At present,
many people, especially young people, seem to think that the human
race is in a serious condition and
that its survival is doubtful. This is because, among other things, global
warming and climate change are human-caused (so they have been persuaded), and
we have not sufficiently responded to them, and if we do not reduce CO2 emissions to zero by around 2035, sea levels will rise and many large cities will become uninhabitable. In order to avoid
such a situation, they are trying to reduce the food supply for the human race,
by introducing such outrageous science as the abolition of much of agriculture in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, including those other than CO2. These
movements, under the guise of saving humanity from crisis, are, on
the contrary, endangering humanity (the majority, if not the whole). In some cases,
the entire human race and much of life
on earth may be at risk, including those who are involved in the climate
movements. On the other hand, there are cases of misuse of science, as
exemplified by nuclear weapons.
We will briefly examine the following
issues: “the possibility of using nuclear weapons”, “not giving up nuclear
power”, “bio-weaponization”, “population reduction”, “climate change”,
“decarbonization”, “agricultural destruction”, “domination over the entire
humanity and science by a minority."
(A)
In relation to the
Ukraine issue
The Ukraine
issue, which began in March 2022, is often thought of as simply Russia's
illegal invasion of Ukraine, if one is not aware of the previous history
of the country. In World War II, Nazi
Germany's main goal was to bring down the Soviet Union. The Western side,
although fighting against Nazi Germany, wanted to destroy the communist Soviet
Union and did not interfere with the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union. In fact, even
before that, the West had made numerous attempts to crush Russia. The best
known is Napoleon's (unsuccessful) invasion
of Russia. Immediately after World War II, the USA and Britain inherited
the German policy and continued to plot the destruction of the Soviet Union
with nuclear weapons, which were being developed at the time. This intention continued for 45 years after the
war in the form of the Cold War, and in 1991, the USSR was dissolved. The U.S.
and British sides, however, would like to bring Russia under their control as
well. And perhaps they may intend to dominate Russia, which is rich in natural
resources, and exploit them. In Ukraine, too, we can see from Mika Tsutsumi's
recent book that U.S.
entrepreneurs are already trying to capture agricultural lands and other resources [1].
With
this intention, the U.K. and U.S., along with original NATO nations, have
incorporated many Eastern European countries into NATO. They have focused their
efforts on strengthening its military and other activities in Ukraine, the last
frontline region, with the goal of attacking Russia. The 2014 coup in Ukraine,
backed by the United States, ousted the elected president. At that time,
Russian residents of the eastern Donbass region opposed such a coup, and in
response, the Kiev side began to repress and massacre such opponents (of
Russian origin). In order to settle this conflict, the Minsk Accords were
created to grant autonomy to the Donbass region, through the mediation of Germany, France, and other countries.
Former German Chancellor Merkel confessed that it was in fact only a sham
agreement to buy time to strengthen Ukraine's military power (and eventually to
invade Russia), and former French President Francois Hollande also said he
agreed with Merkel [2]. Ukraine made no effort to implement these agreements,
but instead repeatedly attacked the Donbass, Crimea, and other areas, and was
planning a more extensive obliteration, when Russia advanced its forces in the
name of supporting the Donbass region residents (2022.02.24).
Russia has
insisted from the beginning that the ceasefire be based on the security of the Donbass
region and Ukraine's
neutrality (no NATO membership).
Accepting these conditions would defeat their (U.S.
and U.K.) intentions. The U.S., U.K. and NATO seem
to intend that they would not let Ukraine stop the conflict, and they provide
weapons and others until they accomplish their intention (classing Russia). The
U.S. alone has spent $112 billion worth of money and weapons in the year 2022
alone (starting February 24). And they are trying to compensate for the decline
in Ukraine's military power with soldiers from NATO/EU (NATO/EU military participation). This clearly
shows that the West intends
to leave no stone unturned
until it brings
Russia under its control.
In October
2022, a referendum was held in four eastern Ukrainian provinces, and, an
overwhelming majority of these four provinces opted for becoming of a part of
the Russian state, and Russia has approved this.
