Risk and use of nuclear energy


published Saturday April 16, 2011


The Fukushima nuc­lear disaster occur­red as a result of the tsunami. The earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale did not cause any direct damage to the nuclear installation.

The Fukushima nuclear reactor was (according to various reports) designed after taking into consideration the frequency and strength of earthquakes and tsunamis in the region. The strength of the earthquake and the impacts of the tsunami were substantially more than what was taken into consideration at the drawing board. The point at issue is whether, in view of the possible (and eventual) impacts resulting from a failure of the reactor’s cooling systems, the risk taken as a result of the design assumptions was justified.

After the Fukushima happenings, German Chancellor Angela Merkel changed her opinion on nuclear energy turning around 180 degrees in the space of a few months.

The European Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger, former CDU Minister President of the German land of Baden-Württemberg, stated in an interview with Der Spiegel International that “Fukushima has made me start to doubt”.  He added: “when Chernobyl happened, we in the west were comforted by the fact that it was the result of outdated Soviet technology and human error. But I have nothing but respect for Japan’s abilities when it comes to industry and technology. That’s why Fukushima has been such a turning point for me. It has made me start to doubt. If the Japanese cannot master this technology, then nuclear energy conceals risks I didn’t see before.”

That says it all. The Fukushima nuclear incident is the direct result of the “risk society”, which acts on the basis of the probability of a particular event happening.

Notwithstanding advances in technology and human knowledge, there will always be an unresolved element of risk when adopting technological solutions to cater for human needs. The risk can be reduced but it will never be eliminated. As Dr Oettinger himself states, at the end of the day, in the case of a nuclear power plant, faced with the residual risk, “either you accept this residual risk or you shut down”.

To date, various governments took the risk. After Fukushima, a number are coming to their senses and are adopting the option to shut down. After the recent thrashing at the polls, Chancellor Merkel’s CDU too has changed course and has reluctantly started moving towards adopting a “green” nuclear policy!

There have been four major nuclear disasters since the late 1950s. The first took place in Windscale UK in 1957; the second at Harrisburg US (Three Mile Island) in 1979; the third occurred at Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima was the fourth.

In addition to the above, there have been a countless number of other “small” incidents and a number of near misses. In France alone there are about 700 minor incidents every year, most of which go unreported.

Kenzaburo Oe is a Japanese Nobel Laureate having received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1995. In an essay published in the New Yorker on March 28, entitled Tokyo Postcard. History Repeats, he states that the use of nuclear energy in Japan is a betrayal of the Hiroshima victims.

He says: “Like earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural calamities, the experience of Hiroshima should be etched into human memory: it was even more dramatic a catastrophe than those natural disasters precisely because it was man-made. To repeat the error by exhibiting, through the construction of nuclear reactors, the same disrespect for human life is the worst possible betrayal of the memory of Hiroshima’s victims.”

Nuclear technology disrespects life as it has been shown time and again not only to be unsafe to use but also that it places whole regions and eco-systems at risk.

While, later this month, the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster will be commemorated it is pertinent to ask whether any lessons have been learnt. Chernobyl was considered as being an exception easily explained by the then Soviet Union’s state of technological development. Fuku­shima is a different kettle of fish: Japanese precision and technological knowledge is second to none.

The question, however, remains that, at the end of the day, some event that has not been given sufficient weight in design considerations happens. Be it the earthquake’s strength, a tsunami’s force or the frequency of adverse weather conditions. Engineering ethics permit this as it is accepted practice that one cannot design for all eventualities.

This is the risk society that plays games with our lives. The risk society does not consider life as being sufficiently worthy of protection. It only weighs probabilities and projects these into costs.

In this scheme of things life is worthless, hence, the validity of the observation of Kenzaburo Oe that the use of nuclear energy disrespects human life and is possibly its worst betrayal.

Nuclear energy? No thanks!

Nuclear myth and Malta’s neighbours




published on Saturday March 26, 2011


April 26 marks the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuc­lear disaster, which affected 40 per cent of European territory.

Sicilians (but not the Maltese) were then advised on precautions to be observed in order to avoid the effects of airborne radioactive contamination on agricultural produce. In the UK, until very recently, a number of farms were still under observation after having been contaminated through airborne radioactive caesium in 1986. Wild boar hunted in Germany’s forests cannot be consumed. Its food-chain is still contaminated with radioactive caesium, which was dispersed all over Europe as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.

