Are Nuclear Power Stations Really Dangerous During Natural Disasters?

Posted on March 27, 2011 in Specials


By P Vidya Sagar Peddinti:

Everyone has started to worry about the risks that are involved with nuclear power after the blasts at the Fukishima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Many countries have stopped their nuclear power projects. In Germany, tens of thousands of protestors have protested against the nuclear power and thus as a result it had suspended its policy to extend the life of its nuclear power stations. We can say nuclear energy has the least effect on nature when compared to the conventional sources like coal and naphtha that are mostly used in our country as raw materials for power production. These contribute in greater amount for the environmental damage. There are other types of power production which are pollution-free such as hydro, wind.

The best thing about nuclear power is that if it is used properly then they are the best for production when compared to the conventional power stations in terms of carbon footage.

We can also opt for other sources such as wind and hydro but they have their own limitations. For example, wind power stations have to be installed somewhere where wind moves with a good speed and for that purpose a very large area is required.

If the blasts are the only reason for the withdrawal of the policies then no type of projects can be assured of the safety. For example, if the dam at the end of a reservoir made for hydro-electricity generation breaks, it would be catastrophic as compared to the situation at the nuclear power station.

We cannot abandon roses because of a few thorns; similarly we cannot abandon the nuclear power projects for the risks that unforeseen disasters can raise. The safety measures at the nuclear power stations could be made to withstand the natural and man-made threats but shelving the project entirely seems foolish. What do you think?

Drop your comments in the comments section below.