SAT morning class ALERT!

Pertaining to the point I mentioned this morning on nuclear risks, u may want to check out my earlier post at this link HERE.

You can use the info in a typical 3-part para that contains a rebuttal followed by a counter-rebuttal that looks like this:

Qn: Discuss the view that too much faith is placed in green technology.

However, this is an unfair claim since there are proper safeguards in place. The existence of these safeguards is surely a recognition, instead of a dismissal, of the potential dangers associated with green technology. -          in the case of nuclear, there is standard requirement for a buffer radius of 30km; stringent inspections are also part of the safeguards

Certainly, these safeguards are not full-proof, and detractors would be quick to point out that complacency in the adequacy of the safeguards imposed reflects too much faith in green technology. E.g. Fukushima again! [note 'upsized hamburger' here!]

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that in the Fukushima Incident, it was a case of human error of judgement rather than the technology itself that was unsafe. It was reported that proper procedures were not followed, which led to the delay in the shutdown of the reactor. Otherwise, the crisis might not have escalated into the catastrophe that it eventually became. It is also worthy to note that there had been only two major nuclear crises before the Fukushima incident since the world embarked on harnessing nuclear energy for power. This is a testament to the general effectiveness of the safeguards in place. Hence, it is unfair to conclude that our faith in green technology is an unjustified one since there are safeguards in place and these have been proved to be reasonably effective.

Note the possible argument that the risks of nuclear need to be seen in perspective: only three major nuclear crises (Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, Fukushima), albeit catastrophic ones, over a period of more than half a century, and with the current estimate of more than 400 reactors, is a reasonably impressive record where safety is concerned! But of course, given the scale of the catastrophe, one disaster can be one disaster too much.....