The Fukushima disaster has occurred in efficient and safety-conscious Japan.

Nature has taken over, confirming its supremacy over the risk society; confirming that even the smallest risk is unacceptable in nuclear projects as this exposes nations, ecosystems, economies and whole regions to large-scale disasters.

The myth that nuclear technology is safe has been shattered once more at Fukushima.

In addition to the disasters at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), there were also a number of near misses such as that on June 4, 2008 in Krško on the Slovenia/Croatia border. In Krško, leaking coolant water was minutes away from causing a meltdown of the nuclear installation. The leakages of coolant water from nuclear plants in the Tricastin region in France in July 2008 are also of particular significance.

Malta is faced with plans by Italy, Libya, Tunisia and others to generate nuclear energy.

Libya has agreed with France to be provided with a nuclear plant along its coast to carry out seawater desalination. Fortunately, this agreement has so far not materialised. One shudders just thinking on the possibilities which access to nuclear technology in the civil war on Libyan soil could lead to.

The Berlusconi government, ignoring the result of a 1987 Italian referendum, has embarked on a nuclear programme that could lead to the construction and operation of a number of nuclear installations on Italian soil. One of these will be sited in Sicily.

The locality of Palma di Montechiaro has been mentioned as the preferred site although an area near Ragusa is also under consideration. Both Palma di Montechiaro and Ragusa are situated along Sicily’s southern coast and are too close to Malta for comfort. A serious accident there could have an immediate effect on Malta. Moreover, this is the area which was most affected by a 1693 earthquake that caused considerable damage in both Ragusa and Malta.

This contrasts with the declaration last week by Abdelkater Zitouni, leader of Tunisie Verte, the Tunisian Green party, who has called on Tunisia’s transitional government to abandon the 2020 project of a nuclear plant in Tunisia.

What is the Maltese government doing on the matter?

There is no information in the public domain except an article published in Il Sole 24 Ore on July 26, 2008 authored by Federico Rendina and entitled Il Governo Rilancia Sull’Atomo. In a kite-flying exercise during an official visit to Rome by a Maltese delegation, Mr Rendina speculated on the possibilities of placing nuclear reactors for Italy’s use on territories just outside Italian jurisdiction. Malta, Montenegro and Albania were mentioned in this respect. It was unfortunate that the Maltese government only spoke up after being prodded by the Greens in Malta. It had then stated that no discussions on the matter had taken place with the Italian government.

On behalf of the Greens in Malta, since 2008 I have repeatedly insisted on the need to make use of the provisions of the Espoo Convention, which deals with consultation procedures to be followed between countries in Europe whenever issues of transboundary impacts arise. On March 3, 2010 Parliament in Malta approved a resolution to ratify this convention.

The Espoo Convention, the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment and the EU Strategic Environment Assessment Directive establish the right of the Maltese public to be consulted by Italy in the procedures leading to the construction of a nuclear power station, both on the Italian mainland as well as in Sicily. This is definitely not enough.

Various countries are reconsidering their position on nuclear energy as a result of the Fukushima disaster. Italy’s government has started to feel the pressure ahead of a June anti-nuclear referendum championed by Antonio di Pietro and earlier this week temporarily suspended its nuclear programme.

Italy is a region which is seismically active. The devastation caused by the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila is still imprinted in our memories. The 1908 earthquake at Messina/Reggio Calabria was much worse, the worst ever in Europe. It produced an estimated 13-metre tsunami wave in the central Mediterranean. In Messina alone, over 120,000 lost their lives.

Faced with government silence, I think the matter should be taken up by Maltese environmental NGOs in partnership with their Italian counterparts. Public opinion needs to be sensitised on the dangers that lie ahead as Fukushima is a warning we cannot afford to ignore. 

other posts on Nuclear Issues on this blog

Japan tragedy is an eye opener on nuclear energy – AD



The crippling of a number of nuclear facilities in Japan as a result of the mega-earthquake and subsequent tsunami should be an eye-opener for those who still advocate the use of nuclear energy.

Carmel Cacopardo AD Spokesman on Sustainable Development and Local Government stated that on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, (which occurred on the 26th April 1986) the myths on the safety of nuclear energy have been shattered once and for all.

As a result of the Japanese nuclear crisis and in particular after various explosions in the Fukushima nuclear power station various European governments have decided to revise their use of nuclear energy. In Germany as a result of the continuous campaigning of the Greens  German Chancellor Angel Merkel has decided to re-examine plans to extend the life of Germany’s 17 existing nuclear power stations and announced the temporary closure of its two oldest ones. Switzerland has likewise announced putting on hold plans its plans for new nuclear power stations whilst  Austrian Minister for the Environment has called for checks on the safety of nuclear facilities. 

In the light of the above Carmel Cacopardo added that “it is very fortunate that the agreement between Nicolas Sarkozy on behalf of the French Republic and Colonel  Gaddafi on the supply by France to Libya of  nuclear technology to be used for the desalinisation of water along Libya’s Mediterranean coast  has not to date materialised. In the ongoing civil war in Libya access to and misuse of nuclear material would be an added worry.”

Prof. Arnold Cassola, AD Spokesperson on EU and International Affairs, stated; “The Maltese Government should take note of the statement of  Italian Minister Romani who has affirmed that, despite the catastrophe in Japan, Italy will not go back on its nuclear programme. The Maltese Government should take the necessary steps at EU level to ensure that the Berlusconi government through its construction of a nuclear facility in Sicily does not put the safety of all the people living in the central Mediterranean region at risk.” .”

Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson, said: ‘The Japanese tragedy confirms that we are living in a global society of man-made risks, as is the case with nuclear energy. Such energy might solve short and medium term problems related to demand for energy, but is ultimately unsustainable because of the dangers it presents, and because global supply of uranium – its basic raw material, is limited., while the long term storage of the highly radioactive nuclear waste remains a major source of concern .  Global subsidies towards nuclear energy should be progressively diverted towards clean alternative energy such as solar and wind energy. Such energy has unlimited supply, is totally safe and does not contribute towards climate change’.

Il-Parlament jistenbaħ



Il-Parlament il-bieraħ fil-għaxija iddiskuta riżoluzzjoni biex il-Gvern jirratifika l-konvenzjoni ta’ Espoo, konvenzjoni li tirregola l-mod kif pajjiżi ġirien jieħdu ħsieb li jikkonsultaw lil xulxin fuq dak li jissejħu “transboundary impacts” ta’ proġetti.

Għalkemm ir-ratifika kienet obbligu legali, dan kien wieħed kosmetiku minħabba li l-leġislazzjoni ilha li daħlet fis-seħħ anke’ f’Malta u dan permezz ta’ żewġ Direttivi tal-Unjoni Ewropea (dik dwar l-EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment  u u dik dwar l-SEA – Strategic Environment Assessment).

Hu ukoll tajjeb li l-Parlament stenbaħ dwar in-nukleari fi Sqallija! Fid-diskussjoni issemma diversi drabi kif din ir-ratifika tista’ tagħti lil Malta drittijiet fil-konfront ta’ pajjiżi bħall-Italja li jiżviluppaw impjanti nuklejari!

Aħna ta’ Alternattiva ilna li tkellimna dwar dan żmien. Meglio tard ………. che mai .

Ara ukoll f’dan il-blog :

September 21,  2009 :   Nuclear Power in Sicily – The Greens in Malta comment.

August 10, 2008 :  Solar Energy comes free and safe.

July 30, 2008 : Politika tan-ngħam.

July 28, 2008 : Impjant Nuklejari f’Malta ?

July 26, 2008 : Nuclear Neighbours Betrayed.

July 24, 2008 : Incident nukleari iehor fi Franza.

July 20, 2008 : Accident iehor f’impjant nuklejari gewwa Franza.

July 10, 2008 : Accident Nukleari fi Franza .

June 25, 2008 : Is-sandwich nukleari jkompli jikber.

June 15, 2008 : A Nuclear Sandwich in the Mediterranean.

June 9, 2008 : F’Krško evitat incident nukleari.

May 25, 2008 : Sandwich bejn il-Libya u l-Italja

list of posts on nuclear energy on this blog

September 21,  2009 :   Nuclear Power in Sicily – The Greens in Malta comment.

August 10, 2008 :  Solar Energy comes free and safe.

July 30, 2008 : Politika tan-ngħam.

July 28, 2008 : Impjant Nuklejari f’Malta ?

July 26, 2008 : Nuclear Neighbours Betrayed.

July 24, 2008 : Incident nukleari iehor fi Franza.

July 20, 2008 : Accident iehor f’impjant nuklejari gewwa Franza.

July 10, 2008 : Accident Nukleari fi Franza .

June 25, 2008 : Is-sandwich nukleari jkompli jikber.

June 15, 2008 : A Nuclear Sandwich in the Mediterranean.

June 9, 2008 : F’Krško evitat incident nukleari.

May 25, 2008 : Sandwich bejn il-Libya u l-Italja

Politka tan-Ngħam


Il-politika tal-Gvern dwar l-attivita nukleari fil-Mediterran hi politika tajba għan-ngħam. Ta’ min ideffes rasu fir-ramel biex ma jismax u ma jarax.


Fi tmiem il-ġimgħa l-oħra kien ippubblikat artiklu fil-gazzetta Taljana  Il Sole 24 Ore iffirmat mill-ġurnalista Federico Rendina. L-artiklu ntitolat Il Governo rilancia sull’atomo. Berlusconi: contatti per costruire centrali nucleari nei Paesi vicini. jimplika li Berlusconi qed jipprova jħajjar pajjiżi bħal Malta, l-Montenegro u l-Albania biex fihom jinbena impjant nukleari.


Wara tlett ijiem ta’ skiet u biss wara li AD ġibdet l-attenzjoni għall-artiklu, d-DOI ħareġ ċaħda li l-materja qatt kienet diskussa. Kompla biex qal li l-AD kienet irresponsabbli talli fil-publiku ġibdet l-attenzjoni għal dan l-artiklu. Il-fehma tiegħi hi li huwa rresponsabbli l-politiku li bħan-nagħma jdaħħal rasu fir-ramel u jibda jemmen li dak li hu m’huwiex jara ma jeżistix.


X’ser jiġri iktar dwar il-proġett nukleari Taljan għad irridu naraw.



Imma llum hemm oħra fil-gazzetti. Kummenti dwar iż-żjara tal-President tar-Repubblika fil-Libja. Il-ġurnalisti huma interessati fil-kwistjoni tal-impjant nukleari tal-Libja, għax bdew jifhmu kemm huma gravi l-konsegwenzi fuq Malta “jekk” xi ħaġa tmur ħażin meta jibda jopera l-impjant nukleari Libjan.


Karl Schembri għall-Malta Today minn Tripli jirrapporta li uffiċjal Malti qallu li l-kwistjoni nukleari hi “a non-issue” li tinteressa biss lill-media!


Mark Micallef għal The Times minn Tripli ukoll jirrapporta li l-Gvern m’għandu l-ebda intenzjoni li jqajjem mal-Libja l-kwistjoni nukleari.


Il-politika tal-Gvern Malti dwar in-nukleari fil-Mediterran hi politika għan-ngħam. U l-Opposizzjoni ? Billi qed jiżviluppa consensus fuq il-politika barranija, l-Opposizzjoni baqgħet ħalqa magħluq hi ukoll !

Is-sandwich nukleari jkompli jikber

Bil-ftehim bejn Franza u l-Algerija dwar għajnuna teknika fil-qasam tal-enerġija nukleari kemm għal skopijiet ċivili kif ukoll għal finijiet ta’ difiża is-sandwich nukleari madwarna qed ikompli jikber.


U  l-Gvern f’Malta fommu sieket! Ma ngħidx li ma hu jagħmel xejn, għax ma nafx. Imma għandu l-obbligu li jzommna infurmati.


Ara ukoll il-posts segwenti f’dan il-blog :


28 t’April 2008        Chernobyl : it-22 Anniversarju


26 ta’ Mejju 2008    Sandwich bejn il-Libya u l-Italja


9 ta’ Ġunju 2008      F’Krško evitat inċident nukleari


15 ta’ Ġunju 2008    A Nuclear Sandwich in the Mediterranean



Sandwich : bejn il-Libja u l-Italja

Malta għandha ċans tajjeb li tkun sandwich nukleari f’nofs il-Mediterran. Bejn il-proġetti għal impjanti nukleari tal-Gvern ta’ Berlusconi fit-Tramuntana u dak ta’ Sarkozy fin-Nofsinnhar, ġewwa l-Libja.


Veru li kull Gvern jiddeċiedi x’jagħmel f’pajjiżu (b’rispett sħiħ lejn il-liġijiet tal-pajjiż). Imma huwa veru ukoll illi hemm obbligi f’dak li jsir f’kull pajjiż, lejn it-drittijiet ta’ pajjiżi terzi.


Fi tmiem ix-xahar l-ieħor kien it-22 anniversarju tat-traġedja ta’ Chernobyl, li dwarha kkummentajt f’dan il-blