Global warming is now a very serious issue, the polar caps are melting and the earth
is now at a critical stage. Fossil fuels are non-renewable and we are looking for alternatives.
Nuclear Energy is the subject of discussion once more. Throughout Europe and other parts of
the world aging reactors that are reaching the end of their lifespan and licences are being
decommissioned and people are seeking more environmentally friendly options. However, there is a
strong body of argument to extend licences on these reactors and even build many more as they do
not damage the ozone layer or release greenhouse gases.
It is now more than twenty years since the Chernobyl Catastrophe, the long shadow of side affects
will continue to cause suffering indefinately. At present over 3 MILLION children in the Ukraine,
Belarus and Russia require treatment for cancers and other illnesses caused directly by fallout.
This does not include the 650,000 liquidators involved in the cleanup, all of which received very high
doses of radiation. It is estimated that up to 10,000 of these are now dead, the rest of which
have related illnesses.
The unborn are still suffering, the full extent of victims will not be known until 2016, 30 YEARS
after the accident. A 30 MILE exclusion still remains around the town of Prypiat, once the home of
45,000, now a ghost town.
Undeniably this was an unsafe plant which operating outside of normal safety regulations in a
Soviet era of negligence and corruption. However it is not an isolated incident. The UK, Germany,
USA have all had serious accidents, Russia and Japan are the most notable, Japan has had more
nuclear incidents than any other country.
France is often used a leading example in the argument for Nuclear Energy as a way forward. They
have had had no major accidents at any of their plants, although this is true, one significant
problem remains; the disposal of nuclear waste and used fuel rods.
At present we have no way of treating or ‘making safe’ the bi-products of the nuclear industry.
Currently they are being buried deep in the ground and we’re hoping for the best. For an industry
that claims to be cutting edge and hi-tec this is hardly safe or good science.
Countries which at one time rejected Nuclear Energy completely, for example, Ireland and Italy are
now reviewing the situation. In 1968 it was proposed to build not one, not two, but four reactors
at Carnsore point, Co. Wexford, but was dropped in 1981 after strong opposition from environmental
groups and flattening energy demands, important to remember this was BEFORE Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
A strange hypocrisy has existed in Ireland, for years we opposed Nuclear Energy, issued iodine
tablets to the public and lobbied to have Sellafield shut down.
On the other hand, we have not developed enough renewable energy sources and buy energy off the
UK grid, the product of nuclear reactors.
In April 2006, a government-commissioned report by Forfas pointed to the need to reconsider nuclear
power in order “to secure its long-run energy security”. Relatively small-scale nuclear plants were
envisaged. In 2007, Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board made it known that it would consider a
joint venture with a major EU energy company to build nuclear capacity by 2015.
Ireland is a very small country, should a partial or full meltdown occur this island could become
an exclusion zone. Remember the release of liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive wastes are
routine at any nuclear plant. Do we really want this on Irish soil?
The Nuclear Industry is a billion dollar one, the construction contract for one plant alone is
worth millions to contractors, investors and developers. Global warming is an ideal way of selling
this rancid apple.
THINK RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTEAD
- Wind
- Wave
- Tidal
- Solar
- Geothermal
Name & Address of author with editor
