Driving from Los Angeles to San Diego in September 2008, my brother and I passed the nuclear power plant in San Onofre, California. I saw the two large reactors looming at a distance and asked my brother if they were what I thought they were. Yes, he said. “I thought Californians were tree huggers,” I said jokingly, and he pointed out that California has two working nuclear power plants, the other one being in Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. “Besides,” he said, “who told you that nuclear power isn’t environment-friendly and safe?”
I told him that the accidents in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl always came to mind whenever I think of nuclear energy, and then he dared me to think of other accidents that happened in nuclear plants. I couldn’t think of any, so he dared me to Google it on my iPhone (in which we had placed his AT&T SIM that had unlimited internet access). As it turned out, those were the only two major accidents to have occurred in the more than 400 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries.
“See?” my brother said. “I bet more people have died mining for coal (for use in coal-fired plants) than in Three Mile and Chernobyl.” I Googled that also, and while I couldn’t get exact figures, I found that, according to Wikipedia, thousands of people die each year in mining accidents, particularly in developing countries.
That conversation I had with my brother came to mind when I heard several candidates say they are willing to explore nuclear energy as a source of electricity for the Philippines. Gilbert Teodoro and Richard Gordon gave their thumbs-up for it during the two presidential forums in Davao City last week, and a few days before that senatorial candidate Ruffy Biazon told me the same thing in a one-on-one interview.
“But the Constitution bans nuclear power, doesn’t it?” I asked him, racking my brain for the particular provision (I couldn’t Google it because I no longer had an iPhone, and my netbook was no use because the restaurant we were in didn’t have wifi). “Only for nuclear weapons,” Biazon replied. “I really think it’s time we consider going nuclear. Mindanao can’t depend on hydropower forever because, as we see now, it can fail you during periods of drought. What the island needs is a more stable source of power.”
Of course Biazon prefaced that with the now-required statement that we ought to be developing renewable sources of energy, but ultimately, he said, nuclear power is what will serve our needs as a developing nation. I checked the 1987 Constitution when I got online and found that the nuclear-free provision does only speak of weapons. This is what Article II, Section 8 says:
“The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.”
I don’t think anyone would argue against the capabilities of nuclear plants to provide power. What most people — me included — think of when we hear the words nuclear power plants are the danger associated with them, as exemplified by Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 (a partial core meltdown in which no one was injured) and Chernobyl in Russia (where a reactor exploded and killed a total of 56 of people — including those who later developed cancer from the radiation that escaped).
But according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were “the only major accidents to have occurred in some 14,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.”
“The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust.”
WNA adds that Three Mile Island and Chernobyl “occurred during more than 12,700 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl accident resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources. Other incidents (and one “accident”) have been completely confined to the plant.”
“Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year (2-4 deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a number of accidents in experimental reactors and in one military plutonium-producing pile – at Windscale, UK, in 1957, but none of these resulted in loss of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.)”
This is, of course, just one side of the issue. The Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) will most certainly oppose what Teodoro, Gordon, and Biazon are proposing, and if the three gentlemen pursue it, then we are in for one great debate.
Random Posts:
