Fukushima Is a Disaster - No Question about It. [View all]

[MineralMan]

Now, there are plans to remove stored spent fuel, some of it containing Plutonium, from the storage areas at the reactors. For many reasons, this is a very difficult thing to do, and dangerous, to be sure. It is also a very necessary thing to do, since a major earthquake could destroy the storage area and cause much additional radiation to be dispersed.

Some sources, however, are calling this planned removal "The world's most dangerous moment." Another source says that the entire northern hemisphere may have to be evacuated. These alarmist sources fail to consider the alternative to this removal process.

Is an attempt to remove this fuel in a planned way, after many months of planning, more dangerous than simply leaving it in place and waiting for another major earthquake? I don't think so.

Fukushima represents the worst possible scenario that can result from nuclear power generation. The earthquake and tsunami have already occurred, causing the release of large amounts of radioactivity. That has already happened. It cannot be undone. What happens next has been the subject of a great deal of study and planning, involving experts from all around the world. It's an engineering problem. How to get the existing nuclear power rods that are in storage in the damaged reactor buildings away from there in a safe way is a daunting engineering problem.

That removal is essential, because leaving the material where it currently is located is certain to create very serious issues the next time a major earthquake hits. Taking the risk of removing the materials is far preferable to the certainty of what will happen if that is not done.

A great deal of planning has been done in preparation for this removal. That's because it is such an important thing to do. And there are risks involved in the removal, to be sure. However, those risks are far outweighed by the much larger risks created by doing nothing.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It can never be made to be safe. Fukushima is evidence of that statement. Now that disaster has occurred, mitigating that disaster as best as we can manage is the primary goal.

For those decrying the effort to remove the fuel rods from their precarious storage, I ask: What is the alternative? What is your plan for it? How would you deal with the problem? If you have expertise in such operations, I'd ask: Why aren't you there working on the solution? If you have no such expertise, I'd ask: Why would you imagine that people with such expertise are not the ones planning this removal?