Fukushima: Openness Can Be the Only Policy

ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, ASIA--PACIFIC, HEALTH, TECHNOLOGY, 18 Apr 2011

The Independent, Editorial – TRANSCEND Media Service

The temptation to withhold information about a nuclear incident is understandable. Yesterday we saw why. “Fukushima as bad as Chernobyl” headlines shouted all across the world. Prices fell sharply on the Japanese stock market. The problem was that this was not what the Japanese authorities had admitted. It is true that Level 7 had only been applied previously to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. But the news yesterday did not signal new dangers at the Japanese atomic plant. Rather it was an acknowledgement that, having re-analysed the data, it now seems that more contamination escaped in the early days of the crisis a month ago than was previously thought.

But this is no Chernobyl. Even on the new data the volume of contamination is so far only about one-tenth that of the Russian catastrophe. Thirty emergency workers died from radiation poisoning in Russia; none have in Japan. In Chernobyl a water-cooled and graphite-moderated reactor produced a runaway chain reaction that exploded and sent radioactive debris 30,000 feet into the air, contaminating meat and milk for thousands of miles; by contrast Fukushima’s boiling-water reactors do not have a combustible graphite core and its containment structures are largely still holding.

More than that, the situation in Japan is not worsening. The amount of emitted radiation is falling. Fukushima would only be worse than Chernobyl if 100 per cent of its radioactive material escaped. But the opposite is happening; the 10,000 terabecquerels of radiation per hour being spewed into the environment in the first hours of the accident have dropped to less than 1 terabecquerel per hour.

Panic and nuclear technology go together. But that does not mean the nuclear authorities in Japan, as elsewhere in the world, should withhold information. It means the opposite. The more educated public opinion becomes, the less purchase alarmist scares and inaccurate comparisons will have. Honesty and openness is the best long-term strategy for the nuclear industry if it is to stand any chance of playing a major part in meeting the world’s future energy needs.

Go to Original – independent.co.uk

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.