UKRAINE President Viktor Yanukovych yesterday commemorated the 25th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident alongside his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev.
The Chernobyl disaster occurred when an explosion and a fire at one of the plant's reactors sent a plume of radiation across Europe, potentially causing the deaths of thousands of people.
Of course, the anniversary is all the more poignant after last month's earthquake and tsunami at the Fukushima plant in Japan became only the second level seven event on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
Chernobyl was the first and, even now, its effect still lingers in social attitudes towards nuclear power.
'Nuclear' is perhaps the dirtiest word in science. The first widespread use of the word referred to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent arms race in the Cold War between the USA and USSR.
Even when scientists attempted to use nuclear fission for peaceful means, as an alternative to fossil fuels to create power, a series of accidents meant it could not shrug off its poor reputation.
It is no coincidence that the creators of The Simpsons decided to employ their bumbling protagonist Homer as an operator at the local plant. No one demonstrates the risk of leaving nuclear power in human hands better than him.
Now, the stricken Fukushima plant has brought the debate over nuclear power back to the forefront.
In France, which is hugely reliant on nuclear power for its electricity production, a poll after the Fukushima accident found that 57% of the respondents were opposed to its use.
And, in Germany, public opinion was even more strongly against and a reported quarter of a million marched under the slogan "Heed Fukushima - shut off all nuclear plants".
Surprisingly, the German government under Chancellor Angela Merkel partly heeded the call of the protesters by shutting down all seven of the reactors opened before 1981, leaving just 10 open.
But many scientists fear that the incident at the Fukushima plant was badly reported and that news organisations acted as scaremongers by preying on the reputation of nuclear power.
Certainly, here in the UK, it was noticeable how quickly the story moved away from the devastating earthquake and tsunami, and towards the seemingly impending atomic doom.
Indeed, at times, it seemed as if the BBC and Sky had completely forgotten that it was the magnitude-9.0 quake and tsunami which has killed more than 10,000 people - and not radiation from the nuclear power plant which has so far killed no one.
Thankfully, retrospective views have been less reactionary and this BBC website page suggests that, though Chernobyl and Fukushima were both rated as level seven accidents, the leak in 1986 was much worse.
The truth is that if the UK is going to reduce its carbon footprint in line with international targets, then a greater use of nuclear power must be part of the solution in the medium-term at least.
It is an uncomfortable truth for some, and other people or groups who are more stridently opposed will undoubtedly continue to bury their heads in the sand and not accept it.
But, as the Independent newspaper reported in 2009, even some leading environmental figures have performed U-turns by recognising nuclear power as the way to reduce carbon emissions.
That was pre-Fukushima, of course - but it is difficult to see how the events in Japan have made the argument in favour of nuclear power weaker.
The fact is that, despite one of the strongest earthquakes ever and an tsunami which breached the 18ft concrete wall defences, the amounts of radioactive materials released from the site are unlikely to cause any detectable long-term health problems.
Thankfully, the UK is not on a major fault line caused by the shifting tectonic plates and new technology actually means that reactors can shutdown and cool themselves without power or human intervention.
Dealing with nuclear waste is, admittedly, a contentious issue as it is normally buried deep underground and can remain dangerous for millions of years.
However, scientists are constantly looking at ways of avoiding this and it is now accepted that far more used nuclear fuel should be reprocessed to be re-used.
It seems to me that a greater number of nuclear plants would go a long way to easing Britain's energy concerns and carbon footprint.
And so it is unfortunate and actually unhelpful that the bad reputation of nuclear power precedes it and the Chernobyl scars still run so deep.
No comments:
Post a Comment