At ngayo'y nagagalit
Kung bakit ipinipilit
Na maitayo ang plantang nukleyar
A-minor, D-minor, E... These were the chords to the first song I learned to play on the guitar. I was about 10 or 11 and we sang this song, Plantang Nukleyar, at rallies denouncing the then planned operation of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. We were young, members of my mother's youth theater group, Workshop for Creative Survival. It was 1984.
It simply boils down to the pros and cons, and which outweighs the other, and in my opinion, the risks just overwhelmingly outweigh the supposed benefits.
Proponents, among them good friends, in fact, would point to the lower cost (supposedly), relative safety and reliability, environment-friendliness (again, supposedly) of nuclear energy. It's what a struggling economy like ours badly needs, we're being told, if we ever want to get out of this rut.
I have questions....
First let me share this. The check engine light went on in our car a couple of weeks ago, and we couldn't easily identify the cause. Possible causes ranged from simply having a gas cap that's not tightly shut enough, to something way more serious requiring having to take the engine apart. Then, a few days ago, with my wife driving, the car just stalled on a road going downhill. Luckily, just had the hand brakes adjusted and she was able to stop the car from rolling down that road at the end of which was a crowded satellite market. It's a 10-year old car, and the culprit, in the end, was one of the six ignition coils. It needed replacement. Again, the car's 10 years old, and that one part almost caused a major accident.
I'm apprehensive about restarting a plant that's been mothballed for over three decades. and we're not talking about an old electric fan in the closet here that the worst case scenario if it malfunctions is a short circuit that may fry your outlet. We're talking about a nuclear plant that can compromise the lives of millions of people.
Granted, the nuclear plant will be run not by someone like me whose engineering chops is limited to rewiring old electric fans and changing light bulbs, but by experts. That still does not address my anxiety over the plant's safety, and we'll go back to these so-called experts later and you'll probably understand why.
We see that sign on the back of tanker trucks transporting flammable materials. Can they really guarantee the aging facility's safety when the BNPP is situated next to an active volcano? Add to that the threat of earthquakes in a country that sits right along the Pacific Ring of Fire. The BNPP sits less than 10 kilometers away from a volcano, and within 40 kilometers of three known geologic faults.Would it withstand these geological hazards, this over 30-year old derelict?
Compare the emissions of a coal-fired power plant to that of a nuclear plant, and the latter wins the Ms. Envi-congeniality award, hands down. But running a nuclear plant requires mining uranium, and that process has never been known to be an environment-friendly undertaking.
And unlike most non-reusable refuse which can relatively be safely stored in sanitary landfills, nuclear waste disposal is a much more complicated and dangerous issue. Dealing with nuclear waste seems as complicated, if not even more so, than running the plant itself. in a country that continues to struggle with the implementation of its Ecological Solid Waste Management law, are we really capable of safely managing nuclear waste?
And nuclear energy is no renewable energy. You would think that in this age of climate change where renewable energy technology is fast becoming more affordable and reliable, we would be going for safer alternatives. So it's quite a surprise to hear advocates of nuclear power suddenly start demonizing renewable energy sources as unreliable. Maybe not as reliable, but I wouldn't go as far as declaring them unreliable. Sure, you get less power from the sun when it's overcast, you take a break from harnessing its power when it sets at the end of the day. But it's there, always, forever providing energy. Like oil, uranium is not renewable.
Again, we'll be told that the operation of the plant will be handled by experts. Who? Westinghouse. And according to a Fortune article, "With 71 plants operating in 12 countries, it has never had a major accident." That sure sounds reassuring. But looking back at how Westinghouse got this project, we can't help but doubt the integrity of not only the company but of the plant itself.
Westinghouse won this project under questionable circumstances. In that same Fortune article cited above, it tells us that Westinghouse is no stranger to questionable business practices and have been known and proven to have bribed their way into major projects in different countries. They were given the contract to build the plant with their original bid of $500M, and that figure, without any justification, ballooned to $2B. Many publications point to the Marcos' and their cronies' pockets as the reason.
Can we really trust Westinghouse?
Nuclear power is immense, true. That is both its pro and con. In a country that continues to struggle against insurgencies and terrorism, a nuclear power plant is an invitation to a terrorist attack. Uranium and nuclear waste can get lost in transit, and fall into the wrong hands. Exaggeration? Not really considering the fact that our very own armed forces' weapons have been known to end up in rebel hands. We can't even stop laglag-bala in our airports.
You would think that I would easily bring up Fukushima in making a case against the BNPP. But no, that would be apples and oranges, really. See, a lot of nuclear energy advocates point to the fact that "nobody has died due to exposure to radiation in Fukushima," as if that factoid alone should be sufficient enough to guarantee that nuclear energy is safe. But before we give that thumbs up to nuclear energy, let's not forget that radiation-borne diseases take a long time to take effect. Radiation attacks the body at the DNA level, it's a slow process. The effects of Chernobyl is still around 30 years since the accident.
And the former USSR and Japan are way ahead of us in nuclear technology - we're new to this game, and the fact is, the game is a dangerous one - are we sure we want newbies to start playing it? There are other games out there that are much safer. Part of the reason advocates of nuclear power can downplay the effects the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima had on the environment and their people is both nations' technological know-how. We don't have that, and this is not to look down on our very own engineers. But the fact remains - nuclear energy is foreign to us. If we're willing to learn the ropes to be able to revive the BNPP, why don't we just exert the same effort and put in the same amount of resources in exploring much safer energy sources?
But, I admit the pros are there. It may be cheaper (we have yet to see that, actually, since the costs they're presenting to us mostly involves the cost of the projected amount of energy to be generated by the BNPP compared to the cost of energy currently being generated by existing power plants - it doesn't include projected costs relating to nuclear waste management), more reliable, and if they get their way and the BNPP is re-opened and operated and in my lifetime it runs without untoward incidents, remind me to applaud and thank the advocates at my deathbed.
I do want lower electricity costs. Damn, I had to beg the electric company's guy not to cut our electricity when I failed to pay our bill on time just a couple of months ago with a promise to pay up that very same day. We barely managed to beat the deadline that day. But not at the cost of living with the risks posed by the reviving the BNPP.
Right now, I still don't buy it. That song's chorus I mentioned in the beginning ends with...
Hindi plantang nukleyar ang sagot sa kahirapan
I wasn't objectively introduced to nuclear energy. The literature available to me then highlighted the dangers of nuclear plants in general and the BNPP in particular. Images of the dead and the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still linger in my head. Opposing the planned reopening of the BNPP with just the information I got from that introduction wouldn't be fair. But I've read up on the subject quite a lot more since.
It simply boils down to the pros and cons, and which outweighs the other, and in my opinion, the risks just overwhelmingly outweigh the supposed benefits.
Proponents, among them good friends, in fact, would point to the lower cost (supposedly), relative safety and reliability, environment-friendliness (again, supposedly) of nuclear energy. It's what a struggling economy like ours badly needs, we're being told, if we ever want to get out of this rut.
I have questions....
First let me share this. The check engine light went on in our car a couple of weeks ago, and we couldn't easily identify the cause. Possible causes ranged from simply having a gas cap that's not tightly shut enough, to something way more serious requiring having to take the engine apart. Then, a few days ago, with my wife driving, the car just stalled on a road going downhill. Luckily, just had the hand brakes adjusted and she was able to stop the car from rolling down that road at the end of which was a crowded satellite market. It's a 10-year old car, and the culprit, in the end, was one of the six ignition coils. It needed replacement. Again, the car's 10 years old, and that one part almost caused a major accident.
Gagana pa nga ba 'yan?
 |
| Photo by Jiru27 via Wikipedia |
Granted, the nuclear plant will be run not by someone like me whose engineering chops is limited to rewiring old electric fans and changing light bulbs, but by experts. That still does not address my anxiety over the plant's safety, and we'll go back to these so-called experts later and you'll probably understand why.
No Smoking within 50 feet
We see that sign on the back of tanker trucks transporting flammable materials. Can they really guarantee the aging facility's safety when the BNPP is situated next to an active volcano? Add to that the threat of earthquakes in a country that sits right along the Pacific Ring of Fire. The BNPP sits less than 10 kilometers away from a volcano, and within 40 kilometers of three known geologic faults.Would it withstand these geological hazards, this over 30-year old derelict?
Environment friendly?
