Basic problems of humanity at hand (49)

 Humanity is on the verge of self-destruction (I)

 Possibility of Nuclear Wars

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 21^st 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 21^st 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 21^st 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 21^st 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