Accident and Design

It is weird how people focus on the nuclear angle. One Irish news programme even got a radiological official on to assure us that we wouldn’t be in any danger here. We really have no sense of proportion about radiation – and I speak as someone who is not in favour of nuclear electricity generation. This is against a background of perhaps 10,000 actual deaths caused by the natural disaster. So far it’s only been reported that 160 people may have even been exposed to some level of radiation.

For sure, questions do need to be asked about why such an earthquake-prone country is so dependent on this energy source. And it is also true that the nuclear threat is a human element in the story, a preventable disaster.

But we shouldn’t overlook the preventable disaster that was prevented. An earthquake and a tsunami of unprecedented size struck one of the most densely populated places on the Earth. There might easily have been millions dead.

In a place where almost all habitable land is coastal there is little one can do to stave off a tsunami, short of abandoning the country altogether. But buildings can be designed to withstand tremors. They were, and they did so brilliantly. Compare this to Christchurch where they were not anticipating an earthquake and so hadn’t built for it. Amid this tragedy, Japan can take some comfort in the fact that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives were saved.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Accident and Design

  1. I can’t defend someone who is concerned about radiation going halfway around the world to affect them as if they were the center of the universe. However, I disagree with the rest of your point. The lingering effect of radiation is a nightmare nobody wants to face. Set against the Japanese backdrop the reminder is chilling. News report they flooded one reactor with seawater when they couldn’t get the backup generation started. That is a level of improvisation that suggests a nuclear catastrophe could easily have taken place. Not to mention at present we don’t know if that improvised water inlet can now be secured and sealed to avoid more contamination.

    As a larger point, I think we tend to shrug off acts of Nature sooner than man-made catastrophes. Where negligence is suspected people tend to worry and pay more attention. If instead of negligence we suspect malice then we cry for heads to roll. Compare the damage of dozens of hurricanes over decades versus the one Katrina made and you see how human intervention, or lack thereof, completely creates a new and different story.

    Like

  2. I’m just happy you thought I had a point. I’m not sure what the hell I’m trying to say here.

    I suppose I could think of a dozen reasons why people are focused on the nuclear risk. For one, it isn’t over yet. I just wanted to remember the positive among all this fear and mayhem.

    I’ll return to the risks of nuclear power generation soon. Possibly now.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s