/Infant-deaths-rise-at-India-hospital/UPI-51051309491417/

WAKE UP JAPAN! WAKE UP WORLD!

“No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulati­­on of large amounts of highly toxic substances which nobody knows how to make “safe” and which remain an incalculab­­le danger to the whole of creation for historical or even geological ages. To do such a thing is a transgress­­ion against life itself, a transgress­­ion infinitely more serious than any crime ever perpetrate­­d by man. The idea that a civilisati­­on could sustain itself on the basis of such a transgress­­ion is an ethical, spiritual, and metaphysic­­al monstrosit­­y. It means conducting the economic affairs of man as if people really did not matter at all.”

—E.F. Schumacher”

4 ( +5 / -1 )

it seems amazing to me that the overall costs of these plants should surely make any other technology cheap in comparison. what about the japanese fishing industry? a whole way of life and an important part of the japanese diet. these ocean silts will be contaminated for 300 years as long as theres no plutonium! i think the article makes a good point and makes it well..

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Smorkian Do you like nuclear? If you do, does that fact make you dislike this article? Can you try attacking the points made in the article then and not the researcher? If not, then the researcher did his job well. I wish I was as good a researcher as him, as good a writer, a for the people, by the people, with the people type of person like him. Quite the opposite of the nuclear companies that are for the money, by the money, with the money.

Don't poison/murder people for $.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I have to agree with Smorkian, this is not a very well written article. He makes sweeping statements unsupported by facts (that is to say, there may be facts to support them but he doesn't tell us what they are), the article is prolix, contains grammatical errors, provides no new information and has an overly argumentative tone that makes it difficult for anyone to read.

And I'm saying this as someone quite sympathetic to the points being made. They could have been much better made, however, in an article about 1/3 the length of this written in a less hysterical tone.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@senseiman as per the moderator's comment, point out those points you agree on and why.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Can someone kindly explain to me why almost every person responding to this article is a) attacking me b) a person who has never commented on anything else on this site? Very odd.

@Selenio Vasquez:

Can you try attacking the points made in the article then and not the researcher? If not, then the researcher did his job well.

It doesn't mean that at all. That's not how intellectual discourse works.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Readers, please focus your comments on the points being made in the commentary. Do not attack the author or take potshots at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this qoute really tells the situation like it is "History has proved that nuclear accidents disrupt every facet of a nation. The effects can threaten the global economy and food supply. In Japan, this fact has been repeated, families living hundreds of miles from the exclusion zone are reeling from the devastating loss, massive drop in quality of life, and threat of contamination from the environment and food they are able to acquire. Businesses have been forced to adapt to limited power supply, forcing drastic reactions including shifting hours of operation, putting further strain on family life."

i think the facts coming out about chernobyl and contamination of 40 percent of europe tends to support this paragraph statement with fact. 2 reports have come out in 2006 and 2011 disputing the iaeas claim of 44 dead and minimal gentic damage...wild boars in germany too radioactive to eat...the list goes on..."History has proved that nuclear accidents disrupt every facet of a nation" indeed! and long term waste disposal as inheritence to our children? lets argue the facts here....thank you moderator!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

+1 to Sean McGee for doing what the rest of us is not doing, discussing the paragraphs of the article. Well done!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"History has proved that nuclear accidents disrupt every facet of a nation. The effects can threaten the global economy and food supply. In Japan, this fact has been repeated, families living hundreds of miles from the exclusion zone are reeling from the devastating loss, massive drop in quality of life, and threat of contamination from the environment and food they are able to acquire."

I can rephrase this: History has proved that massive earthquakes and the resultant tsunamis disrupt every facet of a nation. You'll find this in Chile, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, China....

You will also unfortunately find that these earthquakes and tsunami will continue to kill sue to their unpreditability and violent nature and substandard building codes around the world. Don't forget Japan is arguably the most earthquake prepared country in the world, yet 20,000+ were killed and 100,000+ left homeless, their lives destroyed. And it's a FAR bigger impact already than Fukushima Daiichi will ever have.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And seriously, I am not attacking anyone - WHY are so many on this site for this article only?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The motivation is simple: the exposure of collusion between governments, regulating agencies, and the nuclear industry to provide a fake sense of deniable plausibility would trigger a massive overhaul of the entire nuclear industry and likely lead to the imprisonment of many of its leading members around the world.

