User login


You are here

Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?

Kobina Gyan Budu's picture


Much as I agree with you on some facts, I
still will not vote nuclear energy generation the safest.

Safety we
define as freedom from danger and danger is the threat of adverse events. The
extent of an undesired consequence may move from one level to the other with
time.  In the major nuclear plant accidents
so far recorded, humanity may have been fortunate to have kept the consequences
to perceived low levels. That is not to say the system is safer. In assessing
the impact of the undesired consequences, immediate fatality, even though the
most highly weighted, is not the only components that deserve the most
attention. The after-effect on human health and the environment as well as the
associated financial implications are equally very important.

It is worth
noting that in the Fukushima accident, one worker died suddenly while carrying
equipment during the clean-up exercise (, cited September 29, 2012 ), the
cause of death not reported and so we can assume not yet known (a latent
consequence that might affect a lot more people).  It also came with, and still incurring huge
financial losses. Also, even though the Fukushima accident has not yet caused
many fatalities (no official information yet), it is worth noting that the
International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) rated it level 7 based on expected
effect on humanity, same as that of Fukushima (, cited September 29, 2012).

The Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986), Three Mile Island (USA 1979) and Windscale (Britain
) accidents have all
left more serious indelible scars on humanity than other energy related
accidents have done to date.

The nuclear
power generation process cannot be rated safer than the other energy sources.

Subscribe to Comments for "Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?"

Recent comments

More comments


Subscribe to Syndicate