About us

Using Nuclear Energy

Published on Jan.10 ,2013 : The Denki shinbun(The Electric Daily News)
Shojiro Matsuura
Chairman of JANSI

The year 2012 ended as a year of turmoil, much like 2011, due to matters associated with the Fukushima nuclear accident. Hardly any progress has been made with direct actions toward restoring affected communities and dealing with the reactors, but a lot of time and effort was spent on peripheral issues. Yet, at the back of the head, there remained a lingering question about how we should take on the use of nuclear energy.

Following 3.11, media reports painted a picture of predominant public sentiments opposing nuclear energy, supporting denuclearization and calling for an end to the nation’s dependence on nuclear energy. However, in the recent general elections, voters gave a landslide victory to the Liberal Democratic Party, which campaigned on the nuclear policy of “reinforcing safety and maintaining the use of nuclear energy for now while future policies are worked out”.

This result indicates a stark difference between the ‘general public sentiments’ reported by media and the ‘public opinions’ expressed in this nation of parliamentary democracy. This difference may reflect the sense of bewilderment about having to make a choice on the use of nuclear energy, an issue that is expected to offer significant social benefits but has a risk of a severe disaster, however low the probability may be.

The type of nuclear risk that our society feels most concerned about instinctively and emotionally, is the risk of acute and late radiation injuries. Yet there is also real-life risk of not using nuclear energy. In a country like Japan that has adopted nuclear energy to a substantial extent, suspending its use poses a major social risk. This is clearly evident from the fact that the total suspension of nuclear power generation has formed as a major factor in Japan’s significant trade deficits over the last two years. It is not hard to see that the risk is notable especially for countries like Japan and South Korea, which are poor in quality natural energy resources. This factor also adds to the social bewilderment about the choice on nuclear energy.

Social confusion and bewilderment that followed the Fukushima accident clearly point to the problem that the risk of nuclear energy was not fully explained before its full-scale introduction. This is not limited to Japan, but we must thoroughly re-examine the meaning of using nuclear energy as the only nation in the world that has suffered two nuclear disasters, namely the completely man-made disaster of the atomic bombing and the accident initiated by the natural disaster with massive tsunami.

Expert groups of several Japanese and overseas academic societies have performed risk assessment from engineering perspectives. One of the reports, deemed as the most typical outcome, was released in June 2012 by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In December of the same year, a workshop about the report was held, under the title “Forging a New Nuclear Safety Construct”. The mainstream view expressed at the workshop was, “Today’s nuclear science and technology is capable of reducing the risk caused by a massive natural phenomenon, like the one that triggered the Fukushima accident, to a socially acceptable level through robust equipment development and human/organizational training. However, it remains to be a future task to perform risk assessment on enormous natural events with an extremely low probability.”

We do not live in a risk-free world. This has been the case till now, and it continues to be the case into the future. Subconsciously or not, the human race opted to accept the risk of farming and pasturing, while walking away from the life of hunting and gathering, as we set foot on the path for modern civilization. There is no denying that our society forms part of the world’s leading-edge civilization. Using nuclear energy requires knowledge, wisdom and commitment. In light of the tragedy caused by the Fukushima accident, now is the time to take the first step toward building an extremely low-risk nuclear energy system.

end