Japan's Nuclear Crisis Reignites Safety Debate

Lawmakers debate the safety of nuclear energy

March 21, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (13)

Fears of radiation and nuclear catastrophe remain the focus of the ongoing calamity in Japan, now in its second week. With aid from around the globe, Japan continues to struggle with the aftereffects of its natural disasters. Meanwhile, the rest of the world contemplates the safety and future of nuclear energy

Japan remains in shambles after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami wiped out entire towns and killed thousands, but the world's attention is focused on nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which is located about 150 miles north of heavily populated Tokyo. Radiation levels at the Fukushima complex have spiked since the natural disasters comprised the plant's containment systems, which slowed down response efforts by preventing workers from getting close enough to the problem. The Japanese continue to work to secure external power sources for the reactors at the plant in an attempt to restore cooling systems and prevent any further release of radiation from the nuclear fuel rods in the plant's six reactor units. [See photos of the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and resulting tsunami.]

The nuclear plant was designed with an on-site electrical generator that could maintain the reactors' cooling systems in case a disaster, like the earthquake that occurred March 11, cut off the plant's external power source. However, the tsunami that followed the earthquake proved too much for the facilities' safeguards, shutting down that backup, along with the automatic system that was being used to cool the reactors. The plant's remaining workers and emergency officials last week braved a series of explosions while working to stabilize the temperature of the fuel rods. The cooling measures—from shooting water from firetrucks to dumping seawater from helicopters—have been described by some as "last-ditch" attempts to prevent further meltdown. "When you start pumping seawater into a reactor, it's all over," says Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists. "You can't start using those reactors again."

Last Wednesday, near the height of the emergency at the nuclear plant, Japan's Emperor Akihito delivered an address to calm his nation. He praised the work being done on the ground and encouraged his people to remain hopeful. [Read the U.S. News debate: Does the United States need more nuclear power?]

The United States offered its expertise to help deal with the Fukushima Daiichi complex. According to Gregory Jaczko, head of the government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC experts on boiling water reactors have been sent to Tokyo to help manage the crisis. Last week, the United States also took a more publicly cautious approach than Japan, recommending that all its citizens within a 50-mile radius of the power plant evacuate. Japan, by contrast, encouraged those within an approximately 12-mile radius to evacuate or stay indoors. The United States also reportedly lent military firetrucks to the Japanese to pump water.

At home, President Obama said Thursday that those on American soil, including in Pacific states and territories, remain safe from radiation released from the Japanese plant. The Environmental Protection Agency, which controls air radiation monitoring sites across the country, reiterated that point this afternoon, stating on its website, "The levels detected are far below levels of concern."

The president last week said he's asking the NRC to do a "comprehensive review" of domestic plants in light of the events in Japan. [Read 10 things you didn't know about the NRC.]

So far, the catastrophe has not prompted any major changes to U.S. energy policy, but it has reignited the nuclear debate.

Tags:
Henry Waxman,
Bernie Sanders,
nuclear power,
energy policy and climate change,
Japan

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Nuclear power - outside of the U.S. - has advanced well beyond the plants built in the 60s and 70s. Nuclear power is 'green' (albeit getting past Harry Reid's crusade to cancel out the government's billions of money already spent on a safe storage facility in Nevada) and can now be built in smaller, more economic configurations. We can develop it in the U.S. - providing long term, attractive employment for thousands.

Why has the U.S. abdicated the development of nuclear power - especially given our dependency on hostile countries east and south of us? You'll have to ask your favorite trial lawyer or alarmist. As a note, the media often talks about the Three Mile Island disaster in the U.S. in the 1970s - to many in the audience born after the event or without any knowledge of it. The fact is that not a single person was injured in that incident - and that measures were universally adopted to prevent the human error that took place from happening again.

The failure of the Japanese plant to withstand a historic earthquake and tsunami is not a reason for the U.S not to pursue its best interests. However, it's clear that the nuclear industry throughout the globe can and will learn from the event.

Other than development of known U.S. coal, oil, and gas resources, nuclear is the only option that can make a significant difference in U.S. energy supplies in the future.

JR Gordon of FL 7:46PM March 28, 2011

Nuclear power is uninsurable and any pursuit of it will require enormous continual govt subsidies. There is no private company ever going to venture in nuclear power without tons of government money behind it or without governmental immunity from risks and liabilities. Chances of increasing nuclear power here in the US are nil, especially with all the anti-government knuckleheads trying to run government into the ground. Americans need to demand a close review of the old generation of nuclear plants we have in the US, many identical the ones failing in Japan.

The incident in Japan should make everyone reconsider nuclear. There will be areas near the Fukishima reactors that will be uninhabitable for decades, neighborhoods that NIMBYs can point to as real risks, not to mention the billions this nuclear accident in Japan will end up costing.

It might be possible in some future for nuclear to be feasible, but it will a huge investment by governments to research safe operations and establish lead-clad regulations for such a terribly risky business.

Barry of AZ 1:58AM March 24, 2011

We need to keep our reliance on luck to a minumum. We need plants that have passive safety and cooling systems.

What if there was a worst case accident along the great lakes and fuel got into the lakes? No water for perhaps 20 to 100 million. It would be a dead zone with trillions in costs.

Please do not point out we have been lucky so far. Look at all your assumptions and there is risk. And no one can really predict any intentional sabatoge nor mistakes.

Eriemaster of OH 2:01PM March 23, 2011

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos