After an 8.9 earthquake hit Japan on March 11, officials became concerned about the state of nuclear power plants in Fukushima. Amid the panic of hundred of thousands of people who had become homeless came what could potentially be a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, which in order to be prevented would require delicacy and self-sacrifice. As the situation develops, politicians and commentators have wondered if, or how, nuclear regulations in the United States should be changed in response to the crisis.
Nuclear plants have been criticized for their potentially dangerous consequences before, although in light of the situation in Fukushima, government officials are being chastised for not being sympathetic toward local residents or workers. The United States boasts 23 of the same Mark 1 nuclear reactors as the one on the brink of meltdown in Japan. The New York Times reported that General Electric has known about the plant’s potential dangers for 40 years. It’s a recipe for disaster but not one that can necessarily be remedied.
While the government should be accountable for ensuring that people aren’t in close proximity with these plants and should concentrate on maintaining safety regulations, disasters on the scale of the earthquake in Japan are few and far between, not to mention difficult to predict in terms of effects. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is set to vote on a potential 90-day plan that would consider parallels between Japan and American reactors, a proper reaction that exemplifies proper consideration. Attempting to reduce the number of plants would be a considerably radical move at this point.
There is always the chance that facilities with radioactive chemicals will have a harmful effect on local residents if nature strikes. But according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, they have a number of benefits – providing $430 million in goods and services to areas in which they are built, $75 million in annual federal tax payments and alternative energy sources galore. The objective truth is that such valuable resources can’t be tossed aside in the face of a “what if” situation.
As administrators continue to toy with safety regulations, they should maintain concern for citizens while maintaining a grasp on the economic benefits of nuclear plants as a whole. This doesn’t mean the CEOs of General Electric should remain unchecked, but rather that elimination altogether would be detrimental to the country’s energy future.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
