Becquerel is the unit used to measure radioactivity. Horrific nuclear disasters in our time have been Chernobyl in 1986, Three Mile Island in 1979, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. An estimated 3-4 exabecquerel was released from the Chernobly accident, considered 300 times more lethal than the radioactive fallout of the Hiroshima bomb.
On Saturday morning I interpreted at the ESF seminar:
"Nuclear disasters all over the world: effects and forgotten people. A different energy is possible" I was in the booth with a phenomenal professional interpreter named Ben, very informed on the nuclear issue. It was brilliant to learn from the words he chose in interpreting and his eloquence in presentation. Perhaps it's the British accent that also made him sound quite distinguished.
The speakers were from Hungary, Italy, Greece and Turkey. Nuclear is dangerous and everyone said it, even Bela Fekete, the Hungarian engineer who has worked for 23 years at the
Paks Nuclear Power Station in Paks, Hungary and still does. He is also a member of the Organization of Social Democracy and supports renewable energy sources.
He was quite controversial at this meeting because he feels that nuclear energy IS a solution. "Taking the current economic tendencies into consideration, the future of the Eu and the rest of the world is bound to nuclear energy," he stated. He is opposed to wind energy because of the financial burden, environmental impact and inflexibility.
Francesco Ferrante from
Legambiente was also present and handed out a document entitled "World Contract on Energy and Climate to eradicate poverty and stop climate change," which includes the following:
Nuclear must be abandoned because:1. Uranium is neither a renewable nor a sustainable resource.
2. It entails serious security risks and an enormous environmental impact linked to the production of radioactive waste.
3. It exposes the world to the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation.
4. It is unable to solve the energy and climate change problems. Uranium resources are not sufficient to hope for an increase in installed capacity in order to cover a significant quota of the new energy demand.
5. It has too high and indirect costs, which are imposed on the society.
6. It entails a centralized generation model, based on large power plants, highly questionable from a security and the right to energy point of view. A model that requires monopolistic, authoritarian and antidemocratic management systems.
The document goes on to state:
Only by producing electricity and health with solar resources and using the energy produced rationally, efficiently and with a sense ot the limit is it possible to :
1. Guarantee energy for all and thus tackle poverty and underdevelopment
2. Stop climate change and air pollution.
3. Favor democracy and participation, because renewable energy sources are widely available and cannot be monopolized, unlike oil, coal, methane and nuclear.
An issue which the panel agreed upon was the creation of a new protocol that committs Governments, as requested by the scientific community, to an 80% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.
My comments.It is very interesting to hear such a debate on what energy resources we should be using now, and will be able to continue using in the future. Whereas I am open to learn more about the pros and cons, I dislike nuclear because of:
1. Its direct connection to war. The false claim of Iraq having nuclear weapons of mass distruction led to the death of thousands of non-Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
2. The ongoing usage of depleted uranium, illegal under all international treaties, conventions and agreements, as well as under the US military law.
3. Not only are nuclear power plants dangerous, but they only last from 40 to 50 years. And then what?
4. The enourmous amount of public money which funds the development of nuclear weapons, including US nuclear weapons, some of which are stored in Turkey, a country
which is not even nuclear! However, an article in the Southeast European Times states "Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) President Oktay Cakiroglu confirmed on Wednesday (April 12th, 2006) that the country's first nuclear plant will be built in the Black Sea province of Sinop." Oh.
George Monbiot states "The obvious conclusion is that you can’t phase out nuclear weapons without phasing out nuclear power."
How can I act in my life to improve the current energy crisis: BE AWARE OF THE ENERGY I USE. More candles, washing dishes by hand, carpooling (and motorcycle in two) and love in the dark. You got ideas too? Add a comment.