Effects of Japans Reliance on Nuclear Energy - Essay Example

no. Effects of Japan’s reliance on nuclear energy Global warming is a that has attracted a lot of global attention in recent times. The use of coal as a source of fuel is one of the major causes of global warming. As a result, most countries, particularly industrialized countries, are looking for alternative means of energy production. The most probable and favored source of fuel to replace coal is nuclear energy since nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Today, most countries in Europe, Asia and the United States have turned to nuclear energy production to meet the demand for the energy. However, there are concerns over the effects of nuclear related activities on the health and safety of the human race. Japan is among the countries that have embraced nuclear energy production, meaning that the country is becoming more reliant on nuclear energy to as the main source of fuel. In fact, Japan, according to The New York Times, relies on nuclear reactors for about 30 per cent of all electricity needs (11).However, in March 2011; Japan suffered one of the worst nuclear accidents in the world history. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant experienced a meltdown caused by the combined effects of an earthquake and a tsunami. The 9.0 earthquake and the subsequent 45-foot tsunami were too much for the power plant to withstand thus causing the meltdown. The meltdown led to the emission of radioactive materials into the atmosphere that threatened the lives of the people living near the plant. The events of the Daiichi nuclear plant in 2011 form the basis of this discussion. This paper seeks to identify and analyze the effects of Japan’s reliance on nuclear energy and how the safety of nuclear is undermined by waste disposal and meltdowns. In accordance to meltdowns, nuclear energy comes from fuel rods that require to be kept under water to ensure cool temperatures in order to prevent the rods from melting. A reduction in the amount of cooling water would cause the rods to overheat and melt, thus exerting pressure on the reactor. Such pressure could make the reactors to burst and start emitting radioactive material into the atmosphere. Any country dealing with nuclear energy needs to ensure that nuclear plants are routinely inspected to measure the amount of stress the reactors can withstand. Being a heavy reliant on nuclear energy, Japan should be in the lead of ensuring that its nuclear plants are resistant to meltdowns. Washington Post states that a report released by an independent parliamentary commission, the affected power plant had been already weakened by the earthquake, prior to the tsunami (1). Such a report is worrying, considering how prone Japan is to earthquakes. In an even more daunting admission, the Tokyo Electric Power Company which operates the Daiichi plant revealed that it had failed to take adequate measures to prevent the reactors from melting. According to the Washington Post, the company feared that such a move would suggest that the plant was unsafe, thereby sparking off riots (2). In addition, the reputation of Japan as having the most invincible nuclear plants would be ruined (ibid). I consider the actions of the Tokyo Electric Power Company to be careless, since their inaction could have led to the deaths of thousands of Japanese people. The government of Japan should also be keener in monitoring the state of her nuclear plants and assessing the amount of stress the plants can withstand. Had Japan taken the appropriate measures and increased the height of the seawall at Fukushima and improved the cooling system, then the accident would have been prevented. Nuclear plants can pose danger to the country and its neighborhood. As already explained in the meltdown sections, nuclear can cause massive explosions if not stored under required temperatures. It is a regulatory requirement that nuclear plants be regularly inspected to assure safety to the country. With the vulnerability of Japan to earthquake, it is dangerous to have the plant which is a great risk to life of the people. Nuclear safety is hence compromised in cases where earthquake may occur and result into meltdown. Safety is a pre-requisite for any person and any citizen in any country. In Japan, however, the proximity of nuclear plants to areas of settlement is a major concern issue for the people living in those areas. Such populations are constantly worrying about the possibility of nuclear explosions and the subsequent effects on their health. According to Tabuchi & Wald, the effects of the Fukushima incident justified the safety concerns as hydrogen explosions rocked the nuclear plant resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the air (2). Although there were no fatalities reported, the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere was more than the total amount a person is supposed to be exposed to in a period of one year (ibid). According to Gronlund, Lochbaum, &Lyman, the exposure to radioactive materials can have serious effects on a person’s health through cell damage that eventually causes cancer (15). This is why evacuation orders are given for areas in close proximity to a nuclear plant emitting radioactive materials. Information from the New York Times states that for Japan the meltdown meant that people living within 12 miles of the nuclear plant had to face mandatory evacuation to shield them from the grave effects of the radiation (3). More specifically, about 5,000 of the people living within Minami Soma were evacuated. In general approximately 90, 000 people were evacuated from different areas affected by the radiation, across Japan. One year after the Fukushima incident, the Japanese government has put in place more stringent safety measures to prevent nuclear crises in future. According to the Washington Post, nuclear plants all over Japan have undergone safety improvement measures including backup water for cooling, stronger and longer seawalls, and training of staff on crisis management (1). Although the people living around Fukushima did not suffer any serious apparent harm from the radiation, their lives were disrupted due to the evacuation. The more than 90,000 people became refugees in their own country due