Rethink nuclear power — Asian Public Intellectuals Group and Sociologists without Borders Malaysia
MARCH 17 — The tragedy unfolding in Japan following the massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami is heartbreaking. It is an unfolding crisis.
It is tragic that panic over radiation leaks from the Daiichi plant is diverting attention from other threats to survivors of the March 11 9.0-magnitude quake and tsunami, such as the cold or access to fresh water.
We should draw a lesson from Japan which is now fighting a lethal peril right after the earthquake and tsunami. The Tokyo Electric Power Company reactors in Fukushima are releasing radioactive materials into the environment. Radiation levels near the quake-stricken nuclear plant are now harmful to human health within a radius of 20 kilometres, Japan’s government says after explosions and fires at the facility.
We have now had four grave nuclear reactor accidents — Windscale in Britain in 1957, Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. The dangers from exposure to radiation are well known, such as long-term health problems — cancers and hereditary defects. Contamination of the environment and agriculture, etc all pose many risks for people, animals and plants.
There are major concerns on the safety of nuclear power stations. The risks far outweigh the benefits. Millions of dollars of investment in nuclear power have the potential to turn into trillions of dollars of liability and environmental nightmare.
The lesson from Fukushima is that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. As Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post recently: “We can engineer nuclear power plants so that the chance of a Chernobyl-style disaster is almost nil. But we can’t eliminate it completely — nor can we envision every other kind of potential disaster. And where fission reactors are concerned, the worst-case scenario is so dreadful as to be unthinkable.”
Countries like Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and others have responded quickly to Fukushima Daiichi by reviewing their nuclear plant operations or plans to construct new reactors.
Given the current Japanese experience (and other similar incidents elsewhere in the world), we urge the Malaysian government to abandon its plans to build nuclear power plants. There are viable alternatives such as solar/wind power, etc which are both safer and cleaner. Importantly, energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption are better alternatives to harnessing nuclear technology.
If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese cannot build a completely safe reactor, can we?
In this regard, the Malaysian government should also put a stop to the ongoing construction of the rare earth refinery plant in Gebeng near Kuantan as the radioactive elements associated with its industrial procedure are indeed a cause for public concern.
Fukushima is a reminder that when nuclear reactors fail, we cannot control what is unleashed. Malaysians, particularly the federal government, owe it to the present and future generations to stop the building of nuclear plants. Earthquakes know no boundaries.
This statement is endorsed by the following fellows of the Asian Public Intellectual Programme:
Dr Phua Kai Lit
Dr Hezri Adnan
Dr Henry Chan
Assoc Prof Mustafa Kamal Anuar
Josie M. Fernandez
Dr Yeoh Seng Guan
Datuk Dr Toh Kin Woon
Professor Dr Tan Sooi Beng
Salma Khoo
Dr Wong Soak Koon
Dr Shanthi Thamiah
Dr Colin Nicholas
Assoc Prof Dr Fadzilah Majid Cooke
Chi Too
Loh Yin Sang
Dain Iskandar
Dr Lam Suan Beng
Sharaad Kuttan
And Sociologists Without Borders-Malaysia Chapter
Malaysia should heed Japan’s nuclear catastrophe — Lim Kit Siang
MARCH 17 — The last six days has been the hardest moments for Japan as a nation as they faced an earthquake of a magnitude of 9.0, followed by the explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plants with a radiation contamination threat.
Malaysians extend their greatest sympathies to Japan for the earthquake that has struck in such unexpected fashion. Indeed, the people of Japan had shown great courage in face of the national tribulation which has been described as the worst disaster of the nation after World War II.
The incident had revealed the inconvenient truth for the proponent of nuclear power, that it is a high-risk gamble. Officials in Japan have said that the nuclear reactor was built to withstand disasters. Yet the accident which occurred has caused such detrimental results.
The incident in Japan should be a stern warning for Malaysia and other countries which are contemplating to embark on nuclear projects. While we acknowledge the potential of nuclear energy, adequate precautionary steps need to be taken, as once disturbed, the danger posed is much higher than other method of energy generation.
