Posts
Louis Egbe Mbua
As Japan and the nuclear world battle to contain the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plants from the feared nuclear radioactive leaks, it is but reasonable to delve into the origins of nuclear technology and its possible effects: in the eventuality of a potentially massive nuclear melt-down -- due to natural or man made disasters-- with a far greater power and force of devastation sometime in the future, somewhere on planet.
Nuclear power is not an overtly new technology. Ironically, the first breakthrough on the practicalities of this enticingly exotic technology was attained in Nazi Germany in 1938: capitalising on earlier findings on the atom and matter by Rutherford while experimenting at Cambridge, England UK and Albert Einstein, ironically, also a German Jew!
It is unclear how the megalomaniac Hitler would have behaved or reacted with the development of such a powerfully destructive discovery if he could see into the future and opted not to persecute the Jews in Germany. But fate waits for no one; and that what one may plan with intentions of annihilating innocent civilians on grounds of their race may turn out to be their own nemesis. Consequently, when Hitler drove out the Jews, the most talented of them all, in terms of this discovery and scientific inventions found themselves in the United States of America where they applied this technology to build the first nuclear bomb in 1942.
However, the first ever commercial nuclear power station for the harnessing of this technology for the good of human kind, generating electricity and connected to electrical grid, was built in Sellafield, UK in 1956. Before then, electricity was generated by the utilisation of fossil fuels – coal, gas and petroleum.
Although the dangers of radioactive wastes and their chain reactions and by-products that follow nuclear electricity production were anticipated, the scales of danger were not immediately as clear as the case of the test explosion of a nuclear bomb. It was perceived that nuclear fission reaction in a nuclear reactor designed for electricity generation could be effectively controlled; and that international and national laws and regulations set in place were of sufficient cover as to stem any nuclear accident. But were Earthquakes, volcanoes, sabotage and terrorist attacks envisaged in the design of these colossal power factories?
The dramatic Fukushima nuclear plants accidents are a point of focus: to enquire as to whether it is wise and prudent to build nuclear plants in well-known seismic earthquake; and whether nuclear power – good or bad – contributes to human development or a catalyst of the long-predicted prospect of human apocalypse before locusts arrive.
A futuristic view of the nuclear world means that humans challenge conventional wisdom: that the “developed” Western world may be so technologically advanced as to control any kind of nuclear accident. The consequences for this over-presumptuous assumption can be a catastrophe for the world. It is known that nuclear proliferation is not only confined to positive use of this power. Deadly nuclear weapons are in the hands of both the developed and the developing nations. While it may be true – to a limited extent – that the industrial West has more capabilities to deal with a nuclear accident, it still carries a frightening risk if sudden and unexpected explosion do occur.
Nuclear stockpiles have to be stored in line with international laws that regulate the method of this storage. Now, let’s suppose that there is a fire – by arson, sabotage or accident – that begins in one of this depot. The consequences are that these weapons will explode with the high possibility of the nuclear chain reaction continuing for months, if not years. The constant expectations are that the atmosphere will be overwhelmed by radiation with the result that acid rain will decimate human kind for years if not centuries.
In the case of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the heroic stance by “suicide” workers notwithstanding, the question arises as to the usage of sea water to cool the melting and damaged and melting plutonium fuel rods. It is likely that this sea water has to be re-circulated into the natural water cycle because there appears to be no known method of radioactive water treatment before disposing it into the ecosystem of nature. The results will be that this radioactive water will be absorbed by plants which will in turn find its way to the animal food chain and eventually consumed by man.
Although it is assumed or reported that the amount of radioactive iodine that seeped into the water system is “negligible”, it cannot be said that this “small” radioactive iodine is similar to natural background radiation of the universe. What is created on earth by man cannot be favourably compared to that which occurs naturally – and which has been proved to be harmless. As a consequence, the effects to human, animal and plant life cannot be predicted for certain with radioactive materials within their living tissues.
