Fukishima seems to have brought out both polarities in the nuclear power camp. One clearly for it – with the view that the situation is quite minor given the massive damage ithe plant sustained; the other seems to immediately condemn nuclear power as having the potential to reign absolute chaos in the event of plant failure.
So whats my take on all this? I’m no nuclear physicist, so speculating on a safe amount of radiation for humans to tolerate is not my forte. I do however think there are some critical things all those bipolar parties are missing in the nuclear debate.
Those who are for nuclear power will probably cite the official toll from Chernobyl, and the fact that people continued working there for years in other reactors on the same site – but what about the conditions they were working in? They clearly would not have been eating food farmed in the exclusion zone, and would most probably have been sheltered to a massive degree within the concrete reactor buildings – as opposed to being in the vicinity of the fallout from the failed reactor. They were not living in the exclusion zone either.
On the other hand, those against nuclear energy seemingly impose a zero tolerance on any un-natural radiation. Arguably this tolerance is not really a cause for concern in most cases, owing to natural radiation from solar events, x-rays and medical imaging, and limited time of exposure. It would seem that both polarities here missing a critical parameter in their arguments - time of exposure. What this boils down to is this – it is possible to briefly experience high doses of radiation (as in an X-ray, or tourism to Chenobyl ), but you sure as hell would not want to live for a significant amount of time in the presence of it.
So total exposure is the main concern when it comes to radiation, but what about the impact on society? What about management efforts and finance as well? Some say that an incident at a chemical plant may be more problematic than a nuclear plant failure, but herein lies the difference. While a chemical plant may have a large scale immediate impact (in terms of fatalities and short term disaster management), the disaster will usually be under control relatively quickly in comparison with a nuclear disaster - at Chernobyl the construction of a second sarcophagus is presently under construction (25 years later no less) to prevent further leaks. No doubt the monitoring of such a situation will continue a long way into the foreseeable future.
Even in terms of shorter term response, the sheer volume of those involved in the cleanup of Chernobyl cannot possibly be matched by any other disaster caused by man – there were an estimated 800,000 ‘liquidators’ involved in the Chernobyl cleanup. But it does not end with the sheer numbers. An individuals cumulative exposure must also be measured, and equipment handled and stored appropriately in order to prevent further contamination. Sure the japanese disaster is no Chernoby - the containment is much more rigorous, however the crisis has now continued for some weeks and is still not fully under control. In essence the management of such a disaster is on-going and arduous.
Finally when It comes to a disaster such as this, the fear of radiation contamination plays on one of our most baser instincts of ‘fear of the unknown’ – whether or not this is perceived or a real threat is irrelevant to the anxiety it may cause an individual.
Perhaps humans can tolerate higher levels of radiation – what we cannot push for in the future however is over-dependance on one source of energy – let alone one that demands so many resources should something go wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment