Nuclear Power Must Not be Phased Out - Essay Example

? Nuclear Power Must Not be Phased Out Nuclear Power Must Not Be Phased Out Nuclear power has always been associated with genetic mutations, human deaths and a wide scale radioactive fallout. However, what we do not realize is that most if not all of these claims are simply concocted by politics and flavored by the media for the purpose of mass appeal. The rest is either exaggerated or purely hypothetical. Despite the claims against it and despite the mass appeal of such claims, nuclear power must NOT be phased out for the simple reason that it is one very sustainable source of energy. Nuclear energy remains sustainable because it is an energy source which is almost free from greenhouse emissions and thus will not likely have a great impact on climate change. Anti-nuclear power activists argue that most of nuclear energy comes in the form of fossil fuels and that this will eventually contribute to the greenhouse effect.1 This stems from the fact that fossil fuels, although not a direct source of nuclear energy, is the energy source upon which various stages of nuclear power production are made possible. In fact, electricity is used for various stages of the nuclear process such as uranium enrichment, the building of power plants, and the processing and storage of nuclear waste. Moreover, the idea is that the goal of nuclear fission is still the production of electricity, which is a major source of greenhouse gases.2 All these are believed to generate a “relatively high” amount of greenhouse gas emissions.3 This fact alone creates a negative image of nuclear energy as a viable source of power. Nevertheless, it remains that electricity accounts for only 9% of total greenhouse gas emissions.4 Nine percent may not be a small amount in the long run but so far it is still “relatively low” and not “relatively high” as previously stated. Furthermore, studies reveal that there is “no evident correlation between CO2 emissions and nuclear power.”5 Although some anti-nuclear activists would insist that nuclear energy emits high levels of CO2, and although this could be a half-truth, the fact remains that the amount is not of a great significance and is therefore negligible. Although some sources would go to the opposite extreme in claiming that nuclear energy is “the world’s largest source of emission-free energy,” it would suffice to humbly admit that nuclear energy still contributes to the greenhouse effect, but the point is that what it contributes is statistically negligible. Aside from the insignificant amount of emissions from nuclear energy, its sustainability also depends on the idea that its waste products are relatively manageable. Nuclear waste is something that remains dangerous even for thousands of years and that there is always a possibility of contaminating huge areas. Furthermore, it is a cold hard fact that “there is no completely safe way to store nuclear waste.”6 Moreover, there is no guarantee that research on nuclear waste management will turn out to be successful.7 Admittedly, the issue of nuclear waste disposal is a strong argument against the sustainability of nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the volumes of wastes from fossil fuels are relatively much greater in quantity compared to those produced by nuclear power plants and thus, potential environmental damage is greatly reduced.8 Volume of wastes produced may be a minor issue in the environmental sustainability of nuclear energy but it is not as important compared to the factor of waste management. It may be true that nuclear wastes proves to be a threat to the environment but the nuclear technical community is rather more optimistic in believing that nuclear wastes can be contained or isolated safely until radioactivity cannot anymore harm humans or the environment.9 The solution is research and as of the moment, efforts are being made by governments in order to minimize emissions such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.10 The issue of nuclear waste disposal, therefore, just like any the disposal of any other waste products from other sources of energy, does not depend on nuclear energy itself but on proper waste control and management. A third argument on the sustainability of nuclear energy is therefore its manageability. Nuclear energy, just like any other form of energy, can be adequately and expertly managed. Therefore, if accidents concerning radioactive emissions occur, these are mostly because of human error. Contrary to what most people think, it is the human factor that is behind the Three Mile Accident, Chernobyl and Fukushima – the three worst nuclear disasters in history. The Three Mile Accident in Pennsylvania, USA on April 1, 1979 was a case of a core meltdown in one of the water reactors of the nuclear power plant. This naturally resulted in a release of radioactive substances. Nevertheless, The President’s Commission in charge of assessing the accident concluded that the main causes of the accident were deficient training of nuclear plant operators and the confusing operating procedures during a possible accident.11 The point of the commission’s statement is that the problem behind the accident and the consequent emission of radiation around the area was not due to nuclear energy itself or to the equipment but to people and their attitudes. One factor is that the personnel behind the management and operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station governed the nuclear power plant in the same way that they would an electrical plant. Moreover, both instructors and workers did not have adequate knowledge of the architecture and physics of the nuclear power system.12 Risks are unavoidable, as the commission has stipulated, but good management and organization can always remedy any threatening situation.13 Furthermore, the Three Mile Accident is a proof to the idea that even if a nuclear plant is badly operated, safety systems that are properly engineered can prevent or at least minimize release of radioactivity.14 The same thing is true of Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster happened in Ukraine on April 26, 1986 and was a result of a flawed reactor design and serious mistakes made by the nuclear power plant operators at that time. The destruction of the Chernobyl 4 reactor caused the death of 30 operators and firemen, as well as several related deaths months after.15 It was actually not nuclear energy that was at fault here but the irresponsibility of the people behind the operations of the plant. Nevertheless, the case of Chernobyl is always used as the quintessential argument against nuclear power.16 The specific issue, however, was “a weak technology and industrial base,” which was clearly evident in the six major errors committed by Chernobyl’s operators.17 The six errors somehow summed up to a violation of the operational rules for the settings of the nuclear reactor and involved first and foremost the careless switching off of the emergency cooling system of the reactor.18 Nevertheless, despite the human errors, propaganda shrouded the issue as Newsweek at that time of Chernobyl even labeled nuclear power as “a bargain with the Devil,” while then USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev put the blame on “the sinister power of uncontrolled nuclear power.”19 This therefore created so much media hype and propaganda directed against nuclear energy. Fukushima is actually no different from Chernobyl. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan on March 11, 2011 was a result of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that caused the destruction of several reactors causing release of radioactive materials. According to scientists, Fukushima is actually worse than Chernobyl, for the reason that millions of people are affected by it.20 A certain Chris Busby of the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland was even quoted saying that “the disaster would result in more than 1 million deaths,” thus somehow not only causing great panic to those living near the Fukushima nuclear plant but also instilling in them a hatred towards the use of nuclear energy.21 This is purely politics at work. In fact, even Britain’s The Independent, in its article entitled “Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl,” presents the issue with so much emotional trapping that uses the example of a certain 53-year old Japanese fisherman whose family and friends died in the earthquake and who could not feed himself because of a nuclear ban on the neighboring waters.22 The Independent also uses the example of a certain Mr. Shoji who was angered by the decision of the Japanese government to destroy his vegetables due to a possible radioactive contamination.23 The issue of Fukushima is actually not about fishermen and vegetable owners nor is it about instilling in them prejudice against nuclear energy. Fukushima, just like the Three Mile Island Accident and Chernobyl, is also possibly all about human error that borders upon a lack of readiness to meet such a disaster. New York Times actually puts the blame on a failed venting system and not on nuclear energy itself.24 Moreover, the fact that the Japanese company Toshiba is trying to develop a new nuclear project with engineering facilities and safety features much better than the reactors of Fukushima is actually an indication that nuclear energy is not the issue but the facilities and the safety measures that operators failed to comply with.25 Whatever is exactly happening at Fukushima, it is probably mostly or all about politics, just like in Chernobyl and the Three Mile Accident. The issue of political machinations vis-a-vis the sustainability of nuclear power is actually the one thing that prevents ordinary individuals from seeing the truth. The truth is that it is not nuclear power that is at fault in the three aforementioned nuclear accidents but poor management, poor training or simply just a lot of politics. In fact, since the advent of nuclear energy during the Cold War, the Soviet Union somehow staged several nuclear plant accidents in order to convince the West that the latter should stick to oil as the primary commodity while the Russians would dominate the world through nuclear power.26 In fact, anti-nuclear activists deliberately distorted information on safety measures concerning nuclear power plants much to the dismay of nuclear scientists who wanted the correct information delivered to the citizens.27 This is somehow characteristic of anyone who is against anything. Anti-nuclear activists were obviously against any positive information regarding nuclear power, and thus either made up bad rumors about nuclear plants or modified correct information in their favor. In fact, the media was the primary means by which these anti-nuclear activists spread the word against nuclear energy.28 One can therefore conclude from history that there is actually no such thing as balanced news. The reason is that the media always catered to the sentiments of those devoted to phasing out nuclear power instead of using scientific and objective information to clarify the real issue. Even the film The China Syndrome, which was shown a few days before the Three Mile Accident in 1979 appealed to the sentiments of the viewer by using the character of Jack Godell, who was willing to sacrifice his life for humanity’s sake and fight against those who favor nuclear power.29 The character of Godell actually obscures the real issue which is the politics behind nuclear power. The point is that nuclear power is not the issue here but the people who want to further their political ambitions through it. It is however inevitable that almost anyone who has watched