“The rate of radioactivity released into the atmosphere in Fukushima remains dangerously high.”
The tragedy that struck the Japanese nuclear plant in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake and the ensuing tsunami should serve as aword of warning rather than a door- closer
About three years ago, theworld stood witness to the second- most aggressive nuclear disaster of our era since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986. Across world media, Japanese nuclear workers were seen fighting frantically to cool down three nuclear reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant at a time when the reactors were in full swing and damaged by both the most powerful earthquake that ever hit Japan and a violent tsunami with waves towering 12 to 14metres in height.
Sending shockwaves throughout the globe, the disaster devastated the region, its inhabitants and its wild life. Not tomention the thousands and thousands of lives lost and count less severe injuries to those who were fortunate to survive. Survivors were left homeless and dispirited. Their homeland devastated by critical levels of radiation; the region plagued by nuclear contamination that was set to outlive most of the survivors.
More than three years on, and not without concern, the situation on site remains extremely volatile. There is still a very real and serious threat of nuclear proliferation coming fromthe same power plant. Continuing to date, hundreds of tonnes of radioactive water is generated by the first four units of the Fukushima power plant. This situation is aggravated by the seeming inability of the Japanese operator’s nuclear experts to stop the fission of hundreds of tonnes of uranium inside the reactors of units 1, 2 and 3 and that of the 250 tonnes of uranium bars stocked into the fuel spent pool of Unit 4. Hundreds of tonnes of radioactive water is polluting the Pacific Ocean, the soil, the subsoil and the groundwater of the Fukushima Daiichi site and its surroundings. It is hard to fathom the reach of the impact of continuous radioactivity focused in one area over protracted periods of time. The full range of consequences is potentially immeasurable.
The rate of radioactivity released into the atmosphere in Fukushima remains dangerously high for the flora, fauna and not to mention the risk of contamination to human beings generally. This stands as a continued blow to Fukushima’s and its neighbouring areas’ rehabilitation post 2011.
Despite this, ecological organisations, local media, relevant Japanese authorities appear to be mute on the dangers. The general silence on the subject has given the world the false impression that the Fukushima site is clear of all nuclear danger. This no doubt helped boost Japan’s subsequent successful bid to host the 2020 Summer Olympic Games. The Fukushima nuclear disaster is not a national problem limited to Japanese borders. Radioactive emissions raise very real cross- border concerns. Perhaps the Japanese authorities should have called upon the competencies of other countries specialised in nuclear civil energy, which are-well- armed to fight against this nuclear disaster, so as to avoid radioactive emissions being generated over protracted periods of time.
At the time of writing this article, it has not yet been declared with any degree of certainty by independent international nuclear energy organisations when this horrendous nuclear accident will be totally brought under control. Three years on, there is no conclusive confirmation of the safety of the Fukushima plant. This makes for a very dangerous situation, with consequences that may well be immeasurable in the longer term.
Unjustified criticism
On a different note, some very effective nuclear technologies for the production of efficient and safe energy have widely been painted with uncertainty and negativity. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, swarms of protesters and lobbyistswere quick to jump on to the bandwagon in an attempt to dissuade global participants from further monopolising nuclear energy. Not even France, widely regarded as a leading force in civil nuclear power generation, was spared unjustified criticism. It is important to note that France generates approximately 80 per cent of its energy demands through nuclear energy and also supplies neighbouring countries on the back of its nuclear exploits. It has done so for decades without disaster.
Disasters do not happen on their own. They are often the result of gross mistakes. The present- day challenge is to learn from past mistakes with a view to modernise practices to assure highest standards of safety.
The UAE has set a strong example for countries that have adopted less- favourable nuclear energy policies due to fears of another Fukushima- like disaster in their backyard without necessarily realising or being aware of the grave errors committed during the construction, operation and maintenance phases of the Fukushima nuclear plant. For the construction of the Braka nuclear power plant of 5,600MWe, consisting of four units each with reactor APR- 1400, the UAE has developed a sophisticated framework with the highest international safety standards, applying full transparency and maintaining close collaboration with national and international entities — principally, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Association of Nuclear Operators.
As such, Fukushima is taken as a word of warning and not as a door- closer on nuclear energy development as an achievable alternative conduit for safe, sustainable and environmentfriendly alternative to other conventional sources of energy.