Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Power in Light of the Fukushima Disaster

In the debate over global warming, few ideas bring out as many passionate opinions as nuclear power. While some see it as an efficient alternative to fossil fuels, others see it as an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Others, still, see incidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the recent Fukushima disaster in Japan and worry about the potential for a cataclysmic meltdown. While this debate has largely been on the back burner in recent years, the situation in Japan has raised new questions. Is nuclear power a safe, viable alternative to fossil fuels? First, it is important to understand some of the facts behind this issue.

Prior to recent events in Japan, meltdowns at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union were pointed to as examples of what could go wrong with nuclear power. While these two cases vary greatly, they give some insight into how meltdowns can be handled effectively.

Advocates of nuclear power will argue that no one has died in the United States due to nuclear power – this is true. That does not address the near-disaster that took place that Three Mile Island, though. In 1979, a partial meltdown occurred, but was stopped before it reached a critical point. This is a testament to the safeguards that exist at nuclear power plants in the United States; while there is always potential for operator error and mechanical malfunction, regulation and mandated safeguards stopped this situation from reaching a crisis level.

In contrast to Three Mile Island is the Chernobyl disaster. While Three Mile Island was able to avoid a full-scale meltdown due to safeguards and regulations, Chernobyl was a cheaply built, poorly maintained plant in the former Soviet Union. When it melted down in 1986, it was understaffed and not built to withstand such a situation. In addition, the government covered up the problem for days instead of mandating evacuations and informing the international community of what was taking place. As a result, several people died and a large area surrounding the plant is uninhabitable to this day.

After Chernobyl, the world's nuclear power plants operated with near-perfect track record. While there is an ongoing debate over how to dispose of highly radioactive nuclear waste, there there was a growing sense that nuclear power was safe. Events in Japan, however, changed that perception. After an earthquake on March 11, 2011 knocked out power to the Fukushima nuclear power plant, a lack of coolant flow caused several of the reactors to melt down. This led to the evacuation of a large area around the plant and renewed concerns that nuclear power is unsafe.

Few would dispute the legitimacy of these concerns; anytime the world is exposed to such tragedy, it is natural for people to wonder if the same thing could happen to them. While it should not be a death blow to nuclear power, it should cause a re-examination of the issue and introduce new forms of regulation that can prevent similar disasters in the future.

While Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima prove that nuclear power has potential for difficulty, it should not be allowed to mask the positive benefits it could represent. As the world searches for renewable sources of fuel, nuclear power offers an appealing alternative. It emits no greenhouse gases and does not require the use of finite natural resources. It does produce radioactive waste, and while this is a concern, it has not caused any serious environmental problems thus far.

In the big picture of the global warming debate, nuclear power stands as one of the most readily available alternatives to fossil fuels. With some scientists arguing that the effects of climate change could be felt in the coming decades, it is imperative that energy sources like nuclear power be given full consideration. Disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate the need for strong safeguards, but Three Mile Island shows that, with proper oversight, nuclear power can withstand crisis and maintain safe operation. If the warnings on climate change are true, urgent action is needed, and nuclear power likely provides a solution. It is one of the most effective alternatives to fossil fuels and should be utilized as such.

follow me on twitter @bchambers711