Say "NO" to Nuclear!

Much less controversial this time. I am sure many of you already agree! "NO" to nuclear!

What a mess the Fukushima incident is! Radioactive iodine levels reached over 1000 times the safety limit in the sea off Fukushima due to a leak! Thank goodness the half life of Iodine-131 is only 8 days. Now, they are dumping contaminated water into the sea, justifying it by saying that the ocean is going to dilute it down to safe levels. I hope this is going to be one off but chances are, with reactor 1 building up hydrogen gas and 2 and 3 still requiring continuous water cooling, we are going to see more dumping.

Further more. There has been nothing said about the type of contamination in the water they are dumping. Radioactive plutonium, uranium or caesium last for years and could easily be concentrated in the food chain.

The disaster is not as severe as Chernobyl where radioactive fuel rods actually exploded and the material entered the environment. I hope Fukushima never comes to that! The consequences of Chernobyl is highly controversial due to the big difference in opinions. The numbers reported by greenpeace is most likely exaggerated and reports by UN probably downplayed the severity. Therefore, estimated cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl range from 4000 to 50000 depending who you believe.

Many would argue coal fired power plant causes many more deaths. Every year, hundreds die in coal mining accidents. Keep in mind, the coal mined isn't just for power plants. Much of it goes to heating as well as steel smelting. Therefore the numbers are exaggerated. What's even more important is that how does one compared instantaneous death in mining accidents to chronic diseases like cancer? Cost wise, cancer is definitely way more expensive to the health system compared to instantaneous death as patients need continuous care and treatment till they die. So is a cancer worth two mining deaths? three? Four? Is it even sane to compare it like that? The truth is they are like apple and oranges, you can argue to the cows come home and no one can say whether nuclear is safer than coal.

They argue that nuclear plants don't emit any green house gasses. There are also many other methods that do not emit green house gasses; like solar, hydro, wind and geothermal. It is a lame excuse to imply there are no other alternatives. Japan is in a geothermal rich area, therefore it is an even lamer excuse. Currently, only 0.1% of Japan's electricity power supply comes from geothermal, they can definitely do much better!

Everything comes down to cost doesn't it? The Emission Trading Scheme that has been rejected by both USA and Australia because it is claimed too costly. Well, let's look at cost. A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run US$0.25- 0.30 per kWh. That is just the cost without any profits. The average US consumer pays US$0.11 per kWh. That just means that nuclear power must be heavily subsidised by the US government for it to be viable! Isn't that stupid? Wind, hydro and geothermal all range between US$0.06-0.14 per kWh, there is really no excuse to be using nuclear.


Putting aside the safety debate which will never be conclusive as well as the green house debate, which there are many alternative choices; we can only argue with cost. Clearly, nuclear is so much more expensive than all the alternative choices! It's really a no brainer at all, say "NO" to nuclear!