Nuclear advocates say nuclear energy is a solution to global warming and will provide energy security, while opponents feel the risks far outweigh the benefits
SUPARA JANCHITFAH
People from all walks of life gathered at Kashiwazaki town to demand that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant be shut down. They are concerned about active faults in the vicinity and safety measures of the plant. |
Some buildings in Kashiwazaki city are still under restoration. |
'Hai-ro, Hai-ro" - Japanese for "shut down" - was in the air along city streets in Kashiwazaki a few weeks ago as more than 1,000 people from the city and nearby towns shouted and held up banners blazoned with these words. Kashiwazaki, about 300 kilometres from Tokyo, is situated nearby the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). With 8,212 MW installation capacity, it is the largest nuclear power plant in the world.
In the last year people in the vicinity have been living with fresh anxiety and uncertainty over the safety of nuclear power. On July 16, 2007, the 6.8 magnitude Chuetsu-oki earthquake in Niigata prefecture, resulted in 15 fatalities. The earthquake caused pipes to burst in one of the seven reactors of the power station. Drums of nuclear waste were toppled and monitors stopped working. A fire in an electrical transformer burned unattended for over two hours and 1,200 litres of contaminated water sloshed into the sea.
Two of the seven reactors were ordered to shut down after the earthquake. All reactors are under a periodic inspection regimen.
There was a great deal of conflicting information about the situation and consequences of the earthquake, with government officials and representatives of the plant operator doing their best to nullify the concerns of the locals. According to Tepco's website, the "release of radioactive materials from the main exhaust stacks are being regularly measured and no radioactive material has been detected. There is no impact to the environment due to the displacement of ducts."
Addressing another key point, the website says that "at units 1 to 5 and 7, water overflowed from the spent fuel pools, remained in the controlled area of the reactor building and was not released to the environment.
"At unit 6, water overflowed from the spent fuel pool leaked into the non-controlled area of the reactor building and a part of the leaked water was released into the sea through the discharge outlet."
Tepco's Foreign Office insists that the reactors worked as designed in an emergency situation, automatically shutting down as the quake struck and releasing an insignificant amount of radiation, lower than amounts permissible under the law.
The signs of the 2007 earthquake still remain. |
Not satisfied with assurances of safety from Tepco and government officials, people from all walks of life, young and old, have joined the movement demanding the shutdown of all seven reactors. One of the main reasons for their sense of urgency, they say, is that they have witnessed abnormal changes in the surroundings after the earthquakes. For example, a women's group in Kashiwazaki called attention to the fact that many of the beautiful cherry blossoms in the area are deformed this season. Some have only four petals instead of the usual five. Some vegetables also show unusual defects.
A primary environmental concern is the well-being of children living near nuclear facilities. Many fear that they will face an increased risk of cancer.
Toshiko Oshima, from the town of Kariwa where the plant is located, said: "I wish the government would order the nuclear plant to shut down. We would never know it if our children were being affected."
Japan is well known for its seismic activity, but an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released in February after its most recent investigation implies that despite guarantees to the contrary from the operators, the power plant was not capable of withstanding the major earthquake. The report states: "The consequences of the earthquake on the plant were unique in the sense that the levels of seismic ground motion estimated in the design process were very significantly exceeded by the event." In addition to this, the fire protection system was found inadequate for an active seismic zone.
Locals in Kashiwazaki have banded together with members of Japanese anti-nuclear networks to collect 65,000 signatures on a petition to ask the government to order Tepco to shut down the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station because of their fears about safety and environmental impacts. They submitted the petitions at the Parliament Building in Tokyo on July 1.
"Visual inspections would not be adequate to detect some internal conditions of the facilities and reactors. Moreover, there are a number of active fault lines in the area," said Sadao Kaneko, a leader in the anti-nuclear movement in Niigata Prefecture.
People in Kashiwazaki began filing lawsuits to prevent the construction of the power plant in 1979. The court proceedings were time consuming, however, and when the cases were finally decided the reactors were already in operation (see related story.)
Not all people in the area are opposed to the power plant of course, and many locals are employed there. The demonstrators, pointing to damaged buildings in the town which still show the force of last year's earthquake, say they understand that people have to work, but the defective power plants are a threat to public safety.
Accidents Increase Concerns
Nuclear energy accounts for about 31 percent of the total energy produced and consumed by the Japanese people. There are 17 power stations with 55 reactors in the country, with a total capacity of around 49,580 MW.
Nuclear advocates in Thailand often cite Japan as an example of a country where people welcome the use of nuclear energy, despite the fact that there have been accidents, and despite the fact that Japan knows better than any other country the terrible power of nuclear fission.
But is it true that the Japanese welcome nuclear energy? There are increasing public concerns over many recent accidents at Japanese power plants, some caused by technical and some by human errors.
For example, in 1997, 35 workers were contaminated by radiation after a fire at a processing plant was not extinguished properly and caused an explosion at Tokaimura nuclear power station.
In July 1999, coolant water leaked from a pipe in the building that houses the reactor at the Tsuruga nuclear power plant in northern Japan. The leak produced radiation 11,500 times the safety limit.
In 2004, hot water and steam leaking from a broken pipe in a building housing turbines for the Mihama reactor No.3 killed five workers and resulted in six others being injured. The accident has been called Japan's worst nuclear power accident. At the very same station in 2006 another fire occurred, with two workers sustaining injuries.
There are many non-profit organisations in Japan that are standing up against the construction of nuclear power plants and related businesses such as spent fuel enrichment.
A particular flashpoint is the construction of the nuclear power plants on or near active faults. Anti-nuclear groups collected 900,000 signatures demanding that all such plants be shut down. One of the prominent campaigners in the movement is the former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland, Murata Mitsuhei.
Last month, the No Nuke Asia Forum 2008 was organised in Japan, with some Thai civic groups participating in the forum, which was first held in 1993. The forum, funded by local Asian civic groups and donations from ordinary people, aims to provide a platform for Asian people to exchange their experiences concerning nuclear energy and related businesses.
Korn-uma Pongnoi, a leader in the grassroots environmental movement in Thailand who was present at the forum, expressed her concerns about how nuclear energy is now being promoted in Thailand.
"Japan is more technologically advanced than Thailand. It has more educated people and its government pays more attention to the safety of its people. Yet it has encountered many problems from the operation of nuclear power plants.
"What about us, a country in which corruption is rampant and safety standards in little matters such as providing fire escapes cannot be enforced in all buildings? Think about what will happen in Thailand if we decide to go nuclear," she remarked.
Nuclear PR
In Thailand there has long been a widespread mistrust of nuclear power. A project for a 10 MW research reactor in Nakhon Nayok province has been shelved because the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace (OAEP) has not been able to secure a licence to operate. Yet the Thai government has given the green-light for nuclear power plant feasibility studies.
Kamol Takabut, an assistant governor of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, told the Asean+3 Conference on Nuclear Energy Safety last month in Bangkok that the study was expected to take two years to complete. Five candidates have been shortlisted to conduct the study.
However, well ahead of the feasibility study, public relations campaigns in support of nuclear energy have penetrated every household. A budget of 1.8 billion baht was allocated for nuclear energy study. About 600 million baht of this, all from tax revenues, was used for public relations supporting nuclear energy across the country. Meanwhile, a programme to introduce the subject of nuclear energy in all schools nationwide emphasises the advantages while hardly mentioning the disadvantages.
Montien Thamawat, from a civic group in Ranong province, criticised the Thai government's decision to promote nuclear energy. "Our government should pay attention to renewable energy instead. We have not yet seriously explored the possibilities of renewable energy, but they want to go nuclear. I have learned from our Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese friends that they have troubles over spent fuels and waste. Moreover, spent-fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for nuclear weapons," she noted, adding that the Ratcha-krud faultline is located in Ranong province, once on the list of potential nuclear sites.
As noted at the forum by Dr Gloria Kuang-Jung Hsu of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, National Taiwan University, of the many concerns over the operation of nuclear power plants, one of the most formidable is how to find a reliable radioactive waste storage site. She talked of the waste management situation in Taiwan.
"No longer able to send waste to Orchid Island (home of ethnic Taiwanese), plant operators must store low-level wastes on-site. The same is true of spent fuel.
"As of May 2002, there were 78,800 barrels of nuclear waste stored at three nuclear power plants in Taiwan," said the scientist. The three sites are intended to have a combined 27,000 barrel storage capacity.
Korn-uma and Montien have joined activists from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia who participated in the 2008 forum in asking the Japanese government not to lend support to proposals to export nuclear technology for power plants and related issues, especially to Asian countries.
Nuclear energy is not a stand-alone issue. It is also closely connected to the spread of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, advocates claim it is the "silver bullet" in stopping global warming.
In the statement released by participants at the close of the forum, it was urged that climate policies be shifted away from the promotion of nuclear energy and emphasise renewable energy instead.
Korn-uma said that she was disappointed that even in Japan, some people in positions of responsibility paint the same rosy picture of nuclear power as Thai officials.
"They say everything will be up to standards, no harmful substances will be released and everyone will benefit from the projects. But who actually will benefit? Certainly not the common people like us," added Korn-uma.
Note: This is the first in a series on nuclear energy and its role in climate change strategies.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next
