Nuclear safety and near-neighbors

By Kim Jong-chan

Deputy managing editor

The earthquake and ensuing tsunami have left a nuclear power plant on Japan's northeastern Pacific coast on the brink of a catastrophic meltdown.

Low levels of radioactive material, most likely from the damaged Fukushima No. 1 plant, were detected in the United States as well as neighboring South Korea and China, though they were not a threat to human health.

The government suspended imports of fish, vegetables and other food products from four Japanese prefectures hit by radioactive materials leaking from the stricken facility and China followed suit.

Imagine that a monster earthquake like Japan’s 9-magnitude quake occurred in waters between South Korea and Japan. A huge tsunami could hit eastern coastal areas of the country as well as Japan's northwestern coast. Once the tsunami destroyed nuclear reactors in both countries, what would happen? The situation would become more catastrophic than the March 11 disaster in Japan.

When it comes to South Korea's east coast alone, there are three nuclear complexes in Uljin County; Gyeongju, capital city of the Silla Kingdom (57 B.C.-935); and Busan with a population of 3.5 million. In the wake of the Japanese disaster, controversy has erupted over whether a new atomic facility should be built in Samcheok, also on the east coast.

The local government remains unchanged in its position to house the new plant as part of efforts to help reinvigorate the local economy, to create what it calls an economic renaissance.

It cites that the frequency of earthquakes in South Korea is lower than that of Japan and the magnitudes of quakes are smaller than those of the neighboring country.

In addition, tighter safety measures will be adopted for the Samcheok plant, the local administration says, such as steps to withstand earthquakes of magnitudes up to 6.5 and install five-tier containment systems.

Opponents say that the seriousness of an atomic accident has been manifested again in Japan causing massive damage on a scale that Tokyo, which is technologically advanced, had not expected.

It is doubtful that in terms of earthquakes, South Korea is safer than Japan. Despite brilliant scientific development, no one can predict when or where they will happen next.

As far as nuclear safety is concerned, there is no border. Radioactive substances leaked from Japan's crippled reactors, though waning, have reportedly made a round-the-world trip via the United States and Europe to be back in Japan soon.

To date South Korea has 21 reactors, Japan 54 and China 13, combining for 19.9 percent of the 442 reactors on the globe.

In the light of the Japanese disaster, South Korea began to conduct reactor safety checks. China suspended approval for new projects but said it will not scrap plans for the construction of 53 additional reactors.

Should radiation leaks happen in China, it would affect South and North Korea and Japan as winds usually blow toward them from China. They need to adopt common atomic safety guidelines.

The European Union states with a combined 143 reactors held emergency talks following the Japanese accident. They asked non-EU members such as Russia, Ukraine, Switzerland and Turkey to conduct reactor stress tests similar to their own. The United States also launched a review of its 104 reactors.

It is time to decrease dependency on nuclear energy on a gradual basis and expand the use of renewable energy to meet power demands. An early exit from the atomic power-generating technology will help ensure safety from risky nuclear reactors. The earlier, the better.

Individuals can offset part of increased utility bills caused by the adoption of alternative energy sources by saving energy.