Even a man with a PhD in physical chemistry, with advanced course work in nuclear chemistry, who also happens to have two additional degrees in engineering, I know, will have a hard time figuring and sorting out all the details (or lack of one), inconsistences and gaps in many of the debates, arguments, discussions and reporting that is going on about the nuclear reactors in Japan (from media personnel with lots of arrogance and opinions, but little science knowledge). Imagine the huge number of people, even in the United States, who have limited or no education in basic sciences?
How are we going to get adequate knowledge about nuclear reactors: what exactly do they do ; how exactly do they produce the energy we need ; what are their inherent dangers ; what are the dangers with specific reactors (like the Fukushima Daiichi one built by General Electric) ; what crises do natural catastrophes, like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes..., pose ; what kind of leakage would be serious ; what processes can we control or partially control ; and how do corporations, governments, the press and the public cover-up, ignore, minimize, trivialize or exaggerate nuclear energy problems and dangers, with such limited knowledge of science and its applications?
The world, and its press, public and passionate activists, cannot evaluate, challenge or change policies, programs and political structures, connected to nuclear energy (and/or nuclear weapons), with a ninth grade science knowledge!
Even smart engineers will tell you that they have inadequate knowledge of science, its elaborate and extensive theories, behind many of the designs and applications they work with. There is a joke that engineers know less than physicists, physicists know less than mathematicians, mathematicians know less than god...and god knows less than we think.
Many people do not know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, though nuclear reactors, where uranium enrichment and nuclear fission occur, are necessary to produce both.
Nuclear reactors are necessary to produce nuclear weapons, but once they are produced, as warheads or bombs, the rectors are no longer needed. Yet the left over uranium, plutonium and fission by-products (like cesium and radioactive iodine) can still pose a danger. They need to be contained in highly safe structures with periodic checks for leakage. There are reasons for communities that have “nuclear toxic dumps” in or near their neighborhoods to worry – as half-lives of these radioactive substances can last for thousands of years, and can degrade the storage containers slowly. How slowly remains unknown.
Nuclear reactors that help produce electric energy are a different matter. They need to be continuously operative to keep pumps running to carry and convert the heat, produced by a nuclear fission process, both to generate steam and electricity, as well as to avoid over-heating. These reactors use fission (not fusion – which is used more often in the manufacture of Hydrogen bombs), that involves the splitting of the nuclei of atoms of heavy particles - like uranium or plutonium – into lighter ones, to create a nuclear chain reaction that produces lots of heat...that help generate steam...that help run turbines...that help produce electricity.
This is not very different than why fossil fuels are burned to generate heat, energy and electricity. But unlike fossil fuel, a nuclear reactor can produce lots of heat over a long period of time – nearly half a century (an average life of a nuclear reactor).
Now we know why nuclear reactors are popular in some countries that need lots of energy for quick, rapid or big development. The United States has many reactors - and a few are located in earthquake zones, tornado paths and hurricane areas. Concerns about safe regular operations of reactors, and their long term stability, are legitimate.
The reason why enriched uranium is preferred in many nuclear reactors is because it does not fizzle (or predetonate) like plutonium. Also, plutonium is much more scarce, nearly non-existent, on planet earth. These substances, scarce or not, are highly radioactive and can stay in our environment for thousands of years. Once they contaminate a body, a community and an environment there is no choice but to live with it and/or evacuate the area. The dangers of radioactive contamination are serious: they can lead to swift or slow failure of vital organs, gradual or rapid growth in cancer, reproductive problems for men and women, higher birth defects and genetic illnesses that could continue for centuries.
In spite of the dangers of radioactive contamination nuclear reactors, that help to produce abundance of electricity, are unsafe only under specific conditions. These conditions have to do less with science of nuclear fusion, fission, reaction and energy generation...than with engineering, structural design of reactors, their location, their safe operation, regular maintenance and upkeep of reactors, adequate and thorough inspection of nuclear facilities, and predicting or avoiding disasters - that create unpredictable conditions where containment of radioactive substances become difficult.
The problem is not with the science of “nuclear reaction or energy” - but its engineering, application, management, inspection, regulations and the options available for safe containment in times of danger and disaster.
If our press, public and politicians are so reactive, either in defending nuclear technology and reactors or in opposing them, based on limited or skewed knowledge (driven by ignorance, fear and selectivity), rather than knowing its contributions and challenges accurately and adequately, how are we going to find the real problem, or the real unpredictability, that would help us make intelligent decisions about continuing nuclear energy programs, improving nuclear reactor safety...or avoiding it all together?
Few in the press, even in the United States where reverence for science is high and research in science is advanced, are paying attention to the application of nuclear science, engineering of reactors and the corporate and/or State responsibility in monitoring, regulating and ensuring safety – at all times, of nuclear reactors. While there are always unknowns in science - especially in its application, even in highly controlled and strictly managed environments like a nuclear reactor, what is the cost - human and economic, to a remote possibility becoming a reality? Can we afford the huge risks...even of a small chance?