to the incident. I think Japan should consider the geographical locations of her nuclear plants, by ensuring that they are not in close proximity to human populations. This way, in case of the accidental emission of radioactive material, less people will be affected. Safety is a major concern to every nation. It is a life risk to the residence that has homes near the nuclear plants. There are suspected emissions from the plant that is a health hazard to the population. Risks of explosion have also caused great fear among the residence that there might be unanticipated explosion of the nuclear that may cause massive death. Nuclear plants are also associated with vibrant emissions that can pose health risks to the residence. Waste disposal is key to environmental conservation and the proper disposal of waste materials is an important factor in nuclear related activities. In the process of nuclear energy production, spent nuclear fuel comes off as by-product and a waste product. According to Gronlund, Lochbaum, &Lyman, this fuel has the capacity to remain highly radioactive for thousands of years, thus becoming an environmental hazard (45). As a result, nuclear plants should ensure that there are measures put in place to ensure that the spent fuel is either fully recycled or disposed off safely. The Fukushima disaster in Japan was aggravated by the fact that the third generator was holding spent fuel rods that easily caught fire. Therefore, the lack of proper waste disposal methods raises a lot of concern over Japan’s reliance on nuclear energy. The main issue is that if Japan cannot afford to have areas specifically designated for dumping waste materials, then the country should probably abandon all nuclear operations. Earlier on in 2012, according to Tabuchi &Wald, there were reports that a reactor at the Daiichi plant was bulging, thus creating fears that another catastrophe would occur (1). The real danger is posed by dozens of used fuel rods containing cesium lying on top of a damaged reactor (ibid). One slight accident could trigger off a fire since the rods are highly flammable. Although experts were quick to dispel fears of such an accident claiming that the fuel inside the pool is too old to react, there is no guarantee. The government of Japan stated that the clearing of the used fuels from the pool would only begin in 2013 while making it apparent that the clearing process would take many years to complete. The major issue of concern is where the waste materials will be disposed off. As a matter of environmental protection, such materials should be disposed off in areas where they cannot enter the air and water, thus ending up in the food chain. The only problem lies with identifying areas that are scientifically and technically qualified for holding the waste material. In my opinion, Japan should adopt the geological method of dumping nuclear waste, whereby such waste is buried deep within scientifically approved geological sites. The waste can stay there and decompose, with very minimal chances of getting back into the food chain. Geological sites are also much safer than pools, since the latter can be accessed by terrorists who use the spent nuclear fuel to manufacture nuclear weapons. Waste management is something overlooked by most organizations and plants. People fail to realize the importance of environmental conservations. Nuclear plant is associated with hazardous wastes that can impact negatively on the health of individuals. Nuclear emissions are known to pollute air and cause respiratory illnesses. The emissions are also cancerous and may lead to serious health effects. The nuclear wastes that are poorly disposed are a risk to the population as they are associated with chemicals that may be poisonous and explosive. As opposed to the negative effects of nuclear power, nuclear energy is also advantageous in away. In comparison with other sources of energy, nuclear power has very minimal rates of pollution. Nuclear energy also requires a small amount of its raw materials in order to generate a very huge nuclear energy amount. For instance, 28bm of Uranium generates about 100 metric tons of coal. Atomic materials can also be transported easily to long distances since they are required in smaller quantities making transportation very easy. Cheap electricity may also result from nuclear energy if the power stations are utilized and fully operated. Nuclear power and plants also produce small quantity of disposal waste. In summary, it is evident from the paper that nuclear pose danger to the population. It requires regular inspections and strict storage temperatures that may not be achieved by the plant operators. It is therefore likely to experience explosion which may cause massive death. Emissions from nuclear plants may also result into environmental hazards and cause respiratory diseases to the population. The safety of the people staying around the nuclear plant is also faced with safety concerns resulting from the waste disposals from the nuclear plant. Evidently, since Japan has adopted nuclear energy as a substitute for coal as a source of fuel because of the latter’s contribution to global warming, there are major concerns regarding the safety of nuclear energy. Japanese authorities should take adequate steps to prevent any incidents of meltdown in nuclear processing plants. In addition, the safety of the population should be prioritized over the commercial viability of nuclear energy. If the Japanese government does not institute these corrective measures, then more nuclear disasters lie in wait. The result of such disasters will be the deterioration of the economic, social, and political aspects of Japanese life. Works cited Gronlund, Lisbeth, Lochbaum, David, &Lyman, Edwin. Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges. Cambridge: UCS Publications. 2007. Print. “Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown Could Have Been Prevented.”Washington Post. Washington Post, n.d. Web.23 Oct. 2012. “Nuclear Energy.” The New York Times. The New York Times, n.d. Web.23 Oct. 2012. Tabuchi, Hiroko & Wald, Matthew. “Spent Fuel Rods Drive Growing Fear Over Plant In Japan.2012.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 May 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. Read More