The need of nuclear energy and its hazards
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Anti-nuclear campaigners in Germany recently tried to stop the transfer of 123 tonnes of nuclear waste to an 'unfit' storage facility in Dannenberg. However, the parliament there later decided to extend the life of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors that were meant to be decommissioned in 2020. Polls say, most Germans opposed the decision. There are some potent reasons why the anger of anti-nuclear activists has been mounting. Canada, the UK, the USA and Switzerland, among the pioneers of nuclear energy, all had experienced major reactor accidents by the 1960s. A US Senate report says, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was informed about 150 reactor accidents of varying degrees in at least 15 countries. Yet, it was not until the meltdown at Chernobyl in April 1986 that the nuclear industry finally started admitting that there had been so many mishaps. However, they continued to deny that anyone had ever died directly from a nuclear accident -- because deaths and debility from cancers and congenital defects are not 'direct' causes!
Some dangers of atomic energy are unique in the nature of the fuel used. Major disasters on all levels of radioactive fallout, be it from leaks in civilian reactors, medical use, bombs or bullets, do bear this out. But these hazards are often not taken seriously on the grounds that all mills and factories have some amount of risk, and development projects cannot stop just because of that. The Boston-based Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, a group of scientists that has been relentlessly trying to raise awareness, states categorically that even perfectly functioning nuclear power plants may be 'committing pre-meditated random murder ... because some risk is associated with any dose of radiation, however small.' Radio-biologists researching this aspect also suspect that emission from nuclear reactors in Canada, India, the US and Britain may be linked to birth defect clusters and leukemias in the neigbourhood.
In Bangladesh, however, there are strong arguments in favour of setting up a nuclear power project under the given circumstances in its energy sector. As such, the pluses of the nuclear power project deserve a serious consideration. But it will also be important to take its hard socio-economic realities into consideration. As a predominantly agrarian country, land is scarce in Bangladesh and its population is also dense. Furthermore, maintenance standards of even low-tech installations here is hardly up to the mark. In this context, the plan to go for a nuclear plant should involve a critical scrutiny of all the pluses and minuses, before undertaking such a venture under the specific circumstances in Bangladesh. Then, there will be little scope for any future debate. However, it must also be noted that there is yet no foolproof method of safe nuclear waste disposal. That makes the case so important for exercising utmost caution about all inter-related issues about pricing and safety of nuclear energy. Meanwhile, Bangladesh should also focus its attention, with a befitting priority, to development of alternative sources of energy.
Some dangers of atomic energy are unique in the nature of the fuel used. Major disasters on all levels of radioactive fallout, be it from leaks in civilian reactors, medical use, bombs or bullets, do bear this out. But these hazards are often not taken seriously on the grounds that all mills and factories have some amount of risk, and development projects cannot stop just because of that. The Boston-based Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, a group of scientists that has been relentlessly trying to raise awareness, states categorically that even perfectly functioning nuclear power plants may be 'committing pre-meditated random murder ... because some risk is associated with any dose of radiation, however small.' Radio-biologists researching this aspect also suspect that emission from nuclear reactors in Canada, India, the US and Britain may be linked to birth defect clusters and leukemias in the neigbourhood.
In Bangladesh, however, there are strong arguments in favour of setting up a nuclear power project under the given circumstances in its energy sector. As such, the pluses of the nuclear power project deserve a serious consideration. But it will also be important to take its hard socio-economic realities into consideration. As a predominantly agrarian country, land is scarce in Bangladesh and its population is also dense. Furthermore, maintenance standards of even low-tech installations here is hardly up to the mark. In this context, the plan to go for a nuclear plant should involve a critical scrutiny of all the pluses and minuses, before undertaking such a venture under the specific circumstances in Bangladesh. Then, there will be little scope for any future debate. However, it must also be noted that there is yet no foolproof method of safe nuclear waste disposal. That makes the case so important for exercising utmost caution about all inter-related issues about pricing and safety of nuclear energy. Meanwhile, Bangladesh should also focus its attention, with a befitting priority, to development of alternative sources of energy.