In this Blog, we sympathize with the tragedy that has led to the Earthquake and Tsunami, for the Japanese people and hope that the consequences of nuclear accidents are the smallest possible.
recently had the opportunity to read a fascinating article, published in several newspapers, in this case has been extracted from: http://www.voltairenet.org/article168911.html and reproduced below.
A part of the title, The "decontaminant" Chernobyl claims that it learned from the mistakes within the article presents a very interesting reflection , says: In his view "has not learned from mistakes", as left to the operators of a private company in a critical situation Fukushima like a rash, because they are unprepared to deal with an emergency of this magnitude.
This forces us to think, as it is possible that an industry as dangerous, the effects of disaster require state intervention and whose huge profits go to private hands and when there is a disaster should intervene, the army, and the fire department of the nearest cities,
This forces us to reflect, in all media continues advocating nuclear energy, is obvious that if this is financially viable because it does not internalize the costs they must pay the state as waste management. Large companies elective use nominee companies so that in case of accidents not splash their stock prices.
problems in Japan have begun to be solved when it government function and the military.
hope to be controlled and that the sea is not damaged, for the danger to the environment can be disastrous.
In this blog we talk about basic income, but here we see the similarity, the problem is not that money for not working. The problem is that it is always best to get a greater benefit at the expense of others. We prolong the life of the plants for more profit. Greenpeace complaint in Spain in 2005 were three nuclear power stops at the same time due to technical problems. The vent valve has been used in Japan in the accident, did not work in a plant. corrosion by sea water affected a cooling pipe since 1993 and in 2004 had not solved the problem.
http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/es/Blog/transparencia-nuclear-a-paso-de-tortuga/blog/29317
The benefits are for the operating companies and multinationals that control, it is obvious that with so much money to buy political will and regardless of ethics.
in Germany apparently politicians are afraid of the voters and ethics to his people and therefore have begun to take serious action for the abandonment of nuclear energy by fission.
in Germany is moving forward with the Basic Income, in the end it is that everyone can live with dignity, so that the work is free and serve to contribute to the welfare of the country, we must not forget that all Everybody wants to work. And everyone makes sacrifices for his country when he plays.
And we all want the best for our country, the question is because they shut down and nuclear plants can not be closed if the benefits should rest with the state, already serving a general interest and the consequences of a disaster will suffer all.
What can not be is that you use as an excuse, when profits are directed into private pockets.
'll leave you with the wonderful article that has no waste. Nuclear
no thanks.
The "decontaminant" Chernobyl claims that it learned from the mistakes
responsible for decontaminating the Chernobyl from 1986 to 1991, Yuri Andreev, considers the situation that exists in Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant shows not have learned lessons from the accident in the former Soviet Union.
In his view "has not learned from mistakes", as left to the operators of a private company in a critical situation like that of Fukushima is foolhardy, because they are unprepared to deal with an emergency of this magnitude.
"The nuclear operators are not prepared to address an emergency of this nature. You need to create an international group specialized in this type of situation to learn from other disasters such as Three Mile Island (USA) and Chernobyl" explained.
This international body of emergency response for nuclear accidents should have an independent structure of the nuclear industry and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Ineffectiveness of the IAEA
"Strangely enough, the nuclear industry is not interested in learning the lessons of nuclear disasters. For any mention of a catastrophe plummet makes the public image of atomic energy. So try to hide any mention of a catastrophic scenario, "he said.
The IAEA, in its view," is very close to the nuclear industry interests, "because virtually all experts from companies or are linked in some the same way, so its findings should be viewed with caution.
also believes that an organization is "very weak" to deal with a situation like this because it depends on the information that will give him the member states and the game of diplomacy.
That makes ineffective in a situation like the present, in it is "time to push for real data to evaluate what happens," he said.
"In such a situation is not the time for diplomacy but to act", which should make the international body specialized in atomic accidents.
Chernobyl experience
Andreev, 73, explained that in April 1986 in Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant "was experienced the same situation: workers lacked training resolve the situation and had to be the Soviet Army, which was official, the that would create a scientific unit to manage the effect of the nuclear accident.
Spetsatom born from this experience, an entity created to carry out repair work in emergency situations and to prepare staff required to work in very high radiation conditions.
This emergency unit, where he was director, ceased to exist when the USSR collapsed in 1991, the year he emigrated to Austria, where he teaches at the University of Vienna and has also acted as advisor to the Ministry of Environment on issues of nuclear safety.
"After the Chernobyl accident, I told the then head of IAEA, (Hans) Blix, it was necessary to create an organization whose function was to deal with accidents, but not taken into account, "he says.
rating on the situation in Fukushima
On the future of Fukushima, believes the most likely scenario is that there is any kind of radiation leak "not very powerful" but prolonged in time, for days or weeks, to stabilize the situation. In his view, will not come to a devastating scenario of a fusion chain reaction.
"If there is significant leakage, decontamination tasks would be very complicated, because it is a very densely populated area," Andreev said adding that "the area closest to the plant would be very difficult to recover."
his opinion the most dangerous situation is addressed in the reactor 3, fed with "mox", a mixture of plutonium and uranium that is much more dangerous than nuclear fuel from other reactors in this and other plants.
0 comments:
Post a Comment