Currently, the radiation has increased to eight times than normal exposure in Japan.
Malaysia is a country blessed with resources and we have other alternatives in energy generation such as solar, water which is more environmental friendly with less risk involved. We are also set to be the world third largest producer of solar cell.
Moreover, nuclear technology is a highly water-intensive industry, as water is used as the primary coolant to prevent the reactor from overheating. This is why nuclear plants are often situated on the coastlines so that they can utilise the seawater. This also makes them very vulnerable to natural disasters such as floods and tsunamis.
Studies had shown that nuclear power is not as cost-effective as it is being portrayed. Experts had estimated the cost projections of nuclear power at an average of RM0.50/kWh, higher than the energy generation cost of Malaysia which is RM0.30/kWh.
Studies had also shown that the cost of electricity from some forms of renewable energy, like concentrating solar thermal, could be as cheap as RM0.15/kWh by 2020. Instead of investing in nuclear power which neither makes environmental nor economic sense, Malaysia should seriously consider alternatives such as renewable energy.
Moreover, most nuclear plants in the world have suffered significant profit delay and cost overrun. For example, South Korea and Japan have seen a 25 per cent increase in average costs for nuclear energy, in Finland that figure is 90 per cent, and the cost is trending upwards.
Could it be a viable industry in Malaysia, given our bad track record in corruption and mega-project failures?
The Malaysian government should take the incident in Japan as a lesson and review its nuclear project. Malaysian government should consider realistically the capability of Malaysia to operate nuclear energy generation — in which the plant works like the huge boiling pot — and more so, to handle it safely and ensure that no accident will occur.
If in a developed country like Japan, with nearly 60 years of experience in nuclear technology, miscalculations and accidents could occur, is Malaysia confident enough to handle nuclear plant?
The pros and cons of nuclear project should be carefully studied and weighed — this is no laughing matter, as it concerns human lives. Other safer method of energy generation should be relied upon before we embarked on this high-risk venture.
Many countries had called for a halt for nuclear energy, including in Poland, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland. To date, the Malaysian Cabinet has been adamant about the pursuit of the project, with the deputy prime minister’s statement that Malaysia aims to proceed with the nuclear ambition, while the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister, Peter Chin Fah Kui, is avoiding the issue.
The Malaysian Government should learn the lesson from the nuclear catastrophe in Japan and should not risk the people’s safety because of policy carelessness.
Sheer arrogance
There is a saying that “when the roof leaks, comes the horrendous rain the whole night”. I am sure all of you know what it means– when a situation is already bad enough, more bad things are happening.
This is indeed what has happened in Japan. First there is the big quake, then the tsunami, then the nuclear crisis which the French (experts in nuclear facilities) classifies as level 6, just a level below Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster the world has seen. We have now the threat of certain coastal areas in Japan which may be flooded during the high tides expected tomorrow with the super-Moon at its nearest distance from Earth since 1993. then there is the extreme cold climate and blizzards. How how unfortunate, and my heart is with the Japanese people…
Out of this grim picture, we have seen the heroic acts of the workers at the Fukushima plant. The 50 or so workers (one report listed it at 150 rotating in shifts) know that it is now a suicidal mission to work close to the failities and yet they have no qualm going in after withdrawing very briefly. radiation exposure can cause instant death, but even if they can avoid that by using some forms of protective gears, the long term effect is almost certain… cancers of the various kinds..
I salute these unnamed heroes.
Then I saw another picture of Japanese lining up to receive food and water. It was so orderly, no asking for more, just quietly taking what was given to them and nodding in thanks. In many other countries, people will be rushing and pushing each other to get to the front of the queue.
There is also a report from wikileak that some experts had actually warned the Japanese government that a nuclear facility would not be able to withstand a quake above a magnitude of 7.0 and it was unsafe to build such plants in Japan and yet the government still thought it safe and went ahead. This is typical of government s everywhere.
