The dramatic events that unfolded at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclea power plant after last year’s tsunami are commonly referred to as “the Fukushima disaster.” We need look no further than this description to begin to understand the significant misconceptions that surround nuclear energy.
It was the tsunami, caused by the largest earthquake ever to strike Japan, that killed more than 16,000 people, destroyed or damaged roughly 125,000 buildings, and left the country facing what its prime minister described as its biggest crisis since World War II. Yet it is Fukushima that is habitually accorded the “disaster” label.
Although what happened was shocking, the events in the hours and days after a giant wave slammed over the nuclear plant’s protective seawall might be interpreted as a remarkable testament to nuclear power’s sound credentials. To be sure, the environmental impact on those living close to Fukushima may take many years to remediate. However, the response in many quarters — not least in Germany, Switzerland and other countries that immediately condemned and retreated from nuclear energy — once again typified an enduring lack of knowledge concerning two fundamental issues.
The first is safety; the second is radiation. We need to promote a much more inclusive and informed dialogue about both if nuclear power is to be assessed on its genuine merits, rather than dismissed on the grounds of little more than ignorance and intransigence.
Would the many people who would ban nuclear power also prohibit air travel? After all, the parallels between the two industries are central to the question of safety.
We are often told that air travel, statistically speaking, has a better safety record than any other form of transport. The numerous interrelated reasons for this might usefully be summarized by comparing an airplane to a bicycle.
We all appreciate that an airplane is a sophisticated device and that a bicycle is not. We also acknowledge that the consequences of an airplane crash are liable to be far more catastrophic than, say, those of a cyclist clipping a curb on his way home from the shops. Accordingly, designing and manufacturing an airplane is many times more demanding and thorough than designing and assembling a bicycle is.
The same can be said of the approximately 450 nuclear reactors around the world. The fact is that the industry’s safety record is second to none when measured against those of its rivals. Like airplanes, nuclear reactors are conceived and constructed to mind-boggling standards.
For all of the tension and fear surrounding the fight against a nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, we should not forget that the plant — and with it the notion of a nuclear-energy industry — was subjected to an extraordinary test, in the strictest sense of the word. Were it not for some design flaws that would not be repeated today, Fukushima might well have survived intact — and history would be so different.
Indeed, nuclear energy is a safer proposition now than ever before, but, for many people, the mere spectacle of an event like Fukushima — regardless of the outcome — is sufficient to draw the opposite conclusion. If a 747 crashed into a nuclear facility, we would be unlikely to hear calls for all airplanes to be outlawed, but the clamor for every reactor on the planet to be shut down immediately would probably be deafening.
Remember, too, that Fukushima was built in the 1970s and that the technology on which it was based dated from a decade earlier. Its successors are radically different in how they work, as is the regulatory framework, which sets astonishing new benchmarks for the care and quality required at every stage of the process.
The case against nuclear power is deeply rooted in concerns over safety in general and radiation in particular. The Fukushima accident, having reinforced too many opinions and reshaped too few, makes it vital that we try to bring clarity to these issues, especially in those countries, including the UK, where the notion of a sustainable energy policy remains undetermined.
While we know the corollaries of high levels of radiation exposure, what happens at the other end of the scale is less clear. The world is full of radioactivity — walls, concrete, even bananas contain traces — and our bodies have adapted to it. In countries like Brazil and India, people live in environments that have 20 to 200 times the radiation commonly found in the UK, apparently with no negative genetic effects. Some experts even argue that we may need a degree of radioactivity to stimulate our immune systems.
Of course, there remain concerns around the vital issues of waste disposal and proliferation. Again, consensual debate is required.
However, that requires formulating a roadmap that tells us where we stand and what we must do. We need to create the necessary culture of dialogue within industry and academia, and we need to encourage people to think and reflect more. Above all, we need to enhance the public’s grasp of the energy sector as a whole.
Currently, there is too much “I know” and “This is what I firmly believe,” frequently from influential people, in cases where there is no incontestable right or wrong. Fukushima is one of them.
It is still not too late — not quite — to start couching the broader discussion of nuclear energy in language that will inform rather than alarm and in terms that will nurture well-balanced judgements rather than entrench long-held biases.
Martin Freer is a professor of nuclear physics at the University of Birmingham and director of the Birmingham Center for Nuclear Education and Research.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Sometimes When there is a choice to be made, none of the options are good. The choice between hooking up with communism — in its Chinese iteration, the one that bugs Taiwan the most — and neofascism, of the back-to-the-roots Italian variety or any other kind, is such a choice. The good news is that Taiwan does not have to choose. It neither needs to cozy up to China — the successes of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration, despite its shortcomings, are evidence of that — nor does it need to embrace Italy under its likely new leader, Italian lawmaker Giorgia
China has quietly unloaded 10 percent, or US$100 billion, of its US Treasury holdings in the first half of the year. During the past 40 years of rapid economic growth after recovering from a quasi-ruined state that officially ended in 1976, China has amassed a huge pile of foreign reserves partially through its trade surplus. The US Treasuries have always been the prime choice for China to park its foreign reserves. What made it run away from the traditional safe haven for its hard-earned foreign reserves? One explanation is that Beijing is leveraging its financial power as the second-largest US Treasury
For many years, the military’s defense of the Taiwan Strait has been centered around the doctrine of establishing “air and maritime supremacy and repulsing landing forces.” However, after the legislature passed the Sea-Air Combat Power Improvement Plan Purchase Special Regulation (海空戰力提升計畫採購特別條例) last year, the doctrine was altered to “air defense, counterattack, and establish air and maritime supremacy,” with repelling landing forces removed from the equation. Despite the changes to the defense doctrine, landing operations and anti-landing operations still feature at the core of the military’s plans for the defense of the nation. The primary reason that peace in the Taiwan Strait has prevailed
In a China-US war over Taiwan, paradoxically the greatest loss of life could be inflicted on the Muslim Uighurs. Uighurs constitute 45 percent of the Xinjiang population of 25 million people, with over 1 million incarcerated in internment camps in accordance with a policy initiated under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Another half-million children have been placed in state-run boarding schools. Forced sterilization has led to a 24 to 60 percent drop in the birthrate, leading officials from many countries to describe the mass detention as genocide. Estimated annual death rates in the camps of between 5 and 10 percent could