A New, Clear View
Environmentalists, or rather those of you who oppose nuclear power, get stuffed. Compared with the alternatives, nuclear power of western model is by far the best option available.
In today's society, the environment is becoming increasingly important. The environmentalist movements in all countries are growing in numbers and in influence. This development is truly one of great benefit for the future, and most of the ides these groups represent truly make a lot of sense. I myself rather prefer environmental concerns more than shortsighted economical concerns. What I don't understand about the organized environmentalists, however, is their often recurring view opposing nuclear power. Here we have a source of energy which doesn't pollute tha air or water, which is sufficiently safe in it's reasonable incarnations, and where the wasteproblem is more than satisfactorily solved. And this the environmentalists want to close down, and replace with, at first coal, oil, hydropower and very inefficient windpower. Wherein lies the logic?
One argument that is often heard in debates on the issue of nuclear power is the supposedly insufficient security. That argument may be trashed right here and now. The security in nuclear plants in the western civilisation is very advanced, and in most plants three or more security systems run parallell to avoid every possible unfortunate incident. With the addition of a highly trained staff in the controlroom, the security is as close to 100% as is possible in a world where probability and not absolutes rules the chains of events. I do have to award the opposers who claim this view one point, though. The nuclear plants in eastern Europe, the old Warsaw Pact, are often very badly built, and are very insecure. This is something that can be changed, and is only money was set aside to accomplish this instead of wasting money trying to close them down permanently, the energy problems would be much less complicated, and the economies of these countries could be allowed to grow faster, to meet the level and standards of the western world.The environment can also benefit a lot from the use of nuclear power instead of fossile fuels. The first and obvious advantage is that nuclear power doesn't pollute the air and add to the greenhouse effect, and doesn't pollute the water for that matter. The powerplants run a closed system, where no contaminated substances are allowed to slip out. The only thing pumped in and out is clean water for cooling, water that has no contact whatsoever with radioactive substances. It should also be noted that under normal circumstances (almost 100% of the time) a nuclear power plant exposes it's employees to less radiation than your normal office or other workplace.
The issue, or rather the fear, of radiation is probably the the most common reason for opposing nuclear power. That may also be a reasonable argument - in the former Soviet Union. Not if you take a look at the plants of the western countries, and in particular those of Sweden, from which I have personal experience. As I stated above, radiation in a normal nuclear plant is minimal, and every possible precautions are taken to ensure that it remains this way. Everything that may have been contaminated is "bottled up" in cases, barrels, or molded into concrete, and sent about 100 metres down into the bedrock. This is the same fate that some medical equipment, such as devices used in x-ray procedures, faces. The levels of radiation does not have to be very high in an object for it to be classified as hazardous material, and be sent into deep-rock storage. Actually, many things of our every day lives could be classified as high risk waste, if the public wouldn't go ballistic if they found out that these things were actually more dangerous than the equipment used in nuclear plants.
For instance, your normal smokedetector contains a radioactive isotope, with a time of reduction that is long compared to most equiment from nuclear plants, or hospitals, that require final storage. If the smokedetectors were equipment from nuclear plants instead of an item from our homes, the radiation and time of reduction would require them to go into the deepest, and most secure, storage there is, short of the final storage required for burnt out nuclear fuel. And this is an item every house has, or at least should have. The radioactivity of nuclear power is not more dangerous than that, you are allowed to be exposed to the same levels of radiation, and even higher, in your own homes!