The Ukrainian government, for its part, has stepped up its attack,
saying that it will not accept the takeover of these provinces by force, as they were
originally part of Ukraine, and that it will take them back by all means. It is
necessary to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding this situation,
namely, how Ukraine became independent at the time of the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, whether the
southeastern part wanted to stay on the Russian side or to side with Kiev, and how it became its present form [3]. Of
course, the U.S., U.K., and NATO are
supporting Ukraine's current claim. It is true that Russia tried to expand and
annex the surrounding areas during the Russian Empire, and that some countries
suffered when they were included in the Soviet Union after World War II. It
seems that the citizens of those countries have a sense of rebellion against
Russia and support the current Ukrainian approach. On the other hand, the
Russian side is also aware that it has always been attacked by the West:
Russophobia. As an example of this awareness, let me refer to an article in the
Asahi Shimbun dated June 8, 2022 [4], which describes how the Russian felt and
feel yet about the attack by the Nazi during WW II, and several historically
important attacks on Russia including the one by Napoleon.
On the Ukraine
issue, various problems are afflicting the common people, including Russia's
economic blockade, the resulting fuel shortages in Western Europe, food
shortages in various parts of the world, and inflation, all of which are causing the problems across the
whole world. Of course, many of Ukraine's citizens are suffering more severely. We should bring
about a ceasefire as soon as possible.
However,
Ukraine has begun attacking Russia, including attacking military installations,
air fields and civilian facilities in Russia. This is being done with the
encouragement of the United States
and the United Kingdom. Such moves are contrary to Russia's demand from the
beginning, namely, the neutralization of Ukraine, and suggest that the West has
started down the path toward crashing Russia. It is possible that they are
planning to expand the scale of the war (all-out war), drawing a reaction from
Russia. If Russia gets on board, the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons
will increase. Since U.S. nuclear weapons are already deployed in NATO
countries, if this happens, the possibility of progressing to nuclear war is
very great. Nuclear destruction would spread to Western Europe and perhaps even
to the North American continent. It would inflict thousands of times more
damage on many parts of the earth than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which inflicted
great damage. Not only would there be destruction and casualties from nuclear
explosions, but the effects on humans and other living creatures from radiation
exposure would be enormous. Human civilization would have to cease to exist.
We do not want this to happen. But even if
it does not happen in this region, there are still other areas of the earth
where nuclear war is a possibility.
(B) Other areas
On the Pacific side, the fundamental problem is the
confrontation between the
U.S. and China, and China is a serious obstacle
to achieving unipolar
domination by the U.S. and Britain
(NATO). Depending on the outcome
in Ukraine, either the U.S., U.K., and NATO will abandon
unipolar domination or, if they have conquered
Russia to a significant degree,
they will increase
pressure on China.
In the same way that the U.S., U.K., and NATO countries have expanded their military power in Ukraine in
order to make Ukraine play the role of destroying Russia, the U.S. and U.K.,
especially the U.S., are making Japan a key strategic point like Ukraine. To
prepare for this, the current government of Japan is focusing on expanding
military power in and around Okinawa, including military power for enemy base
attacks. This is also to increase the profits of the U.S. military industry,
though. If the U.S. and China enter into a military conflict, it
could eventually lead to the use of nuclear weapons, depending on the direction
of that development.
A
conflict between nations that could progress to the military level of the use
of nuclear weapons is Israel versus Iran. Israel already has enough nuclear
weapons. Iran, on the other hand, is keen on developing nuclear matters and is
fully capable of building nuclear weapons. Other examples include India
versus Pakistan and India versus China,
but the causes of conflict among these nations are only a few regional
affiliation issues and are unlikely to escalate into a conflict to the point of using nuclear weapons to fight each other.
(C) Likelihood of nuclear weapons abolition in the near
future =Zero
What, then, are
the possibilities of the abolition of nuclear
weapons? The Nuclear Weapon Ban
Treaty was approved by 122 countries at the United Nations in July 2017 and
became effective in January 2021. However, the nuclear weapon states and their
allies (NATO countries, Japan, Australia, etc.) opposed to the treaty, and some
countries (including Japan) did not even participate in the conference.
Such a treaty alone
will never be enough to abolish nuclear
weapons. Whether in the U.S.
or Russia, the ultimate part of military power lies in nuclear weapon
manufacturers and are deeply involved
in the current administration
in various ways (see, for example, "America's Giant military Industry" (Takashi Hirose, Shueisha, 2001)),
and any administration that does not go along with their wishes is brought down in many ways.
War is better for increasing the profits of such corporations.