A defect in a car can kill one person or one family. A defect in a nuclear reactor can kill thousands of people if not millions...and can do so gradually over many decades. A hurricane that hits a town can hurt or kill hundreds of people instantly. But a hurricane that hits a nuclear reactor will either release huge amounts of radiation that will affect thousands of people, miles of land and generations of our future...or it will produce many unknowns, which in turn raises numerous other concerns and dangers.
An earthquake of 8.9 magnitude that hit Japan in March of 2011 is a very severe one, and they used to be rare. Such high magnitude earthquakes do not appear to be as rare as they once were. (Read Dr. Srinivasan's Earthquakes, Our Environment and Economic Activities, 2011, available on this blog). The effect of such high magnitude earthquakes on buildings, roads, bridges, towers, trucks and people is hard to predict - even with all kinds of scientific simulations. Imagine trying to predict its impact on something as complex as a nuclear reactor?
Who'd think, even few days ago, that a tsunami caused by an earthquake, and not the earthquake itself, would disable two types of backup generators that would power the cooling system - which helps prevent over-heating of the reactor rods and a possible meltdown? The sole purpose of the two backup power sources was to serve as an emergency alternative if the operating power failed due to an accident or a disaster? Who'd think all three sources of power would fail? This was an extremely unlikely scenario that no engineer, manager or a regulator could have predicted or planned for. But it happened! It happened!
Such disasters and their repercussions are hard to predict - let alone control. For some, such awful events are still too small, insignificant and remote to abandon, or revisit the legitimacy of, nuclear energy programs. For others, as small and remote as these dangers may be, it is never about Will it happen?, but When and How many lives will be permanently affected by it?
The three questions no one in the press or the public are asking (as of March, 2011):
Are the forty years of energy produced by these reactors in Japan, and lifestyle it has sustained, worth all the cost, suffering and anxiety that the people are now bearing – both psychologically and economically?
And what would be the physical, economic, environmental and psychological toll be if an actual meltdown, partial or not, occurred in Japan...or elsewhere?
Can we afford a lifetime and generations of incurable, painful and disabling diseases, no matter how remote the possibility, how small the community affected or how far away it occured, for an energy called nuclear energy?
Though we should not criticize science too much, or stop its research and advancement, lets get better informed, educated and enlightened before we decide which science to follow, apply, improve or...reject!
Science, like our Gods, Goddesses or Mysteries, requires the right attention, respect, thought and humility, before we engage and pursue it for the right benefits. Hence the whole legitimacy of nuclear energy, the safety of its reactors, and its dangers (both known and unknown), no matter how remote, must all be intelligently revisited, reexamined and reaffirmed or...rejected!
How are we going to get adequate knowledge about nuclear reactors: what exactly do they do ; how exactly do they produce the energy we need ; what are their inherent dangers ; what are the dangers with specific reactors (like the Fukushima Daiichi one built by General Electric) ; what crises do natural catastrophes, like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes..., pose ; what kind of leakage would be serious ; what processes can we control or partially control ; and how do corporations, governments, the press and the public cover-up, ignore, minimize, trivialize or exaggerate nuclear energy problems and dangers, with such limited knowledge of science and its applications?
The world, and its press, public and passionate activists, cannot evaluate, challenge or change policies, programs and political structures, connected to nuclear energy (and/or nuclear weapons), with a ninth grade science knowledge!
Even smart engineers will tell you that they have inadequate knowledge of science, its elaborate and extensive theories, behind many of the designs and applications they work with. There is a joke that engineers know less than physicists, physicists know less than mathematicians, mathematicians know less than god...and god knows less than we think.
Many people do not know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, though nuclear reactors, where uranium enrichment and nuclear fission occur, are necessary to produce both.
Nuclear reactors are necessary to produce nuclear weapons, but once they are produced, as warheads or bombs, the rectors are no longer needed. Yet the left over uranium, plutonium and fission by-products (like cesium and radioactive iodine) can still pose a danger. They need to be contained in highly safe structures with periodic checks for leakage. There are reasons for communities that have “nuclear toxic dumps” in or near their neighborhoods to worry – as half-lives of these radioactive substances can last for thousands of years, and can degrade the storage containers slowly. How slowly remains unknown.
Nuclear reactors that help produce electric energy are a different matter. They need to be continuously operative to keep pumps running to carry and convert the heat, produced by a nuclear fission process, both to generate steam and electricity, as well as to avoid over-heating. These reactors use fission (not fusion – which is used more often in the manufacture of Hydrogen bombs), that involves the splitting of the nuclei of atoms of heavy particles - like uranium or plutonium – into lighter ones, to create a nuclear chain reaction that produces lots of heat...that help generate steam...that help run turbines...that help produce electricity.
This is not very different than why fossil fuels are burned to generate heat, energy and electricity. But unlike fossil fuel, a nuclear reactor can produce lots of heat over a long period of time – nearly half a century (an average life of a nuclear reactor).
