March 11, 2011 marked the date in which the northern region of Japan, Tohoku, experienced a dreadful environmental tragedy that altered the lives of many Japanese people. A massive earthquake and tsunami triggered widespread and irrevocable damage to not only the Tohoku region and communities living there, but also to the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant ensuing the uncontrolled release of radiation into the environment. Due to this nuclear catastrophe at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant, many people have begun to question the plausibility of nuclear safety and the possibility of reliable government information. Japan, having suffered nuclear attacks in the past, has become a highly “nuclearized” nation despite the danger and risks involved. Japanese acceptance of nuclear power was developed through the employment of the “safety myth” and the promotion of the benefits of nuclear power. Prior to the accident in Fukushima, Japanese citizens did not realize the danger and risk that nuclear energy possessed because the government taught them otherwise. Many are starting to understand that the health and security of those directly affected by the earthquake, tsunami, and Fukushima have been seriously compromised by a misguided national reliance on nuclear-generated electricity and power led by the government and enacted by their use of the “safety myth.” As a result, the accident in Fukushima has severely transformed Japanese people’s opinions towards nuclear power. In the wake of this disaster, Japanese people are reckoned with tough questions concerning the state of their nation, dependence on nuclear power for energy, the competence, and trustworthiness of their government, and the health and safety of... ... middle of paper ... ...s begun taking active roles in numerous ways. The culmination of these events have severely altered the way Japanese people view their government, nuclear energy, and the status of their nation. The future of nuclear power, at this point, is going to steadily decline in Japan due to the disaster and its major lack of support. If the Japanese government chooses to follow the desires of its citizens and break away from this large use of nuclear power, Japan’s security and energy policies will transform immensely. Japan’s means for energy will no longer be manipulated and under the control of large businesses profiting or the influence of other countries in the global sphere. Additionally, the country will have to decide whether to rely environmentally unhealthy and risky nuclear power and imported resources, or to delve into alternative green energy sources.
The article written for the Washington Post “If the Japanese Can’t Build a Safe Nuclear Reactor, Who Can?” was written by Pulitzer Prize winning author Anne Applebaum. The article is about the author’s opinion regarding the use of nuclear power as the new source of energy. This comes after the earthquake of 2011 hit Japan and disrupted the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor. The author believes that if the “technologically brilliant” Japanese cannot construct a completely safe reactor, then no one else can. Although I do believe that Applebaum makes some good points, I do think that her fault is that she rationalizes her opinion solely based on her personal opinion of the Japanese people, and the fear of something going wrong. But she does not propose any new ideas or mention the harm that can come with the use of our current sources of energy.
Countless engineering disasters have occurred in this world, many civilians lost their lives due to corrupted constructions. The most fatal and deadly engineering disaster that took place in our history was the Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl catastrophe was a nuclear setback that happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in on April 26, 1986. It is seen as the most recognizable terrible nuclear power plant cataclysm ever. A nuclear crisis in one of the reactors caused a fire that sent a cluster of radioactive consequence that on the long run spread all over Europe.
This investigation will explore the question: To what extent has foreign influence by the United States after the atomic bombings affected Japan socially and economically? The time period this investigation will focus on is post WWII to 1977 allowing long-term analysis to be performed and seen.
I. (Gain Attention and Interest): March 11, 2011. 2:45 pm. Operations at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant continued as usual. At 2:46 pm a massive 9.0 earthquake strikes the island of Japan. All nuclear reactors on the island shut down automatically as a response to the earthquake. At Fukushima, emergency procedures are automatically enabled to shut down reactors and cool spent nuclear fuel before it melts-down in a catastrophic explosion. The situation seems under control, emergency diesel generators located in the basement of the plant activate and workers breathe a sigh of relief that the reactors are stabilizing. Then 41 minutes later at 3:27 pm the unthinkable occurs. As workers monitored the situation from within the plant, citizens from the adjacent town ran from the coastline as a 49 foot tsunami approached. The tsunami came swiftly and flooded the coastline situated Fukushima plant. Emergency generators were destroyed and cooling systems failed. Within hours, a chain of events led to an explosion of reactor 1 of the plant. One by one in the subsequent days reactors 2, and 3 suffered similar fates as explosions destroyed containment cases and the structures surrounding the reactors (Fukushima Accident). Intense amount...
The main parties who is associated with the debate are governments, experts, and the country people. These people have given out their opinions regarding the effects of nuclear ene...
