Anti-Nuclear Movement Gains Momentum
Although it’s one of the cleanest energy sources around, there is a faction of society that remains steadfastly anti-nuclear. And, right or wrong, the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters are central to their perspective, as these events provide an easy target for finger pointing. While I would agree that nuclear energy has both pros and cons, I don’t think it’s fair to use the worst two nuclear disasters in history as the barometer for making a case one way or the other.
Where the Anti-Nuclear Movement Goes Wrong
Yes, the Fukushima and Chernobyl events were devastating (but luckily were not even as bad as they could have been). And the fact that Japan is dumping millions of tons of contaminated water from the Fukushima reactor into the ocean is troublesome. However, if you’re looking to rank the cons of nuclear energy, disasters like these would be relatively low on the list because they are so incredibly rare.
More critical to the anti-nuclear argument is the fact that nuclear power plants are expensive and time-consuming to build, require an overall greater emphasis on safety, and, yes, could in very rare instances contaminate the environment.
But I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Nuclear power is more reliable than solar, wind, and fossil fuel sources because it does not require a daily influx of new fuel to operate and does not rely on specific weather conditions. In addition, nuclear power does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so it can help achieve the increasingly aggressive climate goals being put forth around the globe.
Unfortunately, bad news “sells” and so high-profile disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl will always grab people’s attention and will tend to remain prominent in people’s memory banks due to the inherent shock value of what happened. For this reason, despite the many benefits of nuclear power, the anti-nuclear movement isn’t going anywhere.