I think this was proved beyond a doubt within the last few weeks especially.

The British Collusion Scandal Involving Areva

The Genkai Reactor Restart Scandal

The NRC Investigation in the United States that found that many of the improvements taken to address the b.5.b memo after 9/11

There's more I'm sure I'm forgetting

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I loved the article....but fell asleep in paragraph 2 line 2. Yawn

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The fact that such a huge and devastating thing like radiation coming out of a nuclear plant non stop for months now and is rarely covered by the media is very telling.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Smorkian, you wrote this comment about a plane earlier but I will edit it to talk about nuclear:

"If you were spending billions of yen per [nuke plant] and hundreds [of thousands] of lives are depending on the design of the [nuke plant] being 100% foolproof, wouldn't YOU not assume and test the hell out of it yourself/ I sure would if I had the resources.

There's not really any such thing as a commercial [nuke plant] that's too safe. Check it, check it again, check that again, check it some more"

Smorkian, I agree with you. Nuke plants DO have thick safety standards. Lots of training, inspections, tons of regulations. Why? Because that is caged inside that makes water boil...well, if it got out it would be the most deadly and poisonous and persistently dangerous toxin in the world.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They all need to be shut down, worldwide, not just in Japan. It is a threat to future generations wellbeing and health. We all just need to learn to live without nuclear energy again. Im hot, and uncomfortable, but Ild rather cook on a wood fire, sweep my floors, wash clothes by hand, and live with no air con than have even one of those plants running.

Why do we need so much energy? To make trash we dont need? New cars which are not truely necessary? Disposable earth-ruining plastic gewgaws? We need to live sustainably, within our means as a planet, and stop making deals with nuclear devils.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Gwragged, whenever I see a disaster/armageddon movie (2012, Battle for LA, etc) I now think about how the director left out the fact that the nukes would be ruined and all hell would be loosed upon the world making the movie's disaster comparable to an appetizer, the massive amount of radiation released liken to a huge banquet you are forced to eat all at once.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Smorkian, I agree with you. Nuke plants DO have thick safety standards. Lots of training, inspections, tons of regulations. Why? Because that is caged inside that makes water boil...well, if it got out it would be the most deadly and poisonous and persistently dangerous toxin in the world.

Well, there's varying degrees of risk with radiation (Iodine vs Plutonium, for example). But yeah, safety standards need to be as high as they possibly can be. But I am not sure what you mean by:

The fact that such a huge and devastating thing like radiation coming out of a nuclear plant non stop for months now and is rarely covered by the media is very telling.

This incident is being covered non-stop. It may not being in the daily papers where you live but it is here. I get frequent briefings by my company (from media sources) and it's on the news every night.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

hi smorkian..i am glad that you are getting news coverage. where are you based? here in europe and scandinavia there is a total news blackout..thats the oddest thing about this tradgedy for me! i would love some links to news sites covering this! many thanks in advance!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

hi smorkian..i am glad that you are getting news coverage. where are you based? here in europe and scandinavia there is a total news blackout..thats the oddest thing about this tradgedy for me! i would love some links to news sites covering this! many thanks in advance!

Hi Sean - I'm in Japan. The local English media is covering things quite well (as is the Japanese media). Outside of that a news aggregator like Google News is quite good for finding the latest from a variety of sources.

I imagine in your part of the world it's more of a case of nothing dramatic happening so no news is reported. My family in the US complains of the same thing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This article is very badly written indeed.

It's painful to read.

I found myself continually stopping, backing up and trying to work out what it was the author wanted to say.

I'm afraid I gave up half way through.