Most people have bad feelings towards nuclear power because of three major incidents, Three-mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and more recently Fukushima in 2011. It is because of these events that many dislike the idea of nuclear power and have a misunderstanding of what actually happened in these events. According to the World Nuclear Association, “These three significant accidents occurred during more than 16,000 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources. The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health, unlike Chernobyl. Other incidents (and one 'accident ') have been completely confined to the plant.” (WNA). Each plant had its problems, but the only plant to actually cause damage and the loss of human life was the ukraine reactor in Chernobyl. According to WNA, what happened during the meltdown was that the staff running the reactor did not follow the correct procedure and when they were supposed to follow through with one action they neglected to stop something from happening, therefore resulting in the meltdown of only one reactor out of four. The total meltdown could have been easily prevented if the engineers running the plant had followed through with all plant procedures. The meltdown was an unfortunate accident and many nations turned from nuclear power soon afterwards until more recently when the technology to handle all possible situations with the most extreme care. The United states is best known for its procedures with rectors. The US has set in plans to handle any and all actions for the possible event of a nuclear situation. According to the Nuclear Safeguards Infrastructure Development and
Media coverage of such cases have made the public less comfortable with the idea of moving further towards nuclear power and they only opt for reducing human activities to reduce global warming. It is true that there have been some notable disasters involving nuclear power, but compared to other power systems, nuclear power has an impressive track record. First, it is less harmful and second, it will be able to cater for the growing world population. Nuclear power produces clean energy and it delivers it at a cost that is competitive in the energy market (Patterson). According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are currently 65 such plants in the Unite States (National Research Council). They produce 19 percent of the total US energy generation.
Chernobyl was the greatest nuclear disaster of the 20th century. On April 26th, 1986, one of four nuclear reactors located in the Soviet Union melted down and contaminated a vast area of Eastern Europe. The meltdown, a result of human error, lapsed safety precautions, and lack of a containment vessel, was barely contained by dropping sand and releasing huge amounts of deadly radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. The resulting contamination killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people and devastated the environment. The affects of this accident are still being felt today and will be felt for generations to come.
Nuclear disasters set precedence for one of the most difficult disasters people may deal with. The duration of these disasters have lasting effects for generations and present an astronomical cost to man and the environment. Significant damage will persist from the nuclear disaster which occurred at the Nuclear Power Plant Fukushima Daiichi. With the nuclear revolution only in its infancy, our ability to cope with these incidents is limited to our experiences of the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown and the events in Chernobyl Ukraine. With so few instances of major nuclear disasters taking place, the Fukushima disaster presents many significant and exceptional challenges for Japan and the rest of the world.
After the nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011, I have been communicating with victims and received countless of irate calls from victims, but almost all of them repeat critics and anger to the central government. An enormous number local residents criticized our reconstruction policy to return to the evacuation areas. “You government must be willing to sacrifice us to evaluate the effect of exposure to low-level radioactive doses.” Or “Government does not have the right to think about the reconstruction because you know almost nothing about the local situation.” These were some typical words I have received.
The use of nuclear power in the mid-1980s was not a popular idea on account of all the fears that it had presented. The public seemed to have rejected it because of the fear of radiation. The Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union in April of 1986 reinforced the fears, and gave them an international dimension (Cohen 1). Nevertheless, the public has to come to terms that one of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Fear of radiation may push nuclear power under the carpet but another fear of the unknown is how costly is this going to be? If we as the public have to overcome the fear of radiation and costly project, we first have to understand the details of nuclear energy. The known is a lot less scary then the unknown. If we could put away all the presumptions we have about this new energy source, then maybe we can understand that this would be a good decision for use in the near future.
In a world of ever increasing population there is a need to find a way to provide electricity for the world. There many different ways that electricity can be produced but some of the options are better suited for the Central Valley than others. The debate over Nuclear power has been growing for years and it is now time to create a more reliable power source for the Central Valley. Nuclear power should be considered to be a reliable source of power for the central valleys growing population.
(8) "The Science Of Japan's Nuclear Crisis." NPR. National Public Radio. Web. 20 July 2011. .
There was a multitude of causes of the disaster in Japan. The first cause was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake that occurred off the coast of Japan. Japan is located in “The Ring of Fire,” an area in the Pacific Ocean that has multiple faults and earthquakes (Pedersen 13). Tectonic plates shifted off the North Pacific coast of Japan and created a massive earthquake. The next cause was a thirty-three foot wall of water that swept over cities and farmland in Japan (Branigan 2). Martin Fackler, a journalist, stated, “The quake churned up a devastating tsunami” (Fackler 3). The tsunami reached speeds of 497 miles per hour while approaching Japan (Fackler 3). The third and final reason of the disaster was that the cooling systems at multiple nuclear power plants failed. At Fukushima, a nuclear power plant in Sendai, Japan, the radioactive rods began to overheat due to the absence of water, which cools it. Explosions occurred at three of the reactors, which spewed radiation into the air (“Comparing nuclear power plant crises”). In conclusion, the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant issues were the causes of the disaster in Japan, but they also had a myriad of effects.
With the depletion of fossil fuel resources comes speculations and debates about alternative energy sources. The world, including the Philippines, is practically dependent on a dwindling non-renewable source of energy. Today, experts are debating about and considering three options: Nuclear, Solar, or Wind Energy. Everyone has been accustomed to the bad image of nuclear energy as a result of the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents above all others. The popular belief is that radiation from a nuclear meltdown is very harmful to humans and other living things—which is true—and that nuclear power plants are very dangerous and not ideal—which is not. According to Smith, et. al (n.d), all the nuclear disasters that ever occurred were caused by human error and natural disasters like tsunamis, not one because of system failure. Putting the false beliefs aside, with proper engineering and adequate maintenance by experts, a nuclear power plant is a very ideal and viable source of energy for the following reasons: