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

 

Four things you should know about the Fukushima nuclear disaster

Blog entry by Laura Kenyon | March 8, 2013

The Fukushima nuclear disaster that began on March 11, 2011 was a scary time for the whole world. Some early reports even warned about radiation being carried on the wind as far as the west coasts of the USA and Canada, and many...

Fukushima Protests

Image gallery | March 7, 2013

People in Mahan fight for their rights

Blog entry by Rina D'Souza | March 7, 2013

Mahan, Singrauli, Waidhan.....these were names thrown at me even before I joined Greenpeace. All I knew was that there is a forest in eastern MadhyaPradesh and we were to set off hot air balloons and actor Abhay Deol was to be a part...

24 million treehuggers and counting

Blog entry by Brian Fitzgerald | March 6, 2013

Our 2012 numbers are in, and we're proud to say that 24 million people now subscribe to Greenpeace information or action alerts around the world. That's 24 million people who don't accept that cataclysmic climate change is acceptable,...

Monsanto and the banality of evil

Blog entry by David Seaton | March 4, 2013

My great uncle was one of the original chemists of Monsanto. The boss had no money for the payroll and he paid them in shares. My great aunt had to work in a sweatshop for two years so that they could eat. They all ended up rich. In...

Activist Brikesh Singh to be a part of CNN IBN Citizen Journalist awards

Blog entry by Ignatius Thekaekara | March 1, 2013

Greenpeace activist Brikesh Singh has been invited to the CNN IBN Citizen Journalist (CJ) awards 2013. Citizen Journalist is an initiative by CNN IBN where viewers become reporters and armed with a camera they tell stories of injustice...

Internet activism, mobilisation and revolution

Blog entry by James North | February 28, 2013

Building online communities to change the world.   Sometimes campaigning for change in the world feels so futile. Like being swept away by a tidal wave of advertising for products that we don't need, whose manufacture destroys...

Twitter debate on genetically modified food

Blog entry by Rachita Taneja | February 26, 2013

One hundred and forty characters seem like nothing- but on Twitter, they can mean a lot. Being able to reach out to thousands of individuals (and maybe some bots) within a couple of minutes is a boon. If you can use this concept for...

Support for food security

Image gallery | February 26, 2013

NO PANACEA TO FOOD SECURITY

Publication | February 21, 2013 at 10:00

A briefing paper on the MYTH that GM crops are necessary to feed India’s growing population

61 - 70 of 1810 results.