But, Fukushima II

tweetFukushima, eh?

Chiba refinery


And how much longer should we keep using that as a “reason”?

Firstly, you must understand that the population was evacuated (and has stayed that way) by government decree[1] and not due to any intrinsic danger of the levels of released radiation. The ZERO fatalities due to radiation[2]? They were predicted emphatically by physicists like Wade Allison[3] immediately after the accident. This is in stark contrast to the well-publicised apocalypse espoused by the likes of Helen Caldicott, and how anyone can take her seriously is beyond me. Furthermore, the many hundreds of deaths due directly and indirectly to evacuation, a result of radiation hysteria and absurd, arbitrary limits[4], have destroyed families and are ignored by these ideological campaigners.

Chiba refinery


Secondly, the best science currently points to anthropogenic global warming as the greatest existential threat to the secure future of most species on this planet. Japan’s extended nuclear shutdown, apart from being a fiscal catastrophe, has seen rapid, record fossil fuel use growth[5] with consequent ballooning of carbon emissions.[6] If you truly believe that the risks you perceive about commercial nuclear power supersede the urgency of decarbonising our energy, then I submit you are doubly dismissing the IPCC’s expert conclusions.[7]

North Dakota oil train


Lastly, no matter how rapidly the favourite renewable energy technologies (advocacy of which rarely acknowledges often vast proportions of biomass burning[8]) can theoretically be deployed, combining this with nuclear reactor builds of modern, average duration and costs[9] will achieve faster decarbonisation… so how much delay and otherwise unnecessary potential harm are you prepared to cost the world by refusing to reconsider nuclear energy?

Morwell coal mine disaster at night


[1] The First Five Days http://tinyurl.com/q6qsxvt
[2] http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2014/unisous237.html[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
[4] http://t.co/g57CQ2qrQV
[5] http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL3N0O20C020140516
[6] http://canadianenergyissues.com/2013/12/19/power-fear-and-carbon-in-japan-the-iron-rule-of-power-generation-ii/
[7] http://atomicinsights.com/ipcc-working-group-iii-recommendations/
[8] http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/growth-of-biomass-far-outstrips-growth-of-solar-and-wind
[9] http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/nuclear-energy-required-to-fight-climate-change/5535932 & http://www.carboncommentary.com/2014/06/04/3603

Stripped of emotion and motivated reasoning, the case for considering nuclear energy is clear. There is no shame in admitting the possibility, indeed it is noble, it is the sort of example we set for our children, and it is one of the best ways for us to learn and grow. Even if you personally remain to be convinced, consider supporting the call for amendment to ARPANS and EPBC so that a fully fledged assessment of the suitability of nuclear energy – a successor to UMPNER, if you will – can be undertaken in the long-term national interest.

Recent related press can be found here, here and here.

The images are obviously not Fukushima Daiichi, although the first two will appear in the top results when googled for as such, used in very recent articles, demonstrating a persistent carelessness by some commentators.



One thought on “But, Fukushima II

  1. Regarding Fukushima, I’d also like to add another 2 points
    1) The deaths were not from nuclear energy but from the huge tsunami that flooded the land. People seem to forget that there was a giant amount of water in the disaster that had nothing to do with the plant.

    2) If we would stop being so afraid of nuclear and started researching modern reactor technologies and deploying them (ie MSR/LFTR) we wouldn’t have had a “Fukushima” disaster in the first place. A modern design would have automatically shut down and had no release of radioactive materials (and would be 50x or more greater efficiency than we have in nuclear energy today).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s