"Well, ok," you say, "so maybe the radiation is not that dangerous. But what about the used fuel? That must surely be dangerous!" Well, yes and no. The fuel is radioactive, and requires final storage. That is not a very big problem, though. The used fuel is handled with extreme care, and every security measure possible is taken to ensure there is no contamination of anything outside. The fuel is, after removal from the reactor, stored in an intermediate storage deep in the bedrock for about 40 years. After this time, it is supposed to be sent into final storage, where it will remain for a couple of thousands of years. This final storage has not yet been solved, in Sweden and most other countries, yet, though, beacause of the "not in my back yard"-mentality. Once in storage, the fuel can harm no one, and it manages itself. The rock beneath or feet is already radioactive from radon and other substances, and with the secure way of storage that will be used, no more radioactivity than normal, and perhaps even less than usual, will be released into populated areas. This part is the one that the public has gotten all wrong, and is what causes the fear of nuclear power, and the used fuel. More information from the right governmental agencies could easily solve this problem, if they would just be given som media time. The media, however, love to support the fear of nuclear power, because it sells more papers, and hence the right information is rarely seen.
I think I hve satisfactorily shown that nuclear power is a better source of energy thatn coal, oil and gas can ever be, and more efficient and cheaper than most other sources of energy. What I ask myself, then, is this: Why is nuclear power so unwelcome, not only by environmentalists, but also by so many of our politicians? The answer is quite obvious, and I will explain it to you. It is not that simple, because it consists of several parts.
First of all, fear has been allowed to rule before science. Mainly environmentalists of certain branches have been allowed to be heard over experts. This has caused the public to react negatively towards nuclear power. The dangers have been exaggerated, and some even made up. An opinion has been formed based on lies and inaccuracies.
From this some political parties have sprung ideas to close down nuclear plants, to gain the "green" votes. This has furthered the opinion against nuclear power. The media has been quick to follow the trail, beacause they can sniff out a good headline wherever it may hide. This has caused the politicians to form their own pinions against nuclear power, to gain more votes. In Sweden, there was a vote in 1980 about the future of nuclear power in the country. There was a strong opinion against nuclear power, but no clear majority for closing it down altogether. From this, it was decided, although revoked later, that all nuclear power plants in Sweden were to be closed down by 2010. Research in the field of nuclear power and building more plants were outlawed. This caused, among other things, the company Asea to merge with the Swiss company Brown Bovery, and move to Switzerland. All of these "gains" were achieved in the name of environmental progress (spelled "populistic politics").
The first reactor in Sweden has been closed. Barsebäck, on the coast of Skåne, and hence closed to Denmark, has "lost" a reactor after the Danes complained. The remaining will be closed as well. What do we replace the lost energy with? Well, mainly coal power from Denmark. This is really an outrage, but one that has not really been given attention in the media. First of all, it is a lot more polluting, contributing to the greenhouse effect, but there is more to it. The Danes complaints, we close a reactor, and start buying energy from Denmark. No one can claim there are no economic interests involved in the Danish demand for closure of Barsebäck. Once again agendas are masked behind environmental concerns.
I have decided on a couple of conclusions and solutions. First of all, this nosense law prohibiting nuclear research and expansion must be scrapped. Second, the media and the government must together reshape the view of nuclear power, let the people decide ased on facts and not prejudices and legends. A new vote in the matter would probably turn out different than the one in 1980. After this is done, final storage should not be a problem, and our energyissues could be solved by one or two new nuclear powerplants. No more fossile fuels would be required to support the energyneed, and the few remaining non-exploited rivers of Sweden could be really guaranteed to remain that way. Our economy would also benefit from being self-sufficient in the field of energy.
The problem remaining to be solved would be the plants of eastern Europe. This could easily be accomplished by lending out experts and sending some money and equipment along with them. In a few years, every nuclear powerplant on Earth could be as safe as any other kind of powerplant, and a lot cleaner.
There really are no good reasons not to use nuclear power. Accidents or disasters such as Tjernobyl or Harrisburg are not likely to occur in any modern wester powerplants, and with the same no-compromise-security imposed in all the plants of the world, nuclear power can be the best possible energysource until we solve the problems of fusionpower. I hope, for the sake of the environment, that our politicians will come to their senses, and that science may finally prevail over prejudices, and be allowed to give it's view on it all. By information, fears can be annihilated.
For the sake of the future: Let nuclear power live!
Would you like to comment on this article?
Send a mail to dont-panic@swipnet.se or visit the guestbook.