Safety

…the possibility, however remote it may be, of human error, systems failure, sabotage, earthquake and terrorist attacks leading to the release of radioactive matter in the public domain, cannot be entirely ruled out.

 

Guidelines on Management of Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies

National Disaster Management Authority

Govt of India

All nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous.  They are vulnerable to any combination of natural disaster, human error or design failure.  In India, institutional faults make that risk a little bit greater.  Yet these dangers are routinely and emphatically downplayed by the nuclear establishment.

There’s a myth propagated that nuclear power has become safer in recent years.  It’s now toted as the answer to climate change – an “environmentally-friendly” option that guides us away from the looming crisis of peak oil.  The truth is that even a significant increase in nuclear power would only lead to a negligible CO2 reduction 1, and that nuclear reactors are no safer than they were in the 20th Century.  If anything, as they become more powerful, the possible consequences of an accident become even more terrible.

Mistakes do happen.  The nuclear sector is replete with chilling stories of incidents, accidents and near misses.  There’s a story or more for every day of the year - all 365 of them.2 Accidents happened before Chernobyl.  They happened after Chernobyl.  Only the explanations and excuses get tailored anew each time.  The industry is known to have manipulated safety and inspection data, in certain cases, in order to avoid costly repairs and lengthy shutdowns.3 The secrecy that blankets the Indian nuclear power sector shields it further.

Yet even under normal operations nuclear power plants regularly discharge radioactive materials into the air and water.  Nuclear waste, the deadly by-product of nuclear power for which there is no real long-term solution, remains radioactive for generations.

Proponents of nuclear power want it discussed and evaluated on the same factors as other methods of power generation.   This can only be done if the risk factor is set aside altogether as being irrelevant, if the horrific, long-lasting consequences of an accident on huge populations is considered an acceptable price to pay. At Greenpeace, we don’t think it is.

Alternative power sources exist, such as solar, wind or micro-hydro energy.  They can be combined with energy efficiency to deliver India’s electricity needs, fast.  They won’t exacerbate climate change like fossil fuels, and nor do they leave a radioactive legacy or carry the unacceptable risk of a radiological accident, like nuclear energy.  India needs to stop gambling with the health of our children and our land by investing in nuclear power.



Sources
1 Energy Technology Perspectives 2010, IEA/OECD, June 2010
2 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/nuclearaccidentscalendar/
3 “Complacency, negligence threaten nuclear industry, WANO warns". Nucleonics Week, vol. 44/ Issue 42, Oct. 16,2003

The latest updates

 

Greenpeace launches it’s “Save our Lakes” Campaign at Patancheru

Feature story | June 18, 2004 at 3:30

HYDERABAD, India — On the 17th of June, 2004 Greenpeace launched it’s “Save our Lakes” campaign at Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh by introducing community science to the villagers of Kazipally and Gandigudam. VJ Jose, the Greenpeace Riverkeeper from...

M

Image | June 17, 2004 at 4:30

M.J. Jose, our River Keeper, sampling water from the Patancheru lake for toxins

Samsung cleans up

Feature story | June 17, 2004 at 3:30

Consumer power scored another victory recently with the announcement from electronics giant Samsung that it plans to phase out hazardous chemicals in its products. Seeing its brand-name products graded red - as containing hazardous chemicals - on...

Ge activists make themselves heard in Rome

Feature story | June 16, 2004 at 3:30

ROME, Italy — Attendees of the World Food Business Summit in Rome, Italy were 'welcomed' today by hundreds of audio messages from consumers in all 25 EU nations saying that they didn't want GE in their food.

Why Bunge is key to the GE campaign

Feature story | June 14, 2004 at 3:30

This spring our 'Biosafety Inspectors' and activists have been globally monitoring imports and exports of Genetically Engineered (GE) crops - soya in particular - following the introduction of the EU legislation on GE labelling and traceability.

Great Wall against GE

Feature story | June 14, 2004 at 3:30

BEIJING, China — Soya originated in China and has an agricultural history spanning over 5,000 years, but with the advent of genetically engineered (GE) soya all of this is now under serious threat. Through our GE campaign and our Great Cyber Wall...

UN fails deep seas

Feature story | June 12, 2004 at 3:30

NEW YORK, United States — They already had the opinion of thousands of scientists and a coalition of environment and wildlife groups. Then we gave them a petition signed by over 6000 cyberactivists. If that wasn't enough, the Rainbow Warrior...

Greenpeace activists advocate alternatives

Image | June 4, 2004 at 4:30

Greenpeace activists advocate alternatives to consumers on the streets of Bangalore.

Greenpeace climbers net Barcelona landmark

Feature story | June 4, 2004 at 3:30

BARCELONA, Spain — Tourists got more than they bargained for this morning when they turned up at Spanish architect Gaudi's landmark cathedral, Sagrada Familia, in Barcelona. Greenpeace activists, clinging to the famous spires like orange-clad...

1941 - 1950 of 2119 results.