What should
we do? The Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty was passed with the participation of about
60% of the member states of the United Nations, but these countries are far
from possessing nuclear weapons, and calls from them alone cannot sway the
nuclear powers. Countries that do not possess nuclear weapons but are forced to
possess them or expect to be under the umbrella of their nuclear weapons in cowardice
to the nuclear weapon states have taken a stand against the ban treaty. It is
necessary for these countries to join the Nuclear Weapons Convention,
even if only little by little. In particular, Japan, as the world's first
country to have suffered atomic bombings, should take the lead in ratifying the
treaty. The Japanese people should
mobilize their government to do so. If 80% of the countries join (ratify) the treaty,
pressure on the nuclear weapon states will increase, citizens of the nuclear
weapon states will become more aware of the dangers of possessing nuclear
weapons, and an atmosphere may be created
in which nuclear weapons producing companies will be put out of business.
Humanity,
unfortunately, has had the preposterous idea of applying the scientific achievement of discovering nuclear
reactions to immediately create tools of war (killing people). And once created, those
who benefit from them are reluctant to abandon
them. If nuclear
weapons are not abolished
from this earth, they will be used on some occasion, and if they are used, the other side will have no
choice but to respond with nuclear weapons.
This would mean the end of the human race. Will humanity
manage to eliminate
nuclear weapons from the earth within this century?
References
[1] Mika
Tsutsumi," Report: Food is being Destroyed"
(Bunshun Shinsho, published December 16, 2022)
[2]
https://www.rt.com/news/569036-merkel-minsk-accords-ukraine/
https://www.rt.com/news/569201-hollande-merkel-minsk-ukraine/
[3] https://www.rt.com/russia/569302-russia-could-have-prevented-conflict/
[4] https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASQ675WJZQ67UHBI01V.html?iref=comtop_7_01
Basic Problems of Humanity at Hands (50)
Humanity is on the verge of self-destruction (II)
They
would not give up the nuclear power reactors
(A) Origins
and development of nuclear power
plant: Ignore radiation effects in its use
The visible
destruction caused by the atomic
bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki left a lasting
impression on people around the world. Many deaths were caused by heat and
physical injuries. However, many people also died without apperant physical
injuries. They were due to high radiation from the explosions; high radiation destroyed many
organs inside. Many of those who survived from the explosion suffered later from a
number of serious health injuries including cancers and died. They were
affected by the invisible, skin-insensitive, and non-immediate effects
of internal exposure
to radiation from the radioactive material (ashes of death) released
during the atomic bomb explosions. These effects have been ignored, because the internal exposure is
subtle and invisible. Well, the facts
and data on the health effects of radiation
exposure were somewhat obtained from the post-A-
bomb studies conducted by the U.S.,
but they were hidden for a long time [1].
With the development of the atomic bomb in United States, there were those who, as is customary for mankind, sought
to profit from the technology by using it for the general public as well. First, equipment
that brought the fission reaction
under control and converted the thermal energy generated into electric power was applied
to U.S. Navy submarines. So far, this is
military use of nuclear energy.
Using almost the same principle, they developed a
facility to supply electricity to human society,
a nuclear power plant. In its development, "Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy" was emphasized so that the evil of military use would fade from the consciousness of the Japanese
people particularly [2]. Eventually, more than 50 nuclear reactors
were built in tiny Japan.
In the process of building
these reactors, the emphasis was placed only on the benefit , i.e., the promotion of cheap and safe power supply
without requiring much
raw material for power
generation, ignoring
the problems of radioactive materials created by nuclear power plant operation, such as health effects and difficulties in safe storage,
which are troubling. As a result,
the effects of radiation
exposure did not enter
the consciousness of the majority
of people during
the process of developing and
increasing
the number of nuclear power plants. Of course, there were some regions where people were aware of the effects
of radiation and other
problems with nuclear
power plants and rejected their installation, but many of the regions
where nuclear power plants were installed welcomed
them because of the economic
benefits and other
reasons.
(B) Effects
of radiation exposure
in various settings
Wherever radioactive materials are handled,
radiation is generated
and the possibility of it’s leaking out exists. It is very difficult to
completely contain radiation. In what kinds of places and under what circumstances is radiation exposure
seen? Such places include uranium
mines, uranium ore processing plants, uranium enrichment
plants, atomic bomb production plants, atomic bomb test
sites and their surroundings (especially downwind), fuel rod fabrication for nuclear power plants, nuclear
reactors (plants) under normal operation,
and around nuclear
accidents (quite extensive). For a detailed
description of the various exposure
effects in these settings, please
refer to my book "Nuclear Issues in the 21st
Century" [3]. Some of them are briefly reviewed below.