This is a great pity because it's a very important topic for discussion right now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Hi Sean,

additionally I would recommend checking NHK news and:

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/

and 1 blog by a Japanese, translating Japanese news into English, adding his own views:

< http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/>

3 ( +3 / -0 )

At one point in his article, Lucas W Hixson says this: "For example: despite the catastrophic overall failure of the Monju Fast Breeder Reactor in Japan, efforts to expand nuclear power production have increased despite the glaring limit of fuel supply, which is expected to run out within one hundred fifty years".

Now, quite apart from the Monju FBR's problems, FBRs are a fuel breeder type of reactor. Therefore it can convert uranium-238 to useful fissile fuel. It can do the same using thorium-232 (producing the fissile U-232), of which there is a lot more occurring naturally than natural uranium.

Where I am concerned, this comment unfortunately devalues the credibility of the author's arguments, especially as elsewhere he writes about people making comments where nuclear power is concerned when they know little or nothing about it. Well, for the author to limit his thoughts merely to the amount of fissile uranium-235 remaining for only about another 150 years of reactor operations is clearly quite incorrect. Used to maximum efficiency in FBRs, it could last for about - an absolutely awful guess of, say, 1 000 years. But to do so, fast breeder reactors will be essential. But they will have to work with no disasters, except for the once in 10 000 years probability design criterion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

most JP media in Japanese reads like power company propaganda compared to other country's media... I wish more Japanese media showed this kind of thing :(

even if it's not 100% true, I think by any means we need to get rid of nuke asap, even if means making some of it up, fight fire with fire!!!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I found the article above linked from enenews.com, a place where people discuss linked articles that are daily produced from various news sources (ie NY Times, Kyodo News, etc).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

While I agree with most of the author's conclusions and I get the impression that he knows what he is writing about, the way this article is written is just painful. No facts at all to back up his statements. Although just a minor detail, the supposed exponential increase in profit margins made me even laugh. Even in the case of absolutely no operating and maintenance costs, how should that be possible?

@mike23thurgood: you missed the author's point, which is that FBR have failed their promises so far. Almost everybody has given up on FBRs and Monju has been a total failure so far. Therefore you should better continue working with the 150 years scenario.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://www.economist.com/node/18899008?story_id=18899008

The Fukushima disaster presents an opportunity for radical reform. But in a crisis people often grow conservative. Since the government holds the purse-strings, it can more or less dictate terms to TEPCO. The fear is that it will bankroll a return to business as usual.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nothing will happen, news on the progress on the fukushima plant is allready drying up, as soon as the public forgets, they will wipe it under the carpet and continue the same way. :(

1 ( +1 / -0 )

HERE WE GO! Found a copy of this article translated into Japanese! Makes it easier to read by human translation than other web translator

<http://bilininfojp.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_05.html

原子力の終焉-弱体化した原子力産業は、繰り返されるみじめな歴史の中で生き残ることができるか?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I live in Southern Ireland which is nuclear energy free, but just across the water Britain has reactors. In the past they have released pollutants and been very slow in admitting the leaks. Accidents happen, they are an unforseen unintentional occurance, we in Ireland are not prepared to take the risks involved with the installation of such an unpredictable form of fuel, yet, we are forced to share the risks because of our nearest neighbours and other nuclear fueled countries. Cheap fuel comes at a price,what price are you prepared to pay?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Cheap fuel comes at a price,what price are you prepared to pay?

Any. We are at a turning point in human history where we can either allow ourselves to slow down as a society and stagnate while trying to preserve the oil we have or trying ot make due with inefficient renewables or we can surge forward. With consumption of energy on the rise we need poduction methods that can pace it and while renewable energy sources like geothermal, hydro, and others should be used where effective we will require something that can actually compete with oil as a future replacement for oil. The only one currently available is nuclear energy.

We need to kickstart research into nuclear energy, not shy away from it, so that we can build newer, safer reactors. Reserach cannot stop or even slow if we are to achieve the magnum opus of energy production, fusion power. Unless we want to grind to a halt not just as a society but as a species we need to make fusion energy this generation's moon landing. The only way to get there is by investing in nuclear research and using building nuclear reactors.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites