The terrible earthquake (the fourth largest in the history of humanity) that has plagued Japan and subsequent tsunami, even more devastating than the earthquake, has reopened a debate that seemed resolved in our society. Understandably, the English press (especially the most linked to the "spirit") do not cease to give hype to this subject again and again ... not possibly delve into the calamities that shake our country every day for petty corruption, negligence, ect ... but do not worry, you know that here we will pass these issues so lightly by the media related to power. Tomorrow I will talk about the raids of Trinidad Jimenez for the Maghreb and the flood of millions of euros (nearly a thousand, who supposedly saved the extent of 110 km / h on our highways) to whet your appetite. Nor let the ink this week, a tasty interview with President MERCADONA in which accurate conclusions can be drawn in view of their economic predictions. We will not forget the religious persecution that has been re-establish in our country to nasty surprise for many of us.
Returning to the subject header, I am struck by the ferocity with which leftists have shaken the catacombs to the nuclear alarm occurred in Japan. Media media have discovered the vein of bitter debate that provides the theme and do nothing but touch on the subject continuously.
And is that the explosion occurred at the Fukushima nuclear plant last Sunday is being used as a battering ram that postulate sharp on the desirability of nuclear versus other alternatives. I advocate for nuclear to be the least bad option offerings. Today there is no better alternative than nuclear, as I advanced the international scientific community in the Kyoto Protocol, compared to thermal pollution and more dangerous than previously appointed and renewables are not yet viable alternative for their lack of profitability, efficiency and effectiveness.
Of course, you know the low esteem that you keep the current English government in general but this time I can not stop praising the wisdom and sanity that is displaying on this topic ... I hope everything had been equal during the two legislatures that has been making their own, sing us a different story now.
I leave a neutral article prestigious journalist Eduardo San Martín and we do, incidentally, to debut in our blog ...
Nuclear equal treatment. Eduardo San Martín.
In a very emotional debate, and so conditioned by ideological prejudices, such as nuclear, must give way to experts. And I'm not, I refer to the explanation made this morning in Hoy por Hoy de la Cadena Ser by Eduardo Gallego, professor of the Polytechnic University of Madrid, on the behavior of the earthquake in central Japan, the reaction of authorities and the real magnitude of the probable risks, and what others have written, and Manuel Fernández Ordóñez.
My tentative conclusion, subject to what happens in the coming hours and days: Japan accidents do not prove the insecurity of nuclear plants, but otherwise, that under the most extreme (the worst earthquake in 150 years), the plants can withstand, and that, unlike what happened in Chernobyl, a subsequent actuation systems and the behavior of the authorities can minimize the risks even in those conditions. To the thousands of people killed in the Chernobyl killed mostly the ineptitude of the authorities.
said this morning, said Fernández Ordonez seismic force released by an earthquake in Japan was 30 times higher than the maximum specified in the construction of these plants, and yet resisted. Moreover, cooling problems caused by power outages were caused by the tsunami after the earthquake rather than itself.
There is no completely safe energy source. Moreover, there is no industrial activity at one hundred percent safe. I think, for example, in the many environmental disasters caused by oil transport or Ribadelago tragedy of the fifties by the rupture of a hydroelectric dam. Should we dismiss these energy sources for security problems posed by the inadequacy of some of the technical or the irresponsibility of some rulers?
The debate on nuclear weapons, if we disregard emotional impulses and prejudices, should consider, then, in the same terms as on other energy and industry: up to where you can minimize those risks that we know that there and if the benefits obtained outweigh the assumption of those risks. As said earlier, I am not an expert. And I'm willing to be convinced about who exhibits the best arguments. What we claim today is at least equal treatment nuclear energy in relation to other dangerous activities that do not arouse in us the least concern.
-0 -
Eduardo San Martín, born in Ciudad Real in 1947 and has gone through the main newsroom in this country. was correspondent the EFE in Portugal and Morocco, and then was on the team, in full transition, launched newspaper El Pais . He later went on English television news. When the group Vocento he was hired by the newspaper's management 'The Truth' Murcia newspaper that jumped to the address below the ' ABC', the flagship of the group. He played that position for several years and now is linked to the conservative newspaper, but as a columnist. respected and eloquent commentator, has worked for years with 'The Breakfast of TVE' and also involved in programs of the Cadena SER and CNN +.
0 comments:
Post a Comment