Many uranium mine workers
had lung cancer.
Many serious health problems
occurred to the employees of the Hanford
Plant in Washington State, USA, which was a typical atomic bomb manufacturing plant, and to the surrounding (particularly downwind side) residents. The Nevada atomic
bomb test was conducted over a period
of 10 years with about 100 airborne
explosion tests, and the deadly
ashes
from these tests were spread in large quantities downwind
to the east side of the country.
In fact, it spread all over the U.S. except
for the West Coast. The effects caused
health problems for many residents, especially in the neighboring western
part of Utah. Accidents at nuclear power plants
and other nuclear facilities are actually
quite frequent, but not much is known about them except for accidents of considerable magnitude. No, even quite serious accidents
have not been fully investigated, and even when they are, in many cases the data have been covered up. Major accidents of nuclear plants include the US Three Mile Island accident (1979),
the Chernobyl accident
(1986), and the Fukushima nuclear
accident in Japan (2011).
In fact, the author spent a quarter of a century
from two years
after the accident at a college located
150 km west of the Three Mile Nuclear Power Plant. Also, three years after the Chernobyl accident,
I spent six months a university in northern Sweden, where
the plume of the accident is said to have passed through. Therefore, I should
have been interested in the issue
of the nuclear plant accidents, but I did not pay much attention
to them until the Fukushima
accident occurred. The Fukushima accident
made me realize the seriousness of the radiation
exposure problem. In the past 10 years or so, I have written four books
in Japanese and two in English, dealing with radiation issues, starting
with “Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Power
Plant” (Rokusaisha, 2012) There are quite a few people in Japan who are concerned with the effects of the Fukushima
accident and are making efforts
to fight the government and the
judicial system regarding the effects of the Fukushima NPP accident,
and to expose the fake science
on the part of the government. However, that number
is probably only a small portion (perhaps
a few percent) of the total Japanese
population. The majority
are indifferent.
(C) Radiation
exposure hazards due to the Fukushima accident:
denial by those
in power
The nuclear
users (corporations, bureaucrats and politicians controlled by them, prefectural governments, scientists, universities, etc.) are trying
hard to cover up the fact of radiation exposure
hazards, especially the high incidence of thyroid cancer among Fukushima children.
Behind the scenes
are the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association), ICRP (International Commission
on Radiation Protection), and UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), all of which are organizations that defend nuclear
power plants on the planet.
They have even published fake research data in academic journals and other media under the guise of science,
and the
Japanese government and Fukushima prefecture continue to deny that the thyroid cancer of Fukushima children
has anything to do with the Fukushima nuclear accident on the basis of such data
that their scientists have artificially created.
Eventually,
these unscientific claims
will be buried.
But until then,
many people who are indifferent to the seriousness of radiation exposure
will be led to believe
the administration's argument that health problems caused by the Fukushima nuclear
accident are not so
serious. Moreover, the powers which are making efforts are tryin to instill the "radiation safety" idea in children.
That is to brainwash the children.
The above-mentioned nuclear
power plant advocacy
organizations have officially acknowledged that
children’s thyroid cancer (and leukemia)
after the Chernobyl accident was caused by radiation
from the radioactive materials released from the accident.
Nevertheless, the same
organizations now support the
Japanese government's claim that the current Fukushima
outbreak of pediatric
thyroid cancer is unrelated
to radiation released by the accident. Why, perhaps, they
have regreted to have
admitted that the health problems
caused by the Chernobyl accident
were due to radiation exposure.
And as for the Fukushima accident, they are trying to get the public to accept
that no serious health effect has occurred in the case of Fukushima
accident.
The effort on the part of these nuclear
proponents is to try to brainwash people so that they do not realize the "evils of radiation". Why? When
not only the majority
of the people but also those who are causing
the radiation themselves recognize the evils of radiation, the nuclear industry will be asked why they insist on having
nuclear power plants
that produce so much of such evils.
The current effort by the
Japanese government and the associates is to convince the people that no serious
effects from the accidents exist and no
NNP need to be scrapped.
