In the wake of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the subsequent nuclear disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant, questions have begun to arise concerning the safety of nuclear power. Although it has always been a hot button issue, more and more people who were once apathetic or even mild supporters of nuclear power are jumping on the anti-nuclear bandwagon. The terrifying images shown on media outlets worldwide and the arrival of radioactive air from across the Pacific has made nuclear power seem like a dirty, dangerous and even reckless process that is not only damaging the environment, but also threatening mankind. However, don’t let yourself be fooled by the alarmists. The quest for sustainability in the face of a ballooning global population lies with nuclear power more so than it does with windmills, solar power or any other sort of renewable energy. We cannot let one incident cloud our judgement and make us flee from the only viable source of clean energy that we have.
Denying the potential dangers of nuclear power is stupid. These are valid concerns that must be addressed if a country plans to generate its energy through the use of nuclear power. However, to address these fears, we need to examine these concerns objectively without alarmism. The facts show that nuclear power is not only safe, but also much less deadly than any other major source of energy, even the hailed “alternative sources” such as solar and wind.
Let us first examine major incidents that can be “blamed” on the use of nuclear power. As of now, there has been only one incident involving fatalities in the entire history of nuclear power usage that can be attributed conclusively to radiation. This, of course, was the Chernobyl incident that occurred in 1986 in the Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. Although devastating, this accident must be viewed with perspective. This plant was inadequately taken care of, in bad repair, was old and was poorly run. Above all, it existed in one of the most oppressive and incompetent regimes in the history of mankind. Despite this, the Chernobyl plant would have never melted down under normal operations. It was a foolish and risky experiment, which involved testing a potential emergency core cooling feature that caused the incident. Chernobyl was a perfect storm. Even the slightest regard towards safety would have prevented this accident, and that is why an event like Chernobyl was one hundred percent preventable and is not a fair basis of an argument for anti-nuclear advocates. Despite this, only 65 deaths can be 100% directly and conclusively attributed to the Chernobyl incident (according to a committee run by the United Nations). As for Fukushima, there is still no conclusive list on the deaths directly attributed to its quasi meltdown. Right now, however, ZERO deaths can be directly attributed to the Fukushima nuclear incident. The two most major incidents in the existence of nuclear power’s history have death tolls of sixty five and zero, respectively. Although both are tragedies, these are not Armageddonist numbers.
Before we condemn nuclear power, we must also review the statistics stated above and compare them to other disasters caused by power generation through other means. In 1975 a dam built in China for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power collapsed, killing an estimated 171,000 people. Coal pollution is estimated to cause somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 deaths per year. In 1944, an explosion at a natural gas plant in Ohio killed 130 people. Even wind power, despite its short existence and tiny, tiny contribution to power generation on the global scale, can be directly attributed to the death of fifty seven people (largely caused by hurling ice from turbines and installing the towers at large heights). It is quite clear that nuclear power is dangerous. However, it is blatantly obvious that it is really no more dangerous, and even safer, than most other forms of energy generation.
The next argument of the anti-nuclear advocates would be that nuclear power destroys the environment. It has had its share of incidents that have negatively impacted local environments, but on a global scale, nuclear power has almost no negative effect on the environment. In fact, a recent study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) found that, including all installation, extraction, manufacturing and production factors, nuclear power is a “lower carbon option” than not only coal and natural gas, but even wind and solar power. This is because enough carbon has been released in the manufacturing, transportation and installation of a wind turbine or solar panel to outweigh their relatively puny one hundred percent carbon-free energy production. The idea that nuclear power generates dangerous amounts of unrecyclable waste is also easy to debunk. Most of the waste created by nuclear power plants is classified as “low level waste” that is easily recyclable. The remaining dangerous amounts can easily be stored in remote, secure places where it will never be a danger to any human. Sorry to all the Armageddonists and alarmists out there, but nuclear energy IS the cleanest method of power generation we have.
Many also fret that nuclear power plants are potential terrorist targets and security threats. This notion is laughable. Since 9/11, countless studies have poured time and money into determining how safe nuclear plants are to the dangers of a terrorist attack. They have all concluded that they are in no way a threat. Nuclear plants are designed in such a way that a full sized jet could smash into one at full speed with relatively little effect and NO chance of breach. Also, security is so tight around nuclear plants that it would be almost impossible to infiltrate a nuclear plant, and even if this was achieved, there is no meltdown button that would cause the entire plant to spontaneously combust. The idea that nuclear plants are a threat to our security is just another alarmist concept imagined by the regular group of anti-nuclear Armageddonists.
We live in a world with a population that is large and getting larger. We don’t have enough power already. The world is threatened by climate change caused by the release of huge amounts of carbon emissions. We need an affordable and practical source of energy that will carry us through the distant future without worsening these problems. The anti-nuclear advocates are noteworthy not only for alarmism and fear mongering, but also their failure to provide a viable alternative. That’s because there is no alternative. Nuclear power is safe, clean and practical, and humanities’ survival does not hinge on its destruction, but instead on its existence.