This actually raise a very significant point for countries planning to have nuclear reactor to generate electricity. Nothing man-made will be safe forever. No matter how many safety features you can put into, there is always the unknown factor, Mother Nature and human error.
China has announced that it is suspending all future nuclear plants pending a review. I thought that is prudent and what a responsible government should do.
In Malaysia, our 2nd in command has said that we are going ahead with our nuclear facility. The reason being that we have the experts and we have no Earthquake.
Can our expertise be better than the Japanese, or the American or the Russians? We have the Chernobyl incident, the Three Miles island incident which were not caused by natural disaster. In both cases, human error played an important part, even though Chernobyl had also certain design faults.
Malaysia is a small country. If we have a nuclear reactor in West Malaysia and an accident happens, the radiation is going to affect the whole peninsular. Prolonged exposure to long term low level radiation is still harmful and raises the risk of developing a cancer many many times. Radiation fallout will affect land and rivers, and thus our food chain will be affected. Mind you, this effects are not just temporary but long term. The worst thing about radiation is that it is something you cannot see or feel.
I have mentioned in my last post that it will be unfair to the people if the government insists on going ahead. The least it can do is to suspend and review the project.
It is really sheer arrogance and political insensitivity to insist on proceeding with the project when the Japanese crisis has not even been contained.
Japan’s Unsavory Options
Daniel Wagner
The Huffington Post
March 17, 2011
Japan’s first week of this crisis has revealed to the world what many Japan watchers have known for many years — that it was woefully unprepared to deal with an inevitable severe earthquake and its repercussions.
TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company) and the Japanese government have unfortunately fulfilled the expectations of many who are familiar with their histories addressing crises, in which they have proven either inept or purposely misleading in delivering trustworthy information to the public. To proclaim, as one Japanese minister did last weekend, that the amount of radiation released at that time was equivalent to a CAT scan was simply absurd. We should not have expected more from TEPCO, which has in previous instances delivered purposely misleading information. But the Japanese government had an opportunity to shine in managing this crisis; it has regrettably fallen fall short of the mark.
Had TEPCO and the government either had a handle on what was occurring at the Fukushima nuclear complex, or been honest and forthright in reporting what was occurring, they might have put themselves in a position to reach out for international assistance more rapidly, and the events over the past week at the complex may not necessarily have unfolded as they have.
U.S. government officials have expressed alarm at how this ordeal has been handled and envision a possible ‘dead zone’ in Northeast Japan for decades. We could see a scenario in which a large swathe of northeast Japan becomes permanently uninhabitable. Were that to occur, the impact on the Japanese economy would clearly be severe and would preclude the idea of rebuilding areas impacted by the quake and tsunami. As bad as that would be, the impact on companies expecting to participate in the rebuilding effort would be unwelcome, and the anticipated ‘bounce’ in global share prices as a result of spending an anticipated $200 billion to rebuild the area would prove to be premature, since it may not happen at all.
Even if it is determined that there is no breach of the reactor cores — which would be a real miracle, and completely unexpected at this juncture — it will take many months and possibly a year or more for the cores of each reactor to completely cool down. This may require controlled releases of small amounts of radiation into the atmosphere on an ongoing basis, with an inevitable, yet unquantifiable long-term impact on the food chain and water supplies. Can regular exposure to high levels of radiation ever be acceptable to people living up or down wind from the reactors? Certainly not. The result would presumably be mass exodus from northeast Japan, and even possibly from cities as far away as Tokyo.
The Japanese government, its people, and its businesses face some unsavory choices. First, they must ask some very hard questions about what can realistically be accomplished. Is it realistic to presume that the area within 50 kilometers of the Fukushima complex can be repopulated? Does it make sense to imagine rebuilding in the quake and tsunami impacted areas? And can the radiation be truly contained in the absence of kamikaze-type workers who will agree to die for the greater good of the Japanese people?
Second, if mass forced relocation is required, how can tens of millions of people be moved to safe ground within Japan? This will be a serious problem, and will undoubtedly require creation of millions of temporary shelters and ultimately, millions of permanent residences in the southern part of the country. This is where any construction boom could occur.
