Japan's nuclear disaster is just another story in the long line of the misuse of nuclear energy. In the article published by bloomberg.com, some of the current nuclear reactors have been getting approved for continued running, even after there are certain vital components that we're skimmed over, needed restructuring, or to be completely replaced. In the article it states that, "Revelations from 2007 that the utilities had regularly doctored safety records were a repeat of a 2002 scandal that brought public apologies from Tokyo Electric, the resignation of its chairman and president, and a government shutdown of all 17 of the company’s reactors. The utility said in that year it had falsified reports on power plant repairs for two decades." Now if you realize that some businesses are truly that cheap to cut corners and assume as long as it's intact and running decently, then we don't have to do anything about it and everything will be fine. Then we see disasters like the one after the tsunami/earthquake which just hit Japan cause a more disastrous situation then there should be. Since for the reactors, if a company builds it properly up to code and it is maintained to that same standard, then even if the core melts down, there will be no collateral damage to any part of the world. Obviously most people will make the point about the fact of the Chernobyl disaster. But if you actually look into the reports of how the disaster happened, the USSR never built a concrete container around the reactor.
The people will want to forever stop nuclear energy because of the disaster it caused, but as long as people understand that it could have ultimately been prevented, I'm more then sure the world will still continue to use nuclear energy, but nowadays the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a tighter grip on keeping buildings up to code. For japan, there is no other solution since the oil it uses, is completely 100% imported. So then the Oil producing nations will take advantage of it and do the same thing they did to the U.S.
I'm not sure Japan used oil in the past for providing electricity--did they? I just assumed that they used coal like everybody else until nuclear, solar, and hydro-power became more readily available. It is important to look through all facets of the issue, and you have two up to this point--nuclear power is safe if properly handled and disasters are too much of chance to take. What are other positions out there?
ReplyDeleteHi, my name is Steve and I am a senior at the University of Rhode Island. I find this topic interesting, and am currently writing an informative piece on the dangers/risks of nuclear power versus other common forms of electric generation. I think you make an important distinction here-- nuclear power is very safe when internationally accepted rules and regulations are followed, ...but they are not always followed. Any industry either has or has the potential for a certain level of corruption, and when it comes to nuclear power that corruption can prove deadly to thousands or more. I think this is an important angle to consider in the debate over nuclear power. Definitely going to add a bit about this in my paper. Thanks!
ReplyDelete