Civil society organisations from Japan, South Korea, Australia and Malaysia have called on the government of Malaysia to stop its nuclear power development plan.
A huge explosion at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan following a major earthquake and tsunami
The groups said they are convinced beyond doubt that nuclear power has no place in Malaysia’s quest to chart a sustainable energy future.
Following a two-day public forum (8-9 October 2011), which provided an insight into the potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy to achieve a healthy energy mix in the near future for Malaysia, they urged the government to increase its support for these sectors instead of spending taxpayers’ money on nuclear technology which has proven time and again to be economically, environmentally and socially harmful.
The forum also heard first-hand of the sufferings of the people of Fukushima from the 11 March 2011 tsunami-triggered crisis that saw the meltdown of the three reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Eri Watanabe, nuclear and energy Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Japan, said:
The accident in Fukushima once again reminded us that once a severe accident happens, environmental and social impacts are irreversible.
So far, the Japanese government cannot sufficiently protect their people from radiation. However, the government still continues its policy to promote exports of nuclear power technology. This is morally wrong because its own people are still suffering so much from the accident.
I strongly recommend that the Malaysian government and people rethink the introduction of nuclear energy for your prosperity and for the next generation.
Hideyuki Ban of Citizens Nuclear Information Centre (CNIC) said:
The Japanese government and electricity utilities insisted that Japanese nuclear power technology is superior. However, Fukushima showed us that they were so wrong.
The fallout from the nuclear reactors contaminated a vast land area, the air and the sea. I want the Malaysian government and its people to recognise that the Fukushima tragedy could happen to any country that embraces nuclear power.
Representative of the Fukushima Network for Protecting Children from Radiation, Seiichi Nakate, said:
I would not want the Malaysian people to experience the tragedy that people in Fukushima are now facing. I came here only because I wanted to tell you this. In Fukushima, more than 100000 families have been separated because of the nuclear accident. And even now, one million people still live in contaminated areas with deep sufferings and anxiety.
Human beings must abandon nuclear power plants. We must not allow a single nuclear power plant to be built anymore.
Kim Hye Jeong, Executive Coordinator of KFEM said:
Korea’s nuclear technologies are questionable as shown by its track record of 646 minor and major accidents in a period of 32 years since the installation of its first nuclear power plant in 1978.
We are appalled that the APR1400 nuclear reactor that has yet to be commercially tested in South Korea might just be the type of reactor that the Malaysian government is considering buying from us.
We condemn the South Korean Government’s plan to export such sub-standard technology to a developing country like Malaysia under the pretext of international technical cooperation.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner of FoE-Australia, said:
Australian uranium was used in the Fukushima reactors that were destroyed in March. We Australians do not want to be responsible for similar disasters in Malaysia.
He also said over a 50-year lifespan, a single nuclear reactor is responsible for 1500 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste and a staggering 35mil tonnes of low level radioactive tailings waste. The Malaysian government should not bequeath this toxic legacy to future generations.
Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear power
Stop nuclear power plan
The Real Cost of Nuclear Power
…
The UK government apparently believes that nuclear energy will provide low-carbon electricity safely and at no cost to the taxpayer and a competitive price to the consumer. I wouldn’t put money on that, and neither, it seems, will the major financial institutions.Unless it changes its mind soon, the government will commit us to nuclear power and only later accept that it will have to provide the subsidies it promised were not going to be needed. It may do this directly by large handouts to the companies, but it could also try to conceal it by various devices. It could provide finance for construction at favourable rates or offer loan guarantees, it could agree to buy large amounts of electricity at above-market prices, it could take a very optimistic view of the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. The nuclear industry will have become too important (if not too big) to fail and, one way or another, the taxpayer will be called upon to make sure that it doesn’t. Having chosen nuclear because we were told it was cheaper than other sources, we will find ourselves paying more.
We do not need to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. We can satisfy our energy needs by a combination of renewable sources [5] as Germany is already planning to do. It’s worth bearing in mind that nuclear currently produces only about 13 per cent of the UK’s electricity, and that this will fall to 8 per cent by 2020 as old plants reach the end of their useful lives. By then, even the government expects that renewables will be supplying 30 per cent.
We must greatly improve energy efficiency and reduce high carbon activities in such areas as transport, which is currently responsible for a fifth of our greenhouse gas emissions. Farming, changes in land use and waste together account for 11 per cent, and we need to make changes here as well (see [22] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS Publication).
Nuclear energy is clearly not necessary. Moreover, if the UK rushes ahead with nuclear we are likely to find other countries doing better by concentrating on renewables and we will end up having to buy electricity generating equipment from them. Already both China and Germany are setting out to be world leaders in the field. And despite what our government and the industry would have us believe, nuclear energy is also hazardous (see [23] Close-up on Nuclear Safety , SiS 40).
The explosions and fires at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors, almost exactly on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Chernobyl, have made most of us even more worried about the hazards of nuclear energy (see [1] Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, SiS 50). The nuclear lobby see things differently: the explosion at Chernobyl was due to the poor design and incompetent operation of the reactor under the Soviet system, and hardly anyone died as a result; as for Fukushima, it was hit by a tsunami far larger than anyone could possibly have anticipated, and the good management of its owners, the Tokyo Energy and Power Company (TEPCO) and the brave efforts of the Japanese emergency services ensured that little harm was done.
