Singapore: The great nuclear divide

Straits Times 2 Apr 11;

Japan's nuclear crisis has reopened the debate over the safety of nuclear power. Senior Correspondent Chang Ai-Lien looks at the argument for and against this energy source.

YES: It is clean and safe

FALLOUTS from nuclear plant disasters are lightweight compared to the deaths, injuries and harmful health effects caused by other energy sources like coal and oil, according to some scientists and engineers.

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest solutions, but the crux lies in placing plants in the right locations, with proper safety precautions in place, as well as educating the layman about it.

Said former Science Centre Singapore chief Chew Tuan Chiong: 'People have a great fear of nuclear energy. There's no denying that the impact of a nuclear accident is more insidious because of the long-term health effects.

'But compared to disasters from coal mining or gas leaks, it is much safer, even taking into account deaths in the long term.'

The harmful health effects from pollution caused by burning fossil fuels are far more widespread than those resulting from accidents in the nuclear energy sector, noted Dr Chew, a chartered engineer and a member of Britain's Energy Institute.

According to a report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) last year, nuclear energy is the safest of the energy sources. This was the conclusion reached after a study of accidents with five or more fatalities from a wide range of energy sources between 1969 and 2000, looking at both immediate and delayed deaths.

It predicted that in OECD countries, the risk of a nuclear disaster causing more than 100 eventual deaths was a factor of 10 or more lower than the risk of an accident causing 100 immediate fatalities in the coal, oil, natural gas and hydro energy chains - and almost a factor of 1,000 lower than the risk from liquefied petroleum gas.

Although the fear of radiation is very real, some of the resistance to nuclear energy stems from a lack of understanding, said Dr Chew.

For instance, he said, many people tend to link nuclear energy with the atomic bomb and its destructive potential, although, in reality, this will not happen at a plant.

There are insufficient amounts of chemicals such as uranium packed closely together to set off a chain reaction leading to such an explosion, he explained, even if, in the worst-case scenario, a meltdown does happen.

He acknowledged that disposing of radioactive waste is a problem researchers are still struggling with. At this stage, however, other potential energy sources such as the wind, biofuels and the sun are still not proven to be viable on the same scale.

'Individual governments need to look at their own level of technological know-how, geography, and even culture and discipline before deciding whether to go the nuclear energy route,' he said.

'And since each new incident seems to tar everyone in this industry with the same brush, companies should be generous in sharing information and research in the field.'

Added tectonics expert Paul Tapponnier: 'We can't stop building nuclear power plants because the world needs them. We just have to learn to make them even more resilient and think a great deal about where to build them.'

NO: It is too dangerous

THE risks of nuclear energy and the effects of radiation fallout on human health are powerful arguments against using this mode of energy, according to an award-winning Japanese journalist who has been studying the subject for three decades.

Money should instead be pumped into clean energy research, said Mr Akira Tashiro, 63, a senior staff writer at a major Japanese newspaper, the Chugoku Shimbun in Hiroshima.

'Japan's nuclear plants are among the world's safest when it comes to earthquake protection, yet we have still suffered this triple punch of earthquake, tsunami and finally the nuclear accident,' said Mr Tashiro, who has visited nuclear facilities in various countries, including Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in Ukraine, site of the world's worst nuclear accident, and studied the effects of radiation for 30 years.

He is the executive director of the Hiroshima Peace Media Centre (http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp). Launched in 2008, it advocates the abolition of nuclear weapons and advancement of world peace.

He also co-authored Exposure: Victims Of Radiation Speak Out, one of the most thorough descriptions of the plight of radiation victims around the world. His work on the nuclear age in Nuclear Age: Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow won him the 1996 Vaughn-Ueda Prize, the Japanese equivalent of the Pulitzer.

'Accidents are rare but once something goes wrong, the consequences are disastrous. It just shows that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be relied on.'

Ideally, it would be better for Japan not to have any nuclear power plants at all, he said. However, since the country depends on such plants for nearly a third of its energy needs, the alternative is to carefully scrutinise safety measures in place at current plants.

'This accident may be a turning point for Japan, and plans for more new plants could be postponed,' he said.

He suggested shortening the shelf-life of such plants, by closing them down after 30 years, rather than 40 to 60 years.

While slowly decreasing the country's reliance on nuclear energy, research should be ramped up to create safer and cleaner alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cell and tidal power, which he believed should bear fruit in the next 10 to 20 years.

He added that even without any major accident, the problem of how to deal with spent nuclear fuel safely remained. Such fuel is dangerously radioactive and remains so for thousands of years.

'How can we ensure that 100 years from now, they will be safely stored and not leaching into the groundwater?' he asked.

He stressed that each individual's susceptibility to radiation varies.

'Even if a certain level of radiation is within the permissible range, this does not necessarily mean that the level is safe for all.'

Unborn babies, infants and children are particularly susceptible to the effects of radiation and avoiding exposure to even low doses of radiation is advised for them, he added.

He cited follow-up research studies on atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which found that even low-level exposure to radiation received internally could have detrimental effects on health.

In addition to radiation, he said, there is the concern of hazardous materials such as caesium, iodine and plutonium being released.

'Even if you inhale a minuscule amount of plutonium, it will reside in your body for a long time and could affect your health in the long run,' he warned.