Third, how can thousands of businesses either be relocated or shift their mode of operation to alternative locations? What impact will this have on the national and global supply chain? How long would it take to make such a transition?
Whether Japan ultimately faces this nightmare scenario or is able to salvage its northeast through some sort of miracle, TEPCO and the Japanese government must do a much better job managing the crisis and delivering believable and trustworthy information to the Japanese and global public. Fukushima is evolving into what will surely become the world’s worst nuclear accident. Japan, and the world, are learning some valuable lessons about what needs to be done to prevent a similar event from ever occurring again.
Daniel Wagner is managing director of Country Risk Solutions, a political risk consulting firm based in Connecticut, as well as senior advisor to the PRS Group.
Comparing Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Accidents: Q&A
By Adi Narayan
Bloomberg
Mar 17, 2011
March 15 (Bloomberg) — Radiation leaks from Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s earthquake-stricken reactors in northeastern Japan represent the worst nuclear power accident since the meltdown at Chernobyl, Ukraine, almost 25 years ago, scientists say.
Military helicopters are dumping water on containers holding spent uranium fuel to prevent them from overheating after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami disabled a cooling system, Tokyo Electric spokesman Kaoru Yoshida told reporters yesterday. Once exposed, the spent fuel rods may catch fire and melt, spewing radiation into the atmosphere.
“Radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko told a congressional panel in Washington yesterday.
Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about the accidents at Fukushima, Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979. The information is drawn from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, the World Health Organization in Geneva and interviews with radiation safety experts in the U.S., Australia and India.
Q: How do the three accidents compare?
A: The event at Fukushima is ongoing. The disaster now ranks 6 on a 7-step international scale for nuclear accidents, according to Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of France’s nuclear safety authority.
The International Atomic Energy Agency hasn’t updated the original rating of 4 on its website. Three Mile Island was rated 5 and Chernobyl was rated 7. Each additional point on this scale represents a factor of 10, so the accident at Three Mile Island was 1/100th as serious as Chernobyl, according to the agency.
Q: How did the reactors differ?
A: Fukushima’s 40-year-old reactor No. 2 used nuclear fission to heat water into steam, which powered a turbine. Such units are called boiling water reactors.
In the plant at Three Mile Island, pressurized water is pumped into the reactor core, where it gets heated. The hot water is then sent to a steam generator which is located outside the uranium-containing chamber. Both the Fukushima and Three Mile reactors had steel casings to protect nuclear fuel.
Fuel inside Chernobyl’s unit 4 wasn’t protected by steel. The reactor’s graphite buffer, used to slow high-speed subatomic particles, caught fire. The Fukushima and Three Mile reactors used water for the same purpose.
Q: What happened at Three Mile Island?
A: On March 28, 1979, unit 2 suffered a partial meltdown after water meant for cooling the uranium fuel was released from the containment chamber due to an equipment malfunction. There was no explosion and radioactive materials weren’t released into the environment because the chamber didn’t rupture.
Q: What happened at Chernobyl?
A: The accident was caused by a power surge that led to overheating at reactor No. 4. A resultant fire and explosions caused the containment roof to cave in and sent radioactive debris, including pieces of fuel rod, spewing into the air, destroying a nearby forest.
Radiation outside the blast area was about 50 times greater than the peak inside Fukushima, and at least 31 workers and firefighters died within a few months. An estimated 4,000 children and adolescents developed thyroid cancer after consuming milk contaminated with radioactive iodine, I-131.
Q: What are the sources of radiation at Fukushima?
A: Fuel rods at the plant’s No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, both of which were operating at the time of the temblor, may have been damaged, Tokyo Electric said. Pressure in the containment chamber of unit No. 2 fell yesterday, indicating that radiation may have been released after an explosion on March 15.
Radiation is also leaking from spent fuel rods stored in a pool near reactors No. 3 and No. 4. Water in the pool has evaporated due to radioactive heat, exposing the uranium- containing rods to the atmosphere. The exposed rods can emit radiation and give out radioactive iodine and cesium, both of which are cancer-causing agents.