Compare the emissions of a coal-fired power plant to that of a nuclear plant, and the latter wins the Ms. Envi-congeniality award, hands down. But running a nuclear plant requires mining uranium, and that process has never been known to be an environment-friendly undertaking.
And unlike most non-reusable refuse which can relatively be safely stored in sanitary landfills, nuclear waste disposal is a much more complicated and dangerous issue. Dealing with nuclear waste seems as complicated, if not even more so, than running the plant itself. in a country that continues to struggle with the implementation of its Ecological Solid Waste Management law, are we really capable of safely managing nuclear waste?
And nuclear energy is no renewable energy. You would think that in this age of climate change where renewable energy technology is fast becoming more affordable and reliable, we would be going for safer alternatives. So it's quite a surprise to hear advocates of nuclear power suddenly start demonizing renewable energy sources as unreliable. Maybe not as reliable, but I wouldn't go as far as declaring them unreliable. Sure, you get less power from the sun when it's overcast, you take a break from harnessing its power when it sets at the end of the day. But it's there, always, forever providing energy. Like oil, uranium is not renewable.
They're experts, I'm not
Again, we'll be told that the operation of the plant will be handled by experts. Who? Westinghouse. And according to a Fortune article, "With 71 plants operating in 12 countries, it has never had a major accident." That sure sounds reassuring. But looking back at how Westinghouse got this project, we can't help but doubt the integrity of not only the company but of the plant itself.
Westinghouse won this project under questionable circumstances. In that same Fortune article cited above, it tells us that Westinghouse is no stranger to questionable business practices and have been known and proven to have bribed their way into major projects in different countries. They were given the contract to build the plant with their original bid of $500M, and that figure, without any justification, ballooned to $2B. Many publications point to the Marcos' and their cronies' pockets as the reason.
Can we really trust Westinghouse?
Nakaka-insecure ang nuclear power
Nuclear power is immense, true. That is both its pro and con. In a country that continues to struggle against insurgencies and terrorism, a nuclear power plant is an invitation to a terrorist attack. Uranium and nuclear waste can get lost in transit, and fall into the wrong hands. Exaggeration? Not really considering the fact that our very own armed forces' weapons have been known to end up in rebel hands. We can't even stop laglag-bala in our airports.
Apples, oranges, accountability
You would think that I would easily bring up Fukushima in making a case against the BNPP. But no, that would be apples and oranges, really. See, a lot of nuclear energy advocates point to the fact that "nobody has died due to exposure to radiation in Fukushima," as if that factoid alone should be sufficient enough to guarantee that nuclear energy is safe. But before we give that thumbs up to nuclear energy, let's not forget that radiation-borne diseases take a long time to take effect. Radiation attacks the body at the DNA level, it's a slow process. The effects of Chernobyl is still around 30 years since the accident.
And the former USSR and Japan are way ahead of us in nuclear technology - we're new to this game, and the fact is, the game is a dangerous one - are we sure we want newbies to start playing it? There are other games out there that are much safer. Part of the reason advocates of nuclear power can downplay the effects the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima had on the environment and their people is both nations' technological know-how. We don't have that, and this is not to look down on our very own engineers. But the fact remains - nuclear energy is foreign to us. If we're willing to learn the ropes to be able to revive the BNPP, why don't we just exert the same effort and put in the same amount of resources in exploring much safer energy sources?
But, I admit the pros are there. It may be cheaper (we have yet to see that, actually, since the costs they're presenting to us mostly involves the cost of the projected amount of energy to be generated by the BNPP compared to the cost of energy currently being generated by existing power plants - it doesn't include projected costs relating to nuclear waste management), more reliable, and if they get their way and the BNPP is re-opened and operated and in my lifetime it runs without untoward incidents, remind me to applaud and thank the advocates at my deathbed.
I do want lower electricity costs. Damn, I had to beg the electric company's guy not to cut our electricity when I failed to pay our bill on time just a couple of months ago with a promise to pay up that very same day. We barely managed to beat the deadline that day. But not at the cost of living with the risks posed by the reviving the BNPP.
Right now, I still don't buy it. That song's chorus I mentioned in the beginning ends with...
Hindi plantang nukleyar ang sagot sa kahirapan
There are safer options out there.