The China Syndrome would rather end up sympathizing with Godell and hating nuclear power as a result. But what is it exactly that makes the anti-nuclear activists hate nuclear power? The simplest answer must be one that concerns them directly – health issues. The issues of nuclear energy vis-a-vis one’s physical health definitely cannot be divorced from the idea of sustainability. Despite the health issues, however, nuclear power remains a viable source of energy for the reason that the medical cases for which radioactive fallout is to blame are often unwarranted by evidence and are mostly hypothetical. Anti-nuclear activists are accusing nuclear energy of increasing the risk of cancer, genetic disorders and leukemia.30 Specifically, with the Three Mile Accident, mental stress was the immediate result and there were speculations of possible cases of cancer, genetic or birth defects in the future.31 Nevertheless, these cases are mostly hypothetical and the President’s commission to investigate the case found out that the exposure to radiation was actually “very low” and that the mental stress that some people experienced from the radiation was in fact “short-lived.”32 This means that in matters of health, nuclear energy is not the culprit and claims against it are often unwarranted by significant evidence. Chernobyl is no different. Chernobyl is believed to have caused 31 “prompt” deaths and almost 300 people who underwent hospitalization due to radiation sickness, but these details are “hard to quantify accurately.”33 There were also reports of mental illnesses but according to the Chernobyl Forum, people “took on the role of invalids,” which means that many of them took to alcohol and smoking with the stress that ensued from myths and perceptions associated with the radioactive consequences of Chernobyl.34 Moreover, the same psychosocial effects are also common among people after other types of disasters happen, such as floods, earthquakes and fires.35 This means that regardless of whether it is a nuclear power plant disaster or some natural calamity has occurred, people are bound to have some form of mental stress that, at its extreme, may manifest as or mimic mental illnesses. When it comes to exposure to radiation, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, or UNSCEAR, reported that the figures were “exaggerated” and that reports of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl site were actually full of “unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments.”36 This means that perhaps nuclear power is indeed relatively harmless when compared to the other sources of energy, or that its effects are actually so minimal that they are very negligible. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, the health changes in the people around Chernobyl during the time of the accident were actually suffering not from radiation exposure but from “psychological factors and stress.”37 Furthermore, previous scientific studies on radiation exposure concluded that increased levels of radiation led to “no clearly increased frequency of mutations.”38 The most likely reason for a mutation in the child is pointed out as a possibility of the father’s exposure to radiation, but the correlation between such exposure and the incidence of mutation or leukemia is actually “largely or wholly a chance finding.”39 In fact, in the United Kingdom, a study has found out that the cases of cancer among atomic plant workers were even fewer than the national average.40 Therefore, there is clearly no correlation between nuclear energy and health problems believed to be associated with radiation exposure. If ever there is, it must not be that serious so as to warrant national concern, such as the confirmed cases of thyroid cancer among children exposed to the Chernobyl radiation.41 The health issues with Chernobyl are simply the same with those of the Three Mile Accident – purely hypothetical and mostly unwarranted. Moreover, it is no coincidence that Fukushima is the same. United Nations health experts believe that the nuclear accident at Fukushima will not have any serious impact on the health of the residents.42 This is not only due to the actual low levels of radiation in Fukushima but also to the efforts of the Japanese authorities to have children exposed to the radiation undergo thyroid screening.43 Thyroid screening will determine whether the children manifest the most probable sign of damage of radiation to the body, which is thyroid cancer similar to the ones diagnosed after Chernobyl. Early detection will also prove to be useful for a more successful treatment. Nevertheless, despite the low probability of exposure, there is a great need for further research in order to properly assess whether such exposure to radiation in Fukushima will have long-term effects.44 The significance of the health issues surrounding Fukushima is still pending as studies are yet to conclude in the coming years whether or not there are long-term effects to the exposure to radiation and whether these effects, if there are any, can be considered medically serious or not. Nevertheless, whether the health issues will later on prove to be significant or not, the number of people affected by the radiation will be an insignificant figure. This is not to say that people are insignificant for human life is considered valuable. However, before nuclear energy can be labeled as detrimental to health, there must be a significant number of people in the world who should be affected by it. Based on the results of the assessment of the Three Mile Accident, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear energy remains relatively harmless to the human health and is not a threat to human life. The issue of health, no matter how seemingly important it is, still remains as only one aspect of sustainability and one that does not directly