While these possible inconclusive detrimental conjectures may be slower in penetrating the ecosystem as compared to deliberate nuclear attacks, there are examples on the effects of nuclear radioactivity on human race – and animals and plants. Radioactivity has the power to mutational human genes alteration -- unpredictably. This has been seen in the area of Chernobyl after the 1986 nuclear explosion and the after effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosion in 1945. Thus, if radioactivity slowly enters the food chain, we may have to contend with “Frankenstein” humans for centuries to come.
The multiplier results for future generations are not known but the effects may actually and totally alter human beings – their physical and social nature to the most unrecognisable features and behaviour. Will these humans be weaker in constitution – mentally and physically? If this happens to be the effects, then this may point to a slow and eminent extinction of the human race. Other thinkers may point to the theories of evolution, the survival of the “best” genes, and the survival of the strongest. On the other hand, the strongest of the future nuclear altered humans may not be as robust as the generation before; and who were never subjected to nuclear devastation as to have their genes altered. Consequently, the likelihood of survival of the human race in this respect may grow slimmer with time.
Again, suppose the opposite effects are true—that the altered genes may mean that humans turn out to be stronger in physical constitution but mentally deranged: for it is unclear how radioactivity will affect the human brain. If it alters the genes that are responsible for the building blocks of the human brain, there are three possibilities: the human becomes far more intelligent; they become far less intelligent; or they become deranged to the point of megalomania. If we take the first scenario – physically stronger and super intelligent – then the case may be that they will move on to discover many more nuclear secrets, advances in science and technology: threatening the earth further.
We may agree that humans are rational but that is only limited as to what we can predict for certain or what we may perceive as morally right. However, one person’s morality may not be the same as the next human. It follows that there are always possibilities of moral inconsistencies and unpredictability. Now, if we assume that the second scenario exists such that the future generation becomes deranged from nuclear fall outs, it becomes abundantly clear that the world will be destined for destruction as the combination of being physically strong and unhinged is lethal. The results can be extremely scary as this will breed millions of dictators who will ensure the destruction of the earth – and human life -- further.
The Fukushima incident must have delivered a devastating psychological blow to the nuclear industry. Nevertheless, human civilisation continues to be hungry for more power to quench their insatiable appetite for luxury goods and the augmentation of their now advanced livelihood. But what if the incident in Japan becomes uncontrollable or that another nuclear accident occurs with dreadful effects on the ecosystem? In this scenario, there is only one solution – abandon the site, evacuate the entire population. But to where?
There is a case for social conflict here. A nation of say 200 million inhabitants may be evacuated but it is unclear as to where they will be moved. Political and social problems abound. Are we going to carve out a complete new state in the middle of the forest to accommodate the affected individuals? And which nation will concede land for this massive and unprecedented location? Surely the affected people cannot be left to their own devices in the nuclear stricken and contaminated land. Or is it?
If left, then there would be a terrible refugee problem that may only be resolved by the international community or a world body such as the United Nations. Again, this may prove a hard politically-charged social and logistic solution although this may be possible. At the same time, the world has to contend that such a nightmare scenario may come to pass. But the most effective solution to this possible scenario should be preventative.
The IAEA, and agency of the United Nations, would have to draft new legislation on nuclear safety to ensure that a nuclear accident of such proportions are grossly minimised. Such legislation should include the clause that no nuclear plant must be cited near a seismically unstable region anywhere on earth. This should include earthquake zones and regions in the vicinity of volcanic mountains –whether active or extinct; and that no nuclear power station should be built in the vicinity of rivers, freshwater lakes and seas as well as known or suspected typhoon, tornado and hurricane susceptible zones. Again, these solutions will create yet another problem since nuclear power requires water to cool nuclear fuels; and to generate electricity. Air-cooled or molten salt cooled plants are viably reliable solutions.
A typical solution, therefore, would be to locate nuclear power stations in regions with heavy rainfall where large encampments to hold excess water may act as sources of water; and that these nuclear stations may only be operational – in the rainy season -- as an auxiliary to other sources of power. In the same vein, nations that agree with these regulations may sign up to a new nuclear treaty. They may be provided with inducements in energy supplement; being provided with incentives to develop alternative power sources in the renewable sector – solar, wind, geothermal and hydro electricity. Deserts in the world may act as solar and wind farms for electrical power generation.
.