Now we know why nuclear reactors are popular in some countries that need lots of energy for quick, rapid or big development. The United States has many reactors - and a few are located in earthquake zones, tornado paths and hurricane areas. Concerns about safe regular operations of reactors, and their long term stability, are legitimate.
The reason why enriched uranium is preferred in many nuclear reactors is because it does not fizzle (or predetonate) like plutonium. Also, plutonium is much more scarce, nearly non-existent, on planet earth. These substances, scarce or not, are highly radioactive and can stay in our environment for thousands of years. Once they contaminate a body, a community and an environment there is no choice but to live with it and/or evacuate the area. The dangers of radioactive contamination are serious: they can lead to swift or slow failure of vital organs, gradual or rapid growth in cancer, reproductive problems for men and women, higher birth defects and genetic illnesses that could continue for centuries.
In spite of the dangers of radioactive contamination nuclear reactors, that help to produce abundance of electricity, are unsafe only under specific conditions. These conditions have to do less with science of nuclear fusion, fission, reaction and energy generation...than with engineering, structural design of reactors, their location, their safe operation, regular maintenance and upkeep of reactors, adequate and thorough inspection of nuclear facilities, and predicting or avoiding disasters - that create unpredictable conditions where containment of radioactive substances become difficult.
The problem is not with the science of “nuclear reaction or energy” - but its engineering, application, management, inspection, regulations and the options available for safe containment in times of danger and disaster.
If our press, public and politicians are so reactive, either in defending nuclear technology and reactors or in opposing them, based on limited or skewed knowledge (driven by ignorance, fear and selectivity), rather than knowing its contributions and challenges accurately and adequately, how are we going to find the real problem, or the real unpredictability, that would help us make intelligent decisions about continuing nuclear energy programs, improving nuclear reactor safety...or avoiding it all together?
Few in the press, even in the United States where reverence for science is high and research in science is advanced, are paying attention to the application of nuclear science, engineering of reactors and the corporate and/or State responsibility in monitoring, regulating and ensuring safety – at all times, of nuclear reactors. While there are always unknowns in science - especially in its application, even in highly controlled and strictly managed environments like a nuclear reactor, what is the cost - human and economic, to a remote possibility becoming a reality? Can we afford the huge risks...even of a small chance?
A defect in a car can kill one person or one family. A defect in a nuclear reactor can kill thousands of people if not millions...and can do so gradually over many decades. A hurricane that hits a town can hurt or kill hundreds of people instantly. But a hurricane that hits a nuclear reactor will either release huge amounts of radiation that will affect thousands of people, miles of land and generations of our future...or it will produce many unknowns, which in turn raises numerous other concerns and dangers.
An earthquake of 8.9 magnitude that hit Japan in March of 2011 is a very severe one, and they used to be rare. Such high magnitude earthquakes do not appear to be as rare as they once were. (Read Dr. Srinivasan's Earthquakes, Our Environment and Economic Activities, 2011, available on this blog). The effect of such high magnitude earthquakes on buildings, roads, bridges, towers, trucks and people is hard to predict - even with all kinds of scientific simulations. Imagine trying to predict its impact on something as complex as a nuclear reactor?
Who'd think, even few days ago, that a tsunami caused by an earthquake, and not the earthquake itself, would disable two types of backup generators that would power the cooling system - which helps prevent over-heating of the reactor rods and a possible meltdown? The sole purpose of the two backup power sources was to serve as an emergency alternative if the operating power failed due to an accident or a disaster? Who'd think all three sources of power would fail? This was an extremely unlikely scenario that no engineer, manager or a regulator could have predicted or planned for. But it happened! It happened!
Such disasters and their repercussions are hard to predict - let alone control. For some, such awful events are still too small, insignificant and remote to abandon, or revisit the legitimacy of, nuclear energy programs. For others, as small and remote as these dangers may be, it is never about Will it happen?, but When and How many lives will be permanently affected by it?
The three questions no one in the press or the public are asking (as of March, 2011):
Are the forty years of energy produced by these reactors in Japan, and lifestyle it has sustained, worth all the cost, suffering and anxiety that the people are now bearing – both psychologically and economically?
And what would be the physical, economic, environmental and psychological toll be if an actual meltdown, partial or not, occurred in Japan...or elsewhere?
Can we afford a lifetime and generations of incurable, painful and disabling diseases, no matter how remote the possibility, how small the community affected or how far away it occured, for an energy called nuclear energy?
Though we should not criticize science too much, or stop its research and advancement, lets get better informed, educated and enlightened before we decide which science to follow, apply, improve or...reject!
Science, like our Gods, Goddesses or Mysteries, requires the right attention, respect, thought and humility, before we engage and pursue it for the right benefits. Hence the whole legitimacy of nuclear energy, the safety of its reactors, and its dangers (both known and unknown), no matter how remote, must all be intelligently revisited, reexamined and reaffirmed or...rejected!
No comments:
Post a Comment