eurasiareview | As staff member of the Hiroshima Peace Institute you are
first-rank witness of the severest nuclear catastrophe of modern times.
Fukushima typifies several dangers of all things nuclear: The
difficulties to control the technology, the recklessness of
administrations, both private and public, and the fact that
radioactivity does not respect national borders. How do you see the
catastrophe?
RJ: I see the catastrophe as absolutely horrifying and ongoing. There
is no discernible end in sight to this tragedy, radiation will continue
to seep into the Pacific Ocean for decades. I think that there were
many instances of negligence that facilitated the disaster. The design
of the reactors and site was bad. The maintenance of the plant was
neglected for decades. Adequate emergency procedures were never designed
or enacted. In many ways, this highlights the problems not just of
nuclear power but especially of privately run, for profit, nuclear power
plants. In this case profits are raised by lowering costs, a process
which both facilitated and accelerated the disaster. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) notoriously has neglected its nuclear plants in honour of increasing profitability.
Beyond this, I would say that we also see illustrated here that the
decisions to build nuclear plants are national ones, but when they have
problems they are always global in scale. When one considers the time
scale of some of the radionuclides that enter the ecosystem from nuclear
disasters, they will stay in the ecosystem for thousands of years (as
will the radionuclides in the spent fuel rods when they operate without a
meltdown). These radionuclides will simply cycle through the ecosystem
for millenniums. These toxins will remain dangerous for hundreds of
generations and will disperse throughout the planet. At Fukushima the
benefits of the electricity generated by the plants will have lasted
barely longer than one generation while the sickness and contamination
resulting from the disaster will last for hundreds.
‘Cold shutdown’ catastrophe
How do you evaluate the government’s handling of the catastrophe,
for instance, the fact that only 12 square kilometres around the site
have been evacuated?
RJ: The government’s handling of the disaster is a second disaster.
Virtually every decision has been driven by two things: money and public
relations. The decision to evacuate only 12 square kilometres was
driven by concerns of cost and not by concerns of public health. When
the government mandates evacuation they incur financial
responsibilities. This is why they limited it to 12 km. They made a
“suggested” evacuation area of 20 square kilometres.
Why the difference? Mandatory vs. suggested? The area between 12 and
20 km where evacuation is suggested means that the government bears no
fiscal responsibility for those evacuees. If they evacuate, it is their
own decision, and must be done at their own cost. These people are in a
terrible bind. They know that they must evacuate because of the levels
of radiation, but they will receive no assistance. Their homes are now
worthless and cannot be sold. They are on their own. They have become
both contaminated and impoverished. The other thing guiding decision
making by the government is public relations.
While they knew that there had been a full meltdown on the first day
of the disaster, and three full meltdowns by the third day, they denied
this for almost three months. The reason this was done was to control
perceptions. They managed to keep the word “meltdown” off the front
pages of the world’s newspapers during the period when they were focused
on Fukushima.
When the government acknowledged the meltdowns almost three months
later the story was on page 10 or page 12 of international papers. This
is a success for them. At the end of 2011 they declared the plants in
“cold shutdown.” This is insane. The term cold shutdown refers to the
activities of an undamaged and fully functional reactor. A reactor whose
fuel has melted and is now located somewhere unknown beneath the
reactor building, and that must have water poured on it for years to
keep it cool are not in cold shutdown. This was just a way of saying to
people that the event was over and everything was under control–absolute
conscious lies. These concerns, costs and perceptions have guided the
government’s response far more than public safety has.
0 comments:
Post a Comment