concern it. In fact, a more serious question that directly addresses the issue of whether nuclear energy is sustainable or not is the availability of its main resource – uranium. A fifth argument for the sustainability of nuclear energy is the indefinite availability of uranium. Uranium is the main fuel from which nuclear energy is derived and processed. According to a report of the Uranium Institute in London, uranium is distributed in various reserves around the world and may even occur in abundance in seawater.45 The problem, however, is the cost of uranium, which is definitely higher than those of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the use of modern technology through breeder reactors is promising. These breeder reactors will hopefully increase the energy derived from natural uranium in order to have energy reserves for the next 8000 years, which can be equated with “indefinite sustainability.”46 The economic factor behind uranium extraction can therefore be offset by the fact that reserves of this fuel are practically infinite. When it comes to production, nuclear energy therefore is sustainable. Nevertheless, some anti-nuclear activists may claim that such infinite sustainability may be exploited by terrorists. Despite the possibility that nuclear energy can be used to produce nuclear efforts, such possibility will prove to be manageable. Some activists claim that the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world is inevitable with the huge amounts of uranium.47 The same is true of plutonium-239, which is a by-product of nuclear reactor processes.48 These can indeed be used as ingredients for weapons of mass destruction. However, one simply has to trust that the governments of the world are bent on stopping terrorism at all levels, and that if ever certain terrorist attacks happen, these are certainly isolated cases which somehow governments failed to check due to human errors. Nuclear energy, therefore, remains sustainable for it is not the ultimate cause of terrorist attacks. The real cause of terrorism is twofold – human greed on the part of the terrorists and poor security measures on the part of the government. Nuclear energy is not a factor here but merely the instrument. Logically, evil people could use practically any form of energy in their acts of terrorism even if nuclear energy did not exist. From terrorism, one should look into the biodiversity aspect of sustainability. In this aspect, nuclear energy remains sustainable for it does not pose a significantly great harm to wildlife. While the issue of infinite resources might favor some terrorist groups, anti-nuclear activists claim that it is possible for radiation coming from nuclear energy to distort the DNA of animal and plant species.49 Nevertheless, reports of impacts of radiation on animal species are few.50 One should trust that nature - whose history of resilience against Chernobyl and the Three Mile Accident proved to be remarkable – can in fact manage the entire situation.51 Moreover, when it comes to harm in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it is fossil fuels that affect animal and plant species more than nuclear energy.52 From the aforementioned ideas, one can only say one thing – that nuclear energy is not a threat not only to biodiversity but also to climate change. Conclusion Nuclear energy has been the subject of various controversies since the Three Mile Accident, Chernobyl and especially now with Fukushima. Nevertheless, despite the accusations and negative propaganda, nuclear energy remains as a sustainable source of power. First, it does not result in as much emission of greenhouse gases as fossil fuels. Second, nuclear waste products – despite its volume and non-biodegradability – is manageable through joint international efforts and extensive research. Third, the operations involving the nuclear energy process are manageable with adequate training and organization. In fact, the three infamous nuclear accidents of history – the Three Mile Accident, Chernobyl and Fukushima – were all a result of human errors and a lack of training and preparation. It also therefore follows that nuclear energy is not the factor behind such accidents. Fourth, nuclear energy does not have any relatively significant effects on human health except for thyroid cancer, which is nevertheless manageable. Fifth, the main fuel for nuclear energy – uranium – is practically available for around 8000 years, with modern technology using breeder reactors. Sixth, although nuclear energy may be utilized for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, the factor behind this remains to be human greed and faulty security measures and not nuclear energy itself. Seventh, nuclear energy does not pose as a threat to biodiversity. With these seven arguments in favor of nuclear energy and with most of the arguments of anti-nuclear activists proven to be either unconfirmed or illogical, one is apt to believe that nuclear energy must NOT be phased out. For all we know, the future of the world and our children may depend on it. Endnotes 1. “Nuclear Power: No solution to climate change” (2005: 4), Nuclear Information and Resource Service, http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 2. Ibid., 8-9 3. Ibid., 9 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 4 6. “Nuclear Energy” (2009), Information for Action, http://www.informaction.org/index.php?main=nuclear_gen&subject=Nuclear%20energy (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 7. Nuclear Power, 4 8. Jean-Marie Bourdaire and John Paffenbarger, “Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development” (1997), The Uranium Institute 22nd Annual International Symposium, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/bourd.htm (accessed Sept. 19, 2011). 