| The "Safe" and "Environmental-friendly" nuclear power What spurred me to write about nuclear power was the Finnish Parliament's decision to allow the building of the fifth nuclear reactor in Finland. The Finnish way of thinking is often very backward, and that's especially true when it comes to different ways of producing or saving energy. The misconceptions about nuclear power and how it is "safe" and "environmental-friendly" are very typical here in Finland, and this editorial is aimed for anyone who still thinks so. Uranium mining and milling While the advocates for nuclear power are eager to speak of the carbon-dioxide emissions produced by traditional energy forms, they rarely even know where uranium is mined, and what the consequences of the mining are. For anyone even slightly familiar with the subject, it would be impossible to term nuclear power "environmental-friendly". In Uzbekistan and parts of Russia the situation is equal to a catastrophy as far as nature is concerned, and the number of people dying of cancer in these areas is past alarming. While the most passionate supporters of nuke power like to call Greenpeace members emotional hippies who really know nothing, the Greenpeace is at least aware of the fact that "In the countries where uranium mining and milling takes place, it leaves behind a deadly trail of radioactive waste and pollution, contaminating the local environment and causing ill health effects on the local communities. Uranium mining can also seriously damage workers health, especially if ventilation is inadequate." (www.greenpeace.org) "Safety" Those who claim that nuclear power is safe not only seem to believe without any doubt that no errors or accidents will ever occur in any nuclear reactor (although it has happened many times already), but also that the places where nuclear waste is finally placed will remain unshaken and untouched for thousands or millions of years.This is shortsighted, naive and unrealistic. The minor earthquakes that take place daily all over the world (yes, even in Finland), wars, meteors etc., none of these seem to worry the nuke-fan. It is known throughout the world that the problem concerning the final placement of nuclear waste has not even been properly solved yet, and still these people have an amazing confidence (or a disregard) about the future. Another point: It is not just about how likely a serious accident is, it's also about how catastrophical the results will be if such an accident occurs. Looking at it this way, almost any given form of producing energy is safer than nuke power. |
| Economical? Necessary? Another common theme surrounding the discussion of nuclear power is it's "necessity" and money.The claims that it is necessary for accomodating the growing use of energy and that it is more economical than renewable energy are often heard (at least here in Finland).The latter statement is actually untrue (and even if it were true, it would not be a very good argument - a little extra money won't help much when a catastrophy has happened), and as for the former, saving energy rather than consuming more and more is the only solution in the long run. Please visit the Green League of Finland's site (link below) to find out more. www.vihrealiitto.fi In English: www.vihrealiitto.fi/english.shtml |
| I am the Yellow Bastard. |