8 wrong approaches regarding Fukushima incident and nuclear energy in general


Hello to everyone. It seems that my article about the consequences of the incident at Fukushima nuclear reactors attracted the interest of many thousands of you, plus several comments as well (to read it again, please press here). I have approved all of them, despite the fact that I disagree with almost all that is stated there (this is the meaning of democracy and freedom of speech after all)

Today I would like to continue on this issue, writing to you my point of view regarding 9 approaches that I received as comments (and I consider wrong).

“Nuclear energy is definitely safe in our days”

Find me 1 (one) scientist who can guarantee to me that nuclear energy production is 100% safe and I will agree with you. There is none. Even the strongest supporters of nuclear energy speak about “99,99% chances”. But wait a minute. Nuclear is cheap indeed, but if this 0,01% occurs, then the damage will be irreversible for decades, causing the death of millions of people over the decades to follow. For me a human life costs more than the lower cost of energy production. And unfortunately nuclear energy is not 100% safe.

“The new technology of nuclear energy is much better than the old one”

Yes, it might be. But still it does not provide us with 100% guarantee for our security.

"What happened in Fukushima is the exception and not the rule. Crying about it, is lack of common sense”

I agree. This was a rare scenario, which does not usually happen. So is there anyone who can guarantee to me that this won’t happen again any time soon? For me common sense is to protect our lives 100% and not to “hope that something rare won’t happen again”.

“I am sure that Japanese people love their country and do what is possible to control the situation”

Me too. They are incredible and as I wrote again, they have my huge respect. But this does not look enough, in order to control a nuclear problem…

“Romania is not an area with so high probabilities of earthquake, like Japan”

Correct, it is not. But it is still an area where a major earthquake occurred less than 35 years ago. This is not a game of possibilities, but a simple approach of reality.

“Green energy is more expensive than the nuclear one”

Ofcourse, but nuclear one can kill us, while “green energy” is harmless. Plus once the investments in “green energy” proceed, the cost will continue decreasing.

“There is not a big problem at Fukushima, things are under control”

I am happy to read this. Then if I give you tomorrow a property worth 10 million dollars in Fukushima, will you go to live there? Will you dare? Will you feel ok to take with you also your family, your children there? Or will you simply find an excuse in order to refuse?

“Nuclear energy is a safe solution for Romania”

I am not so sure about this. When the most disciplined country of this world can not control a nuclear incident, why do we expect to deal better with a potential problem, if it happens?


  • I feel really sad for what is happening in Japan.
  • I have been shocked by the brave behaviour of some Japanese people, their courage is incredible.
  • My analysis does not focus on the reasons of what happened. The results are more important, because they will change our life forever.
  • I will be happy to read a different opinion, based on strong arguments.



1 Comment

  1. Pedro Matos Jul 21, 2011

    Dear Ilias,
    To add further to the discussion about nuclear power, please take a look at the folowing articles:
    1- http://www.propublica.org/article/even-in-worst-case-japans-nuclear-disaster-will-have-limited-reach
    2- http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/955935–nuclear-power-why-the-panic

    This is not to say nuclear power is without risk, and even if you don't agree, they make a powerful  argument for a contrarian view of this event.
    In time, with the distance and emotion taken from the picture, we all will be able to make a better judgment.
    Best regards,
    Pedro Matos


Speak your mind