Japanese radiation reaches Britain raising doubts about Britain’s nuclear programme

by Jasmina Nikoloska

Two days ago, Scotland was on radiation alert after traces of iodine-131 were found in the air in Glasgow and Oxfordshire.

Although, the Health Protection Agency said there was no public risk, “significantly below any level that could cause harm to public health”, sill the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency increased checks for the substance.

Also, low levels of contamination had already been detected across the United States and Europe since Japan’s Fukushima plant was damaged by a tsunami caused by the earthquake on March 11.

However insignificant the level of radiation for humans are at these point it highlights how far radioactive material can travel on the winds and how vulnerable we would be if there was a serious radiation leak thousands of miles away.

But been lucky not being in an earthquake zone and not suffering the secondary consequences of the tsunami, also having different design of nuclear power plants, does it mean that we could believe that nuclear can be safe, even with strengthen safety procedures!?

This raises concerns and suspicions on Britain’s nuclear programme and plans to double nuclear power capacity by 2025, building new generations of nuclear power plants.

A study led by Sir David King, scientist, showed that the industry is better equipped to manage the decline and decommissioning of existing nuclear plants, rather than set up new ones. If Britain is to deal with its nuclear waste, as well as build new reactors, then more waste must be recycled.

Doug Parr, the green campaigning group’s chief scientist at Greenpeace, thinks that by reprocessing nuclear waste and turning it into fuel, it is created even more nuclear waste “than you would otherwise have to deal with anyway.”

According to Sir David King, nuclear power seems to be the safer energy so far.

”Even hydroelectricity has caused more fatalities”, he said. The catastrophe that hit Japan was “an extremely unlikely event”. He pointed that the safety systems kicking in correctly, acting exactly as supposed so, in those circumstances.

But, could we rely only on renewables to meet our energy consumption demand, without nuclear?

The latest figure shows that it is possible for more than 80% of Europe’s power to come from clean, renewable sources. “It simply isn’t necessary to take on the risks inherent with using plutonium” – according to Doug Parr.

Anti-nuclear campaigners here insisted any radiation in our atmosphere should set alarm bells ringing. Even Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg warned that new nuclear power plants could be too expensive and risky.



Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: