The strongest earthquake ever to hit Japan is fundamentally shaking the popular belief in the safety of nuclear power plants. The two explosions at atomic plants on the quake-battered east coast and radiation leakage outside were shocking indeed, as Japan has been internationally recognized as one of the safest operators of nuclear power stations.
Concerns about the direct and immediate spread of radiation across the East Sea appear premature, in view of the relatively negligible amount of radiation and the wind directions. We hope Japanese officials contain the fallout at the current level and prevent any further escalation of the crisis through swift, effective steps. More than a few Koreans might be asking the question: What if similar accidents occur in this country?
Government officials and scientists here say local nuclear power plants have been built to endure an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.5, which is extremely rare given the nation’s geological feature and past history. The problem is no one can say for sure what’s in store in the future as far as natural disasters are concerned. Even the Japanese people, who are accustomed to frequent earthquakes, couldn’t imagine a 9.0 quake would hit their country.
As always, another cause of concern is the possibility of human error. It is hard to understand whether Tokyo Electronic Power Co., which runs the atomic power plants in question and has come under heavy fire from the Japanese media for less than effective initial responses, could have stopped their operation and issued danger signals to nearby residents earlier.
If the Japanese officials, known for their textbook-like exactitude and adherence to manuals proven through numerous exercises, made some errors in the face of the unimaginable natural disaster, what would it be like for their Korean counterparts who have seldom experienced real quakes and seem to have conducted few simulation drills?
It would be somewhat hasty to shift the focus of the nation’s energy policy away from the nuclear power generation because of what’s happening in a neighboring country.
It should be crystal clear even for this resource-poor country that nuclear power generation can neither be clean energy nor the best alternative to fossil fuel, as the government officials emphasize, not only because of safety concerns but because of the handling of the waste.
Atomic power generation should always remain a second-best alternative at the most thanks to its economical and carbon-free advantages ― which should be carefully maintained until the humans can completely shift to renewable energy sources, including solar, wind and tidal energy.
The tragedy in Japan is a stern reminder that the focus of nuclear power generation should shift from increasing nuclear stations to enhancing the safety of the existing ones, at home and abroad.
A recent OECD report shows Koreans stands at the rock bottom among 30 countries in the installment of energy-saving equipment while its per capita power consumption is higher than those of Britain, Germany, France, Japan and Italy. It’s high time that not just officials but ordinary citizens thought about how energy should be produced and consumed.