While japan has most recently been in the news with regards to it's involvement in the chinese airspace breaching controversy, and "Fukushima" has appeared to have fallen out of the public eye it most recently received a full ten day inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency. While reports in most major media outlets describe the IAEA's findings as praiseworthy for the Japanese cleanup crews working tirelessly to contain the deadly radiation coming from the part of the plant with the meltdown, it is important to place what they did say in context with what is more broadly being discovered by the UN watchdog group about the international implication of of the low leaking radiation. For a start, reactor number 4 ( the damaged unit in question) has been releasing radioactive material into the surrounding water since March of 2011, and the IAEA team has explicitly stated that there really hasn't been much improvement in the amount of radioactive water being released back into the ocean, although methods of calculating its spread, and containing when it's released appears to have improved somewhat. On top of this, the "good news" coming out of the report includes the fact that fuel rod material has begun to be removed from the most accessible portions of reactor 4. While this is on face seemingly good news, it's important to remember that there are still portions of reactor four where you can't even go, and there will continue to be a slow leak of radiation from the plant for the foreseeable future.
This matters for several reasons, first and foremost being the immediate health concerns arising from the Fukushima incident, as the report released by science students out of Stanford and Stoney Brook institutes show that a clear and identifiable 3% increase in overall radiation has occurred in tuna populations off the coast of San Diego since the incident, with the radiation's definitive source being the Fukushima reactor leak. While 3 % doesn't seem like a lot (and in reality it's not) you must remember it's a whole three percent in the less then 2 years since the disaster began. With it's cleanup efforts lasting well into the foresee eagle future, that number could very easily become much higher. Coupled with how much of the global population relies on the Ocean for food and economic wellbeing, large scale poisoning of the oceans could have long lasting unintended geopolitical consequences (such as the destruction of somalia's fisheries). On top of this however you have the question of the worlds stance on nuclear energy. When industrialized nations such as japan are unable to control their nuclear energy ( we the US are at fault swell: three mile island) when nations like Iran and North korea go after it, particularly in volatile geopolitical regions like southeast asian and the middle east what could be the implications of another nuclear disaster in those areas? Most commentary on the subject of Iran for example focuses on the potential for nuclear weapons, or dirty bombs as coming from their pursuance of a nuclear energy program, with little regard for what would happen if there was say a large scale Chernobyl- like event that could destabilize the region further, a destabilization that could possibly make dirty bomb fears come true. For the class discussion, any thoughts on nuclear energy in a broader context? Should any nation using nuclear energy step forward in blocking it actively? Should nations seeking to acquire nuclear energy be a paramount goal for world powers and surrounding states? What can be done to tackle the increasing pollution problem in the worlds oceans?
"Fukushima remains very complex despite progress on reactor 4" - IAEA
"There still exists no permanent solution for dealing with the radioactive wastewater being used to cool reactor 4" - IAEA
2)IAEA report commentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25211967
Unfortunately the scariest aspect of the Fukushima incident is the fact that it was not caused by any direct human actions, instead a storm and extreme weather did it. Weather and freak catastrophe is a hard thing to predict, the joke about weather people always being wrong exists for a reason. Also if the claims are true that climate change is now leading to more extreme and frequent storms, with no end to pollution in sight, the likelihoods of Fukushima like incidents will increase in the future. This is especially worrisome in more impoverished nations who may not only not have top engineering standards to protect against catastrophe and also will not have the resources to deal with such a catastrophe if it were to happen. The issue is certain nations have proven they will not stop their nuclear activities despite international pressures. With technology improving the prospect of nuclear proliferation in more nations becomes a bigger reality.
ReplyDeleteWhile Fukushima's failures are representative of some of the dangers of nuclear energy, the important thing in this case is the fact that the IAEA is taking action and monitoring the plant. Another thing to consider is the age of Fukushima; it is one of the older nuclear power plants (built in 1970s) and is more prone to malfunction. As technology and construction improves alongside increase attention from international organizations, nuclear energy will only become a safer industry.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much emphasis on the climate change, and pollution that nations are turning more and more toward nuclear energy. Unlike oil and coal, the good aspects of nuclear power are that it produces huge amounts of electricity with very little amount of waste. Nuclear energy is non-expendable and uranium and steam are plentiful. As Parker emphasized, as technology improves, hopefully safety will too.
ReplyDeleteThere are many benefits to nuclear energy and as many developing nations have begun to advance it becomes more and more a viable option. Unfortunately these are the same nations that tend to lack industrial discipline and strict safety standards, posing a risk. As Marcus said the latest incident was a natural accident, technology has dramatically increased/improved since the construction of the Fukushima plant. However are these countries that are attempting or want their own nuclear plants going to use this new technology and standards, are they even capable of it?
ReplyDeleteThe greatest difficulty for any nation to set a standard or halting the development of any potential nuclear energy program is that they'd be pretty hypocritical. Most with the ability to do anything are countries that already use nuclear energy to their own advantage. Not to mention many developing countries don't think very highly of the developed ones. They likely wouldn't adhere to any international standard, point case North Korea and Iran. Why should they be left out, or held back/disadvantaged by not having the same capabilities as other countries? Tough to give an answer to that question that would appease or stop any country intent on creating a nuclear program.
Granted, the accidents resulting from nuclear power plants have been detrimental to their regions, eliminating nuclear power is simply unrealistic. As Parker pointed out, older reactors are more prone to malfunction. A solution would be to update these facilities instead of waiting for another disaster to happen to clean up. Nuclear technology is also much more advanced and institutions like the IAEA have done a good job in regulating nuclear power. In response to countries pursuing nuclear power, I believe that every state has a right to pursue alternate forms of energy, particularly if that state does not possess natural resources like coal to produce energy.
ReplyDelete