Antinuclear

Australia’s Asian neighbours not capable of managing nuclear safety

Asia’s Nuclear Feeding Frenzy Global Mail By  Clare Blumer October 30, 2012
How safe is the Pacific rim, where 100 reactors in 10 years are planned, some in earthquake-prone, developing nations?

……..  the use of nuclear energy by developing countries in the Asia Pacific region — some of which are prone to earthquakes — worries Karamoskos, who also represents the public-health interests on Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority committees.
“The problem with nuclear power is it has the potential, when it goes bad, to go bad on a grand scale, as we’ve seen with Fukushima and Chernobyl,” he says. “It’s not good enough to build a nuclear reactor and then have a nuclear regulator that is inexperienced, or compromised, or lacks independence.”
Karamoskos points to an international transparency-and-corruption scale compiled by Transparency International (partially supported by AusAID) as a reasonable indicator of whether countries can take on the complex safety responsibilities of nuclear power. Indonesia doesn’t rate highly on this scale, coming in at 100 of 183 countries on the Corruption Perception Index; Vietnam and Bangladesh are worse, at 112 and 120 respectively. India ranks 95th.

“That’s my first and foremost concern — do these countries have the underlying principles … to foster a robust safety culture?” he asks 

Nineteen months after the near-meltdown, TEPCO, the company which runs the Fukushima centre, still pumps seawater into the plant to cool the reactor, and contaminated water ends up back in the Pacific, mainly from seepage of the wastewater from land to ocean. Construction has started on an impermeable seawall to prevent this seepage, but is not expected to be finished until 2014, which means that the coastline will probably endure another year of oozing nuclear waste.

This raises questions about the damage to the marine environment, which provides the most important source of food for many Pacific nations — fish.

In Japan’s latest update on edible goods affected by radionuclides, restrictions were placed on consumption or export of marine life caught off the coast of Fukushima, and also off the neighbouring areas of Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi and Ibaraki. Some of the flagged species are familiar to Australian seafood markets — species of cod, flounder, sea perch and trout.

These shipment restraints and Australia’s accompanying import-testing scheme mean that you won’t see this fish in your sushi roll any time soon; but fish swim and migrate, and tides and ocean currents cannot be contained.

A report released by Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority (ARPANSA) in mid-October, revealing the impact of the Fukushima disaster on Australia, puts it this way: “Nuclear accidents do not respect borders. Radioactive materials released into the environment can move around the world, and have the potential to reach Australia by both natural processes and human-influenced activities.”

Adding to the anxiety around the Pacific was research, published in May this year, that showed Pacific blue-fin tuna caught off the coast of California last year to have a specific type of caesium in their flesh that could only have been ingested in, and transported from, the waters of Fukushima.

Caesium-134 and caesium-137 are radioactive isotopes that, if ingested in large quantities, can lead to cancer.

American scientists found that the levels of isotopes in the tuna were still safe for human consumption, but the presence of caesium in any measurable quantity was surprising given the distance of California from Fukushima, more than 8,000 kilometres.

Much closer to Fukushima, small Pacific nations have extremely limited or no facilities or expertise to monitor the fish they catch, according to Australian marine-radiation expert Ron Szymczak….. http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/asias-nuclear-feeding-frenzy/434/

November 1, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, safety