It is difficult to gauge what response is in line with the deteriorating nuclear situation, and how that sentiment ought to be translated to atomic energy globally. No one can say how bad it is and what, hypothetically, could happen.
 |
Cloudmaker II, from my office window--not among the reactors
built before 1980 in Germany and scheduled to be taken off-line
|
Can energy demands be met without nuclear power and without added pollution and cost? Auditing and taking a critical look at the industry as well as fears are necessary and constructive reactions, but crisis can sometimes lead to hyperbolic thought-experiments. Jane Fonda played the heroine in the film “The China Syndrome,” which debuted amazingly less than two weeks before the disaster at the Three Mile Island power plant in Pennsylvania. The China Syndrome refers to the extreme, catastrophic case, when the pool of melted radioactive fuel burns through the containment shield and into the Earth below.
Not very reassuringly, scientists say it is impossible for a melt-down to be so hot and sustained to bore through the Earth (a hole all the way to China) or reach the Earth’s core, but soil and ground water could be harshly contaminated. I suppose the detractors for CERN’s super-collider citing its potential for creating microscopic black-holes—also not very reassuringly deemed unlikely, would have garnered more support today. There is a lot of speculation and panic and it is very hard to know what sources to trust: industry lobbyists and iodine-peddlers should probably be suspect, as well as power companies. Even though there is not a great presence on site, groups like the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be reliable and scientific sources. German shorthand for all these super-national bodies usually includes “organization” in the abbreviated name, hence United Nations Organization as UNO or IAEA-O.
