Blogpost by Mareike Britten
More than 50 organisations and individuals from around the world have joined forces with Greenpeace and called for investments in safe, renewable energy in order to end the threat of nuclear power. That message is in the form of an open letter being delivered to world leaders following the first anniversary as a reminder that the Fukushima nuclear disaster must be seen for what it is: another overwhelming piece of evidence that nuclear energy can never be safe and must be phased out.
Signatories include Archbishop Dr. Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate; Marina Silva, former Brazilian Environment Minister; Senator Bob Brown, Australian Green Party Leader; John Hall, former US Congressman; Richard Harvey, international Human Rights lawyer. In addition, several artists; leaders of human rights, labour, development and environment organisations, such as Action Aid International, Health Care without Harm, Friends of the Earth US, CIVICUS, the Feminist Task Force of the Global Call to Action against Poverty, and many national non-governmental organisations.
Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, most governments have demonstrated that they have learned nothing from the accident and remain more concerned about protecting the profits of the nuclear industry than protecting people.
Two supporters of the letter echo the letter’s clear alternative to nuclear energy. Bernd Nilles, Secretary General of CIDSE, an international alliance of Catholic development agencies said: “Today, we have a moral duty to produce energy that is both clean and safe. The memorial of Fukushima reminds us that we must shy away from energy sources that put people and the planet at risk. Prolonging our dependence on unsustainable energy sources is only a distraction from urgently needed real solutions. Saving energy, increased efficiency and a focus on renewables would go a lot further in providing sustainable energy access to all, including the poorest. These are the kind of solutions we should invest in.”
And US political activist, author, lecturer and attorney Ralph Nader said: “Atomic energy is too uneconomical, too unsafe, too uninsurable, too unneeded, too under-regulated, too unevacuable, too tax-payer-guaranteed and too much of a national security risk to continue operating in any country that respects present and future generations’ right to accelerating priorities for energy efficiency and renewable energy.”
From the open letter: it is time to end the threat of nuclear power. That threat could be ended if governments had the political will to phase out nuclear and invest in a modern energy system based on energy conservation and clean, green energy.
I question the wisdom of totally axing atomic power. As a small mass of fissile fuel provides as much power as hundreds of tons of fossil fuels, such a coal, nuclear is much more efficient than such fossil fuels. I acnowledge the inherent dangers of taping the atomic bonds, but my arguments are as follows:
There have been only 3 major disasters in comecial nuclear power. Chernobyl, a product of a lax and potentially corrupt oversight system; 3 Mile Island, where all designed containment systems worked as advertised; and Fukushima Daichi, where safety was becoming lax due in part to a belief in technological superiority among the industry and regulators.
Other sources of alternative energy are not as reliable. For example, one can’t generate power from wind if there is no wind, and turbines require constant maintenance. Refining fuel from corn would require the need to clear additional land for farming, something very adverse to the environment.
I’m only a High School Student, and these are some of my arguments towards not axing atomic energy.
I was just wondering if GREEN PEACE has POPULAR SCIENCE on their side. Speaking of clearing space to grow FUEL…Popular Science has thought of a Robot Controlled farm that is built like a building with floors of vegetables Farmed by Robots. Probably electriclly powered by solar windows…If something is unsafe when we have WEATHER DISASTERS…LIKE EARTH QUAKES…Nuclear Must go… Also Spent Fuel Rods. Where are we going to store them in Republican’s Pockets for billions of years. NUCLEAR MUST GO.
I am all in on abolishing nuclear power, reguardless of the efficiency, the core will remain toxic for 20,000 years. That is an unbelievable long time. I don’t think it is logical to have reactors all over the planet that will be radioactive for 20,000 years, that is long enough to destroy all life without a trace left. The amount of nuclear energy that reaches us from the Sun in one day could power Earth for an entire year. Mankind needs to develop better ways of harnessing that power. With the right technology, mankind need not worry about electricity again, with very little maintenance.