That story is very far from the truth.
…As Fuksuhima reminds us, nuclear power is inherently dangerous. It is also not economical; no nuclear plant has ever operated without a government subsidy and no one seriously expects that any will in the future ([20] The Real Cost of Nuclear Power, SiS 47). The subsidy may be visible or it may be concealed as a cheap loan, a permanent low-carbon premium, an open cheque for the cost of disposing of the waste, or in some other form. Furthermore, we do not need it even as “part of a basket of technologies”: on the most optimistic estimates, nuclear energy could not produce more than 8 percent of the UK’s total energy requirement in the foreseeable future. This could easily be made up by renewables if we choose to invest in wind, solar, biogas and other technologies that already exist and are becoming ever more efficient and cost effective ([21] Green Energies – 100% Renewable by 2050, ISIS publication).
The nuclear industry is asking us to give it large sums of money to build power plants that we do not need and cannot afford, at great risk to our health and safety. If we use the money to develop renewables instead, we will have low carbon energy that is safe, economical, and genuinely sustainable. Countries that shift their investment from nuclear to renewables now will reap the further economic benefit of becoming leaders in the key technologies of the twenty-first century.
…more
Lessons of Fukushima and Chernobyl
Prof. Peter Saunders
ISIS Report 03/05/11
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 2 — Anti-nuclear groups have lambasted Putrajaya for planning to hire a foreign public relations firm to boost popular support for nuclear power, labelling the move “immoral and very unethical”.
The Holmes Report, a New York-based publication that serves the public relations community, reported this week that the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) — a government body formed in January to spearhead the deployment of nuclear energy — was understood to have shortlisted three firms for the sensitive project.
“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and a total waste of public funds,” Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) council member Mohideen Abdul Kader told The Malaysian Insider this week.
“No government should resort to this type of manipulating [of public opinion]… the government should be involved in trying to inform people, not through PR, but through proper discussions, debates, where ideas can be freely debated,” he added.
Mohideen pointed out that there were sufficient experts in the country who could present different perspectives on nuclear energy through the media.
“So why are we trying to hire these foreign firms to come and brainwash through distorted and sometimes false information concerning the benefits of nuclear energy?” he asked.
The invitation for an international public relations effort to build support for nuclear energy could spark controversy after the recent row over reports that Putrajaya paid RM58 million to FBC Media to burnish its international image on various international broadcast channels.
British media regulator Office of Communications (Ofcom) is probing programmes made by FBC Media for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
It is understood Putrajaya has now ended its contract with FBC Media after an exposé revealed that Malaysian leaders routinely appeared in paid-for interviews on global television programmes on CNBC.
The latest plans to launch a publicity campaign for nuclear power also comes in the midst of public concern about nuclear safety, spurred by the ongoing crisis at the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan.
…more
Anti-nuke groups call PR plan ‘waste of public funds’
September 02, 2011 – Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 31 — The government is searching for a public relations agency to help build public support for nuclear power, as part of a plan to make the country ready for an alternative energy source by 2013.
The Holmes Report, a New York-based publication that serves the public relations community, reported this week that the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC), a government body formed in January to spearhead the deployment of nuclear energy, is understood to have shortlisted three firms for the sensitive project.
“It is understood that a formal pitch is yet to take place. A source involved in the process said that fees had not been confirmed, but were expected to be in the seven-figure range,” the report said.
The invitation for an international public relations effort to boost support for nuclear energy could spark controversy after the recent row over reports that Putrajaya paid RM58 million to FBC Media to burnish its international image on various international broadcast channels.
British media regulator Office of Communications (Ofcom) is probing programmes made by FBC Media for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
It is understood Putrajaya has now ended its contract with FBC Media after an exposé revealed Malaysian leaders routinely appeared in paid-for interviews on global television programmes on CNBC.
The Malaysian Insider understands that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) terminated FBC Media’s contract earlier this month, just months after another public relations firm, APCO Worldwide from the United States, met an ignominious end for alleged links to Israel.
Global broadcasters, including CNN and CNBC, have been scrambling to contain any potential fallout after allegations of impropriety surfaced following the exposé by whistleblower Sarawak Report.
The latest plans to launch a publicity campaign for nuclear power also comes in the midst of public concern about nuclear safety, spurred by the ongoing crisis at the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan.
According to briefing notes obtained by the Holmes Report, public relations counsel is being sought to ensure that stakeholders are able to make an informed decision about the proposed plan by that date.
“The bottomline: Malaysia has to be nuclear-ready and get [the] mandate of the public by 2013, when the government will make the final decision and reveal the site,” reads the brief, according to the report.
The Holmes Report also said boosting public support for nuclear power to above 50 per cent is a priority, along with managing concerns and issues.
“The brief indicates a substantial research component that will assess public opinion regarding nuclear energy and use these findings to devise a strategy to improve perceptions and support. The appointment is for an initial 24-month period, to be renewed on a yearly basis thereafter,” it said.
