Anything Less Will Simply Not Work

ANYTHING LESS WILL SIMPLY NOT WORK

by Antonio C. Antonio

November 17, 2014

“Public Acceptance of Radioactive Waste Management: The Malaysian Experience” by Syed A. Malik and Samsudin A. Rahim is a good read.  It effectively separated common myths and science of nuclear energy.  It also made a distinction on the advantages of nuclear power as opposed to the dire disadvantages of it. 

Please allow me to bring this issue closer to home by drawing parallel lines between the Malaysian and Philippine experiences on nuclear energy.  The single-biggest problem that the nuclear power program of Malaysia and the Philippines was and still is public acceptance.  “There are several reasons for our environmental problems.  But if I were to narrow these down to only three, I should say (1) human greed, (2) the inequitable distribution of benefits from our natural resources, and (3) the lack of education and awareness for environmental issues, matters and concerns.  These three causes should cover all aspects of human behaviour --- social, cultural, political and economic.  These, in my mind, are the most profound causes of our environmental problems.” (Antonio, 2014, http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/2014/08/environmental-problems.html)  Highlighting “the lack of education and awareness for environmental issues, matters and concerns” tend to point towards the lack of knowledge and information on nuclear energy as the main cause for the low level acceptability of nuclear power.

The more pertinent question now would be “Why are people, in general, opposed to nuclear energy?”  The spectre of the atomic bomb being detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Japan) towards the end of World War II has created a long-lasting image of death and destruction in the human psych.  The worldview on the evils of nuclear energy will not just simply go away.  “Why are a lot of people biased when it comes to nuclear energy?  The reason is simple… “Nuclear energy has proven to be an unstable source of power which even advanced countries failed to make safe.  The nuclear accidents in the United States, U.S.S.R. and Japan [Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011) respectively] gave reasons for the world to take a second suspicious and prejudicial look at the safety and sustainability of nuclear energy.” (Antonio, 2014 - http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/2014/10/nuclear-energy.html)

The system and procedure of nuclear waste disposal in another contemptuous and critical issue… as well as the soundness of the infrastructure where radioactive waste is to be disposed.  Barry Commoner’s Second Law of Ecology states: “EVERYTHING MUST GO SOMEWHERE.  There is “waste” in nature and there is no “away” to which things can be thrown.  Even if we designated planet Mars as our dumpsite for man’s toxic and radioactive wastes, these unhealthy by-products of nuclear energy will still have to go somewhere.  Nuclear energy, even if it the cheapest and cost effective form of energy, will eventually be more expensive if we have to dispose of its by-products far enough not to affect humans.” (Antonio, 2014, http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/2014/10/nuclear-waste-and-four-laws-of-ecology.html)

Malik and Rahim were right to say that the NIMBY (an acronym for Not In My Backyard) syndrome applies everywhere.  In Malaysia, the acceptance of sound radioactive waste management and disposal was not too good.  The Asian Rare Earth Sdn. Bhd. (ARE), the Malaysian Geological Survey Department, and the Malaysian Department of Environment were not too successful in communicating the good message of nuclear energy to the public.

In the Philippines, the use of nuclear energy was seriously considered during the last years of the Marcos Administration.  The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was built with a total cost of $2.3 billion (including interest) as of 2009.  Decommissioned before construction was even completed, the BNPP is a 40-year old mothballed project.  At present, there are a lot of issues on safety and sustainability that needs to be addressed if this facility is to be put into operation.  U.S. nuclear engineer Robert Pollard who did his own inspection of the BNPP in the early 80s after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents in the United States and U.S.S.R. then concluded that the BNPP is not safe since it used an old design plagued with unresolved safety issues, making it a potential hazard to the safety and health of the public. (http://www.yonip.com/is-the-bataan-nuclear-power-plant-safe-by-professor-roland-g-simbulan/)

“Nuclear energy has proven to be an unstable source of power which even advanced countries failed to make safe.  The nuclear accidents in the United States, U.S.S.R. and Japan (Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011) respectively) gave reasons for the world to take a second suspicious and prejudicial look at the safety and sustainability of nuclear energy.” (Antonio, 2014, http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/2014/10/nuclear-energy.html)  But more advanced economies still persist in the use of nuclear energy.  They even go as far as saying that it is the only practical alternative source of energy.  Having stated this and in conclusion, there still are more plausible methods and effective procedures to follow to increase the level of knowledge and awareness on this alternative source of energy, such as:

1. A comprehensive scientific STUDY that should allay the fear of the general public on the economics and advantages of using nuclear energy as an alternative.
2. A clear and understandable and acceptable MESSAGE on the safety of the radioactive waste management and disposal.
3. A well structured COMMUNICATIONS plan that would translate to confidence among the general public.

Anything less will simply not work.

Just my little thoughts…

(Please visit, like and share Pro EARTH Crusaders and Landscape Ecology UPOU on Facebook or follow me at http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/.)