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. “Excerpts from Report of The President’s Commission On The Accident at Three Mile Island” (1980: 25), The Bulletin, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/bourd.htm (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 12. Ibid., 30 13. Ibid., 31 14. Robert Priddle, “Energy and Sustainable Development” (1999), International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104080206.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 15. “Chernobyl Accident 1986” (2011), World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 16. P. E. Hodgson, “The Politics of Nuclear Power” (2009: 49), Modern Age, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104080206.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 17. Timothy W. Luke, “Chernobyl: The Packaging of Transnational Ecological Disaster” (1987: 353, 355-356), International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104080206.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 18. Ibid., 355 19. Ibid., 353 20. “Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl” (2011: 1), Independent.co.uk, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid., 2 24. Peter Behr and John J. Fialka, “U.S. Experts Blame Fukushima 1 Explosions and Radiation on Failed Venting System” (2011), The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 17, 2011). 25. Ed Crooks, “Toshiba eyes options for nuclear stake” (2011), Financial Times, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 26. Hodgson, 48 27. Ibid., 52 28. Ibid., 53 29. John Wills, “Celluloid chain reactions: The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island” (2006: 111), European Journal of American Culture, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 30. “Nuclear Power,” 4 31. “Excerpts,” 25 32. Ibid. 33. Luke, 356 34. “Chernobyl Accident” 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Hodgson, 50 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41. Declan Butler, “Fukushima Health Risks Scrutinized” (2011), Nature News, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472013a.html (accessed Sept. 20, 2011). 42. Fredrik Dahl, “U.N. sees no serious Fukushima impact” (2011), Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/us-japan-nuclear-health-idUSTRE7354H920110406 (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 43. Ibid. 44. Butler 45. Bourdaire and Paffenbarger 46. Priddle 47. John P. Holdren, “Environmental liabilities of nuclear power” (1980: 32), The Bulletin, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). 48. “Nuclear Power,” 5 49. “Chernobyl Accident” 50. Sue Mainka, “Nuclear nature – what’s next for nuclear energy and biodiversity?” (2011), International Union for Conservation of Nature, http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/science_learning/?7571 (accessed Sept. 16, 2011). 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. BIBLIOGRAPHY Behr, Peter and Fialka, John J. “U.S. Experts Blame Fukushima 1 Explosions and Radiation on Failed Venting System.” (2011). The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 17, 2011). Bourdaire, Jean-Marie and Paffenbarger, John. “Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development.” (1997). The Uranium Institute 22nd Annual International Symposium. http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/bourd.htm (accessed Sept. 19, 2011). Butler, Declan. “Fukushima Health Risks Scrutinized.” (2011). Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472013a.html (accessed Sept. 20, 2011). “Chernobyl Accident 1986.” (2011). World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Crooks, Ed. “Toshiba eyes options for nuclear stake.” (2011). Financial Times. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Dahl, Fredrik. “U.N. sees no serious Fukushima impact.” (2011). Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/us-japan-nuclear-health-idUSTRE7354H920110406 (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). “Excerpts from Report of The President’s Commission On The Accident at Three Mile Island.” (1980: 25-31). The Bulletin. http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/bourd.htm (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Hodgson, P. E. “The Politics of Nuclear Power.” (2009: 48-50). Modern Age. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104080206.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Holdren, John P. “Environmental liabilities of nuclear power.” (1980: 32). The Bulletin. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Luke, Timothy W. “Chernobyl: The Packaging of Transnational Ecological Disaster.” (1987: 353-356). International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104080206.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Mainka, Sue. “Nuclear nature – what’s next for nuclear energy and biodiversity?” (2011). International Union for Conservation of Nature. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/science_learning/?7571 (accessed Sept. 16, 2011). “Nuclear Energy.” (2009). Information for Action. http://www.informaction.org/index.php?main=nuclear_gen&subject=Nuclear%20energy (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). “Nuclear Power: No solution to climate change.” (2005: 4-5). Nuclear Information and Resource Service. http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Priddle, Robert. “Energy and Sustainable Development.” (1999). International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104080206.pdf (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). “Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl.” (2011: 1-2). Independent.co.uk. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Wills, John. “Celluloid chain reactions: The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.” (2006: 111). European Journal of American Culture. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Sept. 14, 2011). Read More