…more
Three firms shortlisted for nuclear power PR campaign
August 31, 2011 – Malaysian Insider
Melancholic nuclear Merdeka Day
…
Apropos public relations, on this Merdeka Day, the news broke about seven-digit fees that will soon be collected by some PR company to prep Malaysia to be more open towards the nuclear industry by 2013!Nuclear Industry promoted by Peter Chin’s ministry of so-called green energy? What grand folly! Malaysia cannot even handle Mitsubishis’ Asian Rare Earth wastes from approximately twenty years ago, and has already bungled up on the Lynas plant radioactive wastes management plans (planned for only barely 10 years when operation is for 20 years, and additionally the radioactive wastes will be permanently left in Kuantan).
Dear Peter Chin, please let us know first how Malaysia plans to dispose the nuclear waste and deal with decommissioning plans and potential location of the disposal sites, as well as emergency plans for accidents similar to the scope of Fukushima?
Oh, you haven’t got that far scientifically? But already hiring PR firm?! Even modern, industrialised countries could not cope with nuclear wastes and emergencies. Japan not, Germany also not. In fact, Germany is shutting down its nuclear power plants pronto!
Peter Chin, would not that seven-digit PR fee be better used to promote the REAL sustainable green energy such as solar and wind, which have been done successfully world-wide?
The Good Malaysians say a clear “No!” to nuclear energy!
The results from the next general election will reflect this concern for our safety! Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!
…more
Melancholic nuclear Merdeka Day — Eye Wide Wide
August 31, 2011
Germany’s coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country’s nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.
The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.
Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.
Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.
There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March’s Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.
‘Sustainable energy’
Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors – which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis – would never be used again. An eighth plant – the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems, would also be shut down for good.
Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said.
Mr Rottgen said: “It’s definite. The latest end for the last three nuclear power plants is 2022. There will be no clause for revision.”
Continue reading ‘Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022 – BBC’
Radiation is invisible and cannot be recalled. In a nuclear crisis, there will be many questions about radiation. As the Japanese people are now discovering, it is a nightmare trying to make sense of the uncertainties.
- How do you know when you are in danger?
- How long will this danger persist?
- How can you reduce the danger to yourself and your family?
- What level of exposure is safe?
- How do you get access to vital information in time to prevent or minimise exposure?
- What are the potential health risks and consequences of exposure?
- Whose information can you rely on or trust?
- How do you rebuild a healthy way of life in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster?
These questions are difficult to answer, and they become even more complicated when governments and the nuclear industry maintain tight control of information, technological operations, scientific research, and the bio-medical lessons that shape public health response.
…Nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe. And yet, vested interests in the government and the nuclear industry are attempting to override common sense and reason. They continue to trumpet the imaginary virtues of nuclear power and play down the enormous cost of nuclear power, the problem of nuclear waste, and the risks of an accident.
Nuclear reactors, like nuclear weapons, do not forgive mistakes of judgment, simple negligence, human error or mechanical failure. Malaysia’s poor record of industrial safety and its bad maintenance culture underlie concerns about public safety in the event of a nuclear accident.
The nuclear industry has a history of making misleading claims about nuclear safety that have often confused and misled the uninformed. Genuine debate and critical examination have been avoided, evidence ignored, opponents silenced or marginalised, and critical issues of public health and welfare have been answered with standard bland platitudes.
…Nuclear power plants produce lethal radioactive waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years. The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,000 years and that of uranium-235 is 731 million years. We are talking about radiation forever.
No country in the world has been able to safely dispose of its nuclear waste, which is accumulating in pools or casks alongside nuclear reactors in forty-four countries, waiting for a solution. Finding satisfactory underground geologic repositories has proved to be an intractable problem.
The public health implications of nuclear power should not be subordinate to the economic considerations of the nuclear industry and government energy policies. There is a need to review the scientific evidence for public health impacts of nuclear power, to assess occupational hazards faced by nuclear industry workers, and to assess evidence that challenges the legitimacy of the underlying assumptions of nuclear safety.
A common thread running through these health concerns is the risk posed by ionising radiation. There is no safe threshold. Over the past 50 years, the claims of the nuclear industry, that nuclear power is both safe and vital for our future, have proven false and contentious.
Ionising radiation can damage DNA, causing cancer and inherited mutations. However, whether an individual develops cancer following exposure to ionising radiation depends on whether the DNA is damaged, what part of the DNA is damaged, whether the cell line can reproduce, whether the damage is completely repaired, and whether the cell completes transformations that lead to malignancy.
…But earthquakes and tsunamis are not the only causes of a nuclear accident. Human error alone can lead to a nuclear accident. It happened in Windscale (later renamed Sellafield), Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. So, it could happen in Malaysia. Building two nuclear reactors in error-inclined Malaysia would carry the potential for an incalculable catastrophe. The chances of a nuclear accident in Malaysia are not negligible.
I have heard the facetious argument that plane crashes are not sufficient reason to abandon air travel. But the scale of a nuclear accident is incomparable. Radiation could kill and injure thousands, cause cancers, and contaminate and render uninhabitable a large part of Malaysia.