A worker at the edge of the pool would receive a fatal radiation dose in 16 seconds, said David Lochbaum, a nuclear physicist for the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety instructor.
There are six reactors in the Fukushima complex, of which three were operating at the time of the earthquake.
Malaysia should learn the lessons from the Japan Nuclear Catastrophe
The last six days has been the hardest moments for Japan as a nation as they are faced with an earthquake of a magnitude of 9.0, followed by the nuclear explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plants with a radiation contamination threat.
Malaysians extend their greatest sympathies to Japan for the earthquake that has struck in such unexpected fashion. Indeed, the people of Japan had shown great courage in face of the national tribulation which has been described as the worst disaster of the nation after World War II.
The incident had revealed the inconvenient truth for the proponent of nuclear power that it is a high-risk gamble. Officials in Japan have said that the nuclear reactor was built to withstand disasters. Yet the accident which occurred has caused such detrimental result.
The incident in Japan should be a stern warning for Malaysia and other countries which are contemplating to embark on a nuclear project. While we acknowledge the potential of nuclear energy, adequate precautionary steps need to be taken extra-carefully as once disturbed, the danger posed is much higher than other method of energy generation. Currently, the radiation has increased to 8 times than normal exposure in Japan.
Malaysia is a country blessed with resources and we have other alternatives in energy generation such as solar, water which is more environmental friendly with less risk involved. We are also set to be the world third largest producer of solar cell. Moreover, nuclear technology is a highly water-intensive industry, as water is used as the primary coolant to prevent the reactor from overheating. This is why nuclear plants are often situated on the coastlines so that they can utilize the seawater. This also makes them very vulnerable to natural disasters such as floods and tsunamis.
Studies had shown that nuclear power is not as cost-effective as it is being portrayed. Experts had estimated the cost projections of nuclear power at an average of RM0.50/kWh, higher than the energy generation cost of Malaysia which is RM0.30/kWh. Studies had also shown that the cost of electricity from some forms of renewable energy, like concentrating solar thermal, could be as cheap as RM0.15/kWh by 2020. Instead of investing in nuclear power which neither makes environmental nor economic sense, Malaysia should seriously consider alternatives such as renewable energy.
Moreover, most nuclear plants in the world have suffered significant profit delay and cost overrun. For example, South Korea and Japan have seen a 25 per cent increase in average costs for nuclear energy, in Finland that figure is 90 per cent, and the cost is trending upwards. Could it be a viable industry in Malaysia, given our bad track record in corruption and mega-project failures?
The Malaysian government should take the incident in Japan as a lesson and review its nuclear project. Malaysian government should consider realistically the capability of Malaysia to operate nuclear energy generation – in which the plant works like the huge boiling pot, and more so, to handle it safely and ensure that no accident will occur. If in a developed country like Japan, with nearly 60 years of experience in nuclear technology, miscalculations and accidents could occur, is Malaysia confident enough to handle nuclear plant?
The pros and cons of nuclear project should be carefully studied and weighed upon – this is no laughing matter, as it concerns human lives. Other safer method of energy generation should be relied upon before we embarked on this high-risk venture.
Many countries had called for a halt for nuclear energy, including in Poland, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland. To date, Malaysian Cabinet has been adamant about the pursuit of the project, with the deputy prime minister’s statement that Malaysia aim to proceed with the nuclear ambition, while the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister, Peter Chin Fah Kui, is avoiding the issue.
Malaysian Government should learn the lesson from the nuclear catastrophe in Japan and should not risk the people’s safety because of policy carelessness.
'Muhyiddin claims that they were minor. Who should know better how to spell words on Indian ceremonial matters - non-Indians or Indians?'
"There was a misunderstanding yesterday... I was informed by (MIC president) G Palanivel that he is now speaking (to the three members)... Palanivel has given his assurance that he will make sure that they will stay in the committee," he told reporters at the Parliament lobby today.