In fact, the release
of radioactive materials from the Fukushima nuclear accident
has had various effects on many people,
not just thyroid cancer in children. However, no effort
has been made
by the public agents to investigate such effects, and therefore, in many
cases, it is just the impression on people that such and such strange things have been happening since the accident.
The phenomenon that attracted the most public attention was the nosebleeds that occurred in many children
as well as adults after the accident, and the government joined the controversy (known as the nosebleed controversy) and
strenuously denied any
connection with the accident (the possibility of nosebleeds due to radiation)
(see [4]).
Also, not only in Fukushima, but also in the surrounding areas, the number of adults suffering from cancer is increasing. After
the nuclear accident, there were cases of young Kabuki actors
dying suddenly one after another.
There are data on
the phenomena that may be related to the effects
on the brain, such as a sharp increase
in Alzheimer's disease
deaths since 2011
[5], and an increase
in accidents that may have been caused by train driver’s and cab driver’s
malfunctioning. But again, it is not possible to verify the link
these events with the Fukushima
accident at this time. Effects
on plants and animals have also been observed. For an overview
of these effects,
please refer to Chapter 9 of the author's book "Nuclear
Issues in the 21st Century" [3].
(D) Radioactive emissions from nuclear
power plants under normal
operation
A large amount of radioactive material is produced
in an operating nuclear reactor. To give an idea of how much, the amount
of radioactive material produced
in one year of operation
of a normal-sized nuclear reactor
is a thousand times the amount
produced by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Some of the radioactive materials that can be produced are in gaseous form. Tritium (T2 /THO), xenon (Xe-133),
krypton (Kr-85) or iodine (in the form of I2 , I-129, I-131, etc.). These gases increase
the pressure inside the reactor
and are dangerous, so they must be vented
out from time to time. In other words,
even under normal
operation, radioactive materials
are (intentionally) released
from time to time. During venting, the released gases
go under water to remove
any gases that are soluble
in water, but they also emit splashes
of water, including cesium (Cs-134/137) and others,
which are released together in small quantities. A nuclear reactor
uses the heat generated
in the reactor to turn water into steam, which
turns the generator on. In this process, such water is also exposed to
radiation and become radioactive. This water is cooled and used repeatedly. However, the cooling water is taken in from the outside, used for cooling,
heated and discharged.
The structure of a nuclear
power plant is complex, with numerous pipes
and valves around the reactor.
When old, such parts
corrode and leak water containing radioactive materials. Thus, even without accidents, nuclear reactors are
constantly emitting radioactive materials into the atmosphere and into the environment through
groundwater and other routes.
A study found that the rate of leukemia
among children living within
5 km of all nuclear
reactors in Germany
was more than three times higher than among children
living farther away [6]. Subsequently, data showing similar
phenomenon were also published in France,
the United Kingdom, and other countries. This is evidence
of the release of radioactive materials from nuclear
power plants under normal operation. There is other evidence,
but see Chapter 10 of
“Nuclear Issues in the 21st Century”.
(E) Weaponization of nuclear
power plants
In the main part of a nuclear power plant (reactor), the same nuclear
reaction (fission) occurs as in an atomic bomb. However,
in an atomic bomb, the fission reaction
is not controlled, and the reaction is explosive all at once.
On the other hand, in a nuclear
power plant, the same fission
reaction takes place,
but it is controlled so that it does not go out of control
(the condition under which the fission reaction
starts to occur in a chain reaction
manner is called the critical
condition, and the critical condition
is not exceeded), and the energy generated
from the fission
reaction is converted
into electricity. The fission reaction occurs in fuel rods
containing uranium-235 (or plutonium-239), and in order to prevent
a runaway reaction,
control rods are inserted between
the fuel rods to trap the neutrons
that cause
the chain reaction.
The fission reaction
is controlled by
adjusting the position of the
control rods. A large amount of radioactive material
is deposited in the
fuel rods in the reactor as a result of the fission reaction.
As one can imagine
from the structure
of such a reactor, it is quite difficult to control the fission reaction, and if the operating method
is wrong, it can lead to an explosion. In fact, in the Chernobyl nuclear accident, during
the test phase
to inspect the operational control,
the operation went wrong,
the reactor went beyond critical, and began to explode. They attempted to cool the reactor by adding
large amounts of
water, but this caused a steam explosion that ignited the graphite used as coolant,
resulting in a major fire.
