Monday, January 29, 2018

Communities at Risk from Nuclear




British researcher Ian Fairlie has a new article on evacuations after a severe nuclear accident. This article has additional relevance afforded by the increased volcanic and earthquake activity occurring across the ring of fire:
Ian Fairlie (January 27, 2018) Evacuations after Severe Nuclear Accidents http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/evacuations-severe-nuclear-accidents/
This article discusses three related matters –
The experience of evacuations during the Fukushima nuclear disaster
Whether lengthy evacuations from large cities are feasible?
Some emergency plans for evacuations in North America

Fairlie documents the challenges of evacuations, concluding:
There is an acute planning dilemma here: if evacuations are carried out (even with good planning) then illnesses and deaths will undoubtedly occur. But if they are not carried out, even more people could die. In such situations, it is necessary to identify the real cause of the problem. And here it is the existence of NPPs near large population centres. In such cases, consideration should be given to the early closure of the NPPs, and switching to safer means of electricity generation.
As asserted above, the heart of the problem is unsafe nuclear reactors located near large population centers. This problem is going to worsen.

Radioactive zones are likely to increase as problems of nuclear waste management lead to increased contamination from aging nuclear plants and industrial/medical operations, producing a new kind of environmental refugee and raising important questions about justice when exposure effects are protracted, potentially unfolding across generations.

Aging nuclear infrastructures and climate change effects, such as more powerful hurricanes, are predicted to increase probability of major accidents, on the scale of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine in 1986 and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in Japan. Risk assessment research predicts a severe (Three Mile Island type) nuclear accident every ten to twenty years, with a 50 percent chance for another Fukushima-scale accident or larger in the next 50 years, and a Chernobyl-scale event in the next 27 years.

The costs and challenges of radioactive decontamination evidenced by the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, combined with the uncertainties associated with exposure, have prompted some organizations, including the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, to recommend a gestalt shift from evacuations to adaptation, a practice that is being encouraged by the Japanese government as it lifts mandatory evacuation orders and encourages residents to return to areas with still-elevated external radiation levels. However, encouraging people to live in environments admittedly contaminated raises significant legal and ethical questions, including the transformation of people into test subjects.

This transformation is particularly concerning given the types of effects found by researchers studying the transgenerational effects of animals living under conditions of chronic low-level exposure to radionuclides. The idea that the way to respond to radiation emergencies is through adaptation ultimately shifts the locus of risk to exposed communities.

Why should communities bear the risk of a form of energy that is extraordinarily expensive to produce when the full fuel and decommissioning cycles are included?

Why should communities bear the risk of a form of energy so hazardous that exposure can cause near immediate death or protracted suffering?

Why should communities bear the risk of nuclear energy when SAFER and CHEAPER alternatives exist?





 
 

3 comments:

  1. I take issue with the statement about the effects of animals living under chronic low level radiation. "This transformation is particularly concerning given the types of effects found by researchers studying the transgenerational effects of animals living under conditions of chronic low-level exposure to radionuclides. The idea that the way to respond to radiation emergencies is through adaptation ultimately shifts the locus of risk to exposed communities"

    Never before has the saturation of radionuclides in water, and soil been recorded as high as it is around fukushima. Not even chernobly and belarus. The geiger counters may only be reading low or medium levels of emissions but, the radionucide concentrations in this area are off the charts. Why buy into their propaganda language to talk what amounts to genocide?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your point. The radiation is indeed NOT low level. Yet, that is what it is called by the alleged "experts."

      Here is the challenge I face. I try to critique the status quo using language that is "normative" but then, as Hal rightly points out, I re-invoke a paradigm that is inherently propagandistic in its labeling.

      An excellent book exploring some of these issues is Zimmerman's A Primer in the Art of Deception
      https://www.amazon.com/Primer-Art-Deception-Paul-Zimmerman/dp/061523416X

      Delete
  2. Tokyo not fit for human habitation

    Tokyo Not Fit For Human Habitation - YouTube
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nb94rEERjpM&feature=youtu.be&a=


    Abe says he will get nuclear weapons, trump has more or less declared cold war w russia, trump the plutarc glabalist went to davos to screw america over more with wto trade, troops in Syria stirring shit, trump/netanyahu lie and say all of Lebanon is becoming iranian missle factory, nuclear us stealth bombers in korea, trump is a madman ratcheting up ww3

    ReplyDelete