‘Uninhabitable, perhaps for decades’
So the language may not be precise—“dead zone” isn’t quite accurate, though the odds of becoming dead from radiation certainly will rise inside that particular zone. But a large area around the Fukushima reactors that were damaged by the tsunami that followed a massive earthquake near Japan earlier this year is about to be declared “uninhabitable, perhaps for decades,” according to a story in The New York Times.
It’s been discussed on blogs and message boards since shortly after the crisis began last March, and a number of scientists have suggested that it would be necessary, but the Times’ sources say an announcement will come from the Japanese government within days.
This is very much like what occurred following the disaster at Chernobyl a little more than 25 years ago—only it affects a larger number of people in a much smaller country, one that’s already endured the only two atomic blasts to be aimed at inhabited areas on the planet.
It’s also going to put even more stress on Japan, an industrial nation with very little in the way of traditional energy sources (meaning fossil fuels) available. They will feel the energy crunch earlier than the rest of us—as in right now.
But Japan’s situation might be a lesson for California, if we’ll only pay attention. For example, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California has a history of problems, as reported by CBS last March.
The fear of running out of energy is based in reality; the end of fossil fuels is on its way. But that doesn’t mean that we need to rush into energy sources that have the potential for creating wide belts of uninhabitable space. Oh, sure, nuclear energy is cost-effective—except for the whole “We don’t know what to do with the waste that lasts for centuries” and “Accidents leave areas contaminated for decades” deal. Little issues like that, y’know.
“No nukes!” we used to say back in the day. Time to dig out some of my retro T-shirts and get back to work.
Compiled from Kel’s Hot Flash.