Under such circumstances, a large
amount of radioactive material inside the reactor was discharged and dispersed over a vast area.
One can imagine that a missile
attack on a nuclear reactor,
destroying the reactor
and its spent fuel rods (full of radioactive materials), would scatter radioactive materials over a very wide area, harming
many people. The peaceful use of nuclear
power plants would cause damage equivalent to a nuclear
bomb explosion. Last year (2022) during the struggle in Ukraine, Russia occupied
and protected Zaporozhia, the largest nuclear
power plant in Europe, at an early stage
and kept it in operation with Ukrainian workers.
This was done to foreclose
in advance the danger of the plant becoming the target of
an attack. However, around September
2022, bullets began to be fired into this nuclear
power plant.
Several IAEA representatives inspected the plant and admitted
that it had been attacked,
but kept their mouths shut as to whether the attackers were Ukraine or Russia. The Ukrainians continued
to attack the plant and its surroundings, making it appear that the plant was in danger. In fact, the Ukrainians
must have understood from the experience of the Chernobyl
accident that it would be a disaster if the plant were to collapse under attack, so they
would not actually launch an attack on a scale that would
destroy the plant.
Why would they do so? The idea may
be to emphasize this danger and solicit
the UN to make Russia withdraw from the plant and make the surrounding area a safe zone in the interest of safety. The UN passed a resolution condemning Russia for this and recommending that it withdraw.
Russia did not withdraw to ensure safety. However, the Ukrainians continued
to attack the plant, and finally all six reactors at the Zaporozhia plant had to be shut down (at the outbreak of the war, four of the six reactors were in operation).
There are more than 50 nuclear
reactors in Japan, and if a war were to break out, they would be become tagets of missile attacks
immediately, possibly leaving
no place
for people to live in a small country like Japan.
(F) Hazards of long-term operation of nuclear
reactors
I hope the above statements have helped you understand that the basis of the danger of nuclear power
lies in radiation, but I have not yet explained the basic question
of why this is so. Why? The reason is that all materials on earth (humans,
forests, cars, etc.) are made of chemical compounds, while radiation is produced
from nuclear reactions.
What's the difference? A little bit of science. Matter is made up of atoms. An atom has a nucleus
in the middle with electrons
orbiting around it. Matter on earth is
made up of atoms
and atoms connected together by electromagnetic forces between the positively charged nucleus and negatively
charged electrons. The nucleus
is a tiny tiny ball filled
with positively charged protons
and uncharged neutrons,
and the force that binds them together
tightly is called the nuclear force, which is much stronger (about a million
times stronger) than the electromagnetic force. Radiation
produced by the change in the
nucleus (nuclear decay),
therefore, has a very strong force (energy). Therefore, when it strikes matter,
kicks out electrons from the chemical compounds, destroying the
chemical bonds that connect
atoms to atoms in the compounds, and hence destroys the compounds that make up matter. The
chemical bonds in proteins and DNA, which make up the human body, are very weak compared with the radiation energy, they are easily
destroyed by radiation. This is the root of radiation exposure.
There is no way to defend against
the radiation’s destroying effects.
Even the metal (primarily iron) that makes up the nuclear reactor
is destroyed when exposed to radiation because
the force that binds the iron atoms
to each other is also an electromagnetic force. The nuclear reactor is exposed to large amounts
of radiation, which gradually breaks the bonds between the atoms of the metal, making it vulnerable. There is no way to prevent this phenomenon. In addition, many pipes and valves are also corroded
by radiation and water. Because of this degradation by radiation, a nuclear
power reactor is usually decommissioned after 40 years of
operation. The power company is obligated to make a provision for the
closure from the time of construction.
In recent years, however,
many nuclear power plants have been operating
beyond beyond 40 years. This is a lax, unconstrained lifting of restrictions. The power companies
may be trying to make a profit
by operating the nuclear power plants they have as long as possible.
In particular, nuclear power plants in Japan, an earthquake-prone country, have not only become
more vulnerable to nuclear accidents, but also the possibility of accidents caused by earthquakes will increase. One of the reasons for the extreme
danger is the fact that the earthquake resistance of Japan's
nuclear power plants
has been very poor from the time of their design. Terrifyingly, the earthquake resistance of existing nuclear
power plants is much lower than that of ordinary
houses [7] . Moreover, some nuclear power
plants are located
on fault lines.
Although the Fukushima
accident is emphasized as being caused
by the tsunami, the fact that
the initial
power outage and destruction of buildings due to the earthquake were the initial causes
of the accident is being ignored, or even covered
up. Perhaps, the
advocates of nuclear power want to avoid focusing
on the likely effects of future earthquakes. All of the nuclear power plants in Japan must be decommissioned as soon as possible and brought to a less dangerous state.
The dangers of aging nuclear power plants are not a problem unique to Japan, but Japan needs to be especially careful.
(G) Difficulties
in long-term preservation of radioactive waste
The big question is how and where to preserve radioactive materials, especially highly radioactive waste containing large amounts of radioactive materials
such as spent fuel rods. Such wastes will continue
to emit intense radiation for about 200,000
years. This is such a long-term problem
that we do not even know if humans will survive that long (the current homo sapiens was born about 200,000
years ago). If we take a lax approach, we may cause serious problems
for future generations (our grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and those to come).
Currently, each country
is carefully considering this issue, but even the
U.S. and Germany have not found a suitable location. These developments in various
countries can be found at the site in [8]. Currently, the only full- scale site is located
400-450 m deep on the island of Olkiluoto, off the southwest
coast of Finland. There, five tunnels will be set up to create 180 disposal boreholes (where solidified high-energy waste will be placed).
The excavation of those five tunnels was completed in June 2022 [9]. However,
the third largest
unit of nuclear power plant on the island is currently out of order and inoperable.
There are few places in Japan where the geological strata are stable for millions of years. Why would Japan restart
or build new nuclear power plants that will generate
more and more waste?
(H) Necessity of continued nuclear power? Military purposes, link to climate change,
etc.
The above statements should lead one to conclude
that nuclear power plants should not exist on this planet, but there are already
more than 400 nuclear power plants on the planet, and efforts to build new ones are underway in several
countries (even in Japan). One argument is that safety will be improved with new forms, smaller size,
etc. However, the fundamental problem
cannot be solved.
That is, nuclear fission
produces a large amount of radioactive material,
its emission is inevitable, and the problem
of how to safely store the waste
has not been solved. By the way, there are currently
10 nuclear reactors
in Japan (5 of Kansai Electric Power Company,
1 by Shikoku Electric Power Company, and 4
of Kyushu Electric Power Company) that have been approved for operation and are
operational, and about 7 to 9 are usually in operation.
Are nuclear power plants absolutely necessary in Japan?
As is well known, there were no nuclear power plants in operation for two years after the Fukushima accident.
Despite of this situation, there were no blackouts due to power
shortages. In other
words, nuclear power is not indispensable in Japan. Recently,
however, the Japanese government has been trying to implement the GX (Green Transformation) policy of restarting old ones or building new nuclear power plants
without fully discussing the matter with the public
and the Diet. This is extremely dangerous. In today's (2023.01.19) Tokyo Newspaper, I came across
an article in which a group of young people
began to make a proposal
to "review the promotion of nuclear power without public
debate”. This is a desirable
move, and many citizens should participate in it.
It is believed that the
reason why many countries are interested in possessing
nuclear power plants is to secure the raw materials for nuclear weapons
(plutonium) and various
technologies related to nuclear use that can be obtained through the operation of nuclear power
plants. The Japanese
government seems to have maintained such an intention
ever since the end of World War II.
More recently, some people argue that the nuclear power reactor is an effective
way to combat climate change.
Those advocating climate change prevention argue that in order to reduce
climate change, anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must be reduced to zero. To achieve such a condition (NetZero),
many have been
led to believe that the current fossil carbon-fueled electricity must be scrapped and that nuclear power plants, which emit no CO2, are the way to go. Of course,
electricity from renewable
energy sources, such as
solar and wind power, is still recommended. The basic idea of the climate change
movement that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate
change requires
reconsideration.
I would like to see if nuclear
power plants are really effective
in stopping global warming, which is considered the driving force behind
climate change. First, it is incorrect to say that nuclear power plants do not emit CO2. It is true that nuclear
reactors do not emit CO2. However, if we take into account
the entire operation process from uranium excavation, reactor construction,
power generation operation, nuclear power plant post-processing, etc., the energy requirements are equivalent to generating a significant amount of CO2. The energy required to produce a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity by the nuclear power is equivalent to the generation of about 180 g of CO2, which is
considerably less than the 1000 g
required for fossil fuels, but considerably higher than the 20-90 g required for solar, wind, and other power generation. Second, nuclear power plants
are actually environment-warming devices.
This is because only one-third of the heat produced
by nuclear fission in a nuclear
reactor can be converted
into electrical energy.
Therefore, the remaining two thirds are released
into the environment, warming it. Nuclear
reactors are cooled
by taking in seawater or river water. The cooling
water is then warmed and returned
to the sea or river.
In the case of the Sendai Nuclear
Power Plant in Kyushu, about 100 tons of seawater
per second is taken in to cool the reactor, heated by 7-8 degrees
Celsius, and returned
to the sea; 9 million
tons per day. Because the seawater has been heated
for many years,
fish carcasses are often
washed up on nearby beaches,
and tropical fish have increased
in the surrounding waters [11].
As cooling water temperatures rise, the efficiency of nuclear power plants decreases. Extreme heat in Europe has forced nuclear
power plants in France and Sweden
to shut down. If the necessary costs
of operating a nuclear
power plant, including the cost of ensuring
safety and other necessities (e.g., after-treatment), are added, nuclear
power becomes expensive, which is economically very unfavorable for both the citizens and the companies. The current practice
is still exploitation of the public, with the government using taxes taken from the public to subsidize the losses on the part of the companies.
Finally, we are often told that "nuclear power is clean energy," but have we not learned from the previous
statements that nuclear power is, in fact, the dirtiest energy source (see also [12])? After all, life (humanity) cannot coexist with the
radiation produced by nuclear power plants. However,
since this effect is subtle and unknowable to our senses,
it is inevitably ignored. Since it has already been spread over a fairly
wide area of the earth (not only by the Fukushima accident), the possibility of anyone taking in a trace
amount of radioactive material is not zero. Therefore, we should not increase such dangerous things
any further.
One last thing: With the Ukrainian
struggle that began in February
2022, the West has imposed
economic sanctions on Russia,
causing serious energy shortages in Germany and other Western
countries. Germany, which experienced
the severity
of the Chernobyl accident and witnessed the Fukushima accident had intended
to eliminate all nuclear power plants by the end of 2022, but it seems that they are reviving coal power and,
for awhile, deferring nuclear power plant decommissioning in order to somehow supplement the energy shortage
caused by the Ukraine
problem note. But Germany have finally closed down all the nuclear power
plants by the end of April 2023. France, too, had intended to reduce the number of nuclear power plants, but it seems to be delaying this and is also considering building new ones. This is a very troubling situation.
References
[1] NHK Special 2021.08.09, "Nuclear Power Plant Initial Investigation: The Hidden Truth," https://www.nhk.jp/p/special/ts/2NY2QQLPM3/blog/bl/pneAjJR3gn/bp/pGrz5p1y MG/; https://www.nhk. jp/p/special/ts/2NY2QQLPM3/blog/bl/pneAjJR3gn/bp/pbWlL6vl7n/
[2] 1953.12.08 US President Eisenhauer's speech at the UN
[3] Eiichiro Ochiai, "Nuclear Issues in the 21st
CenturyL Invisible Radiation Effects on Life” (Nova Science Pub. (N. Y.),
2020).
[4] http://www.nikkanberita.com/read.cgi?id=201405141002073 http://www.nikkanberita.com/read.cgi?id=201405171452266 http://www.nikkanberita.com/read.cgi?id=201405261351081
[5] http://www.nikkanberita.com/read.cgi?id=201712251202041
[6] Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, et al, Leukaemia in
young children living in the vicinity
of German nuclear power plants, Int J Cancer, 1220, 721- 726 (2008)
[7] http://www.nikkan-gendai.com/articles/view/life/290370
[8] http://www2.rwmc.or.jp/start
[9] https://www2.rwmc.or.jp/nf/?p=30176
[10] https://www.nhk.or.jp/kaisetsu-blog/100/473051.html
[11] http://hunter-investigate.jp/news/2012/03/post-179.html; https://www.data-max.co.jp/2010/05/post_9946.html
[12] http://vsa9.blogspot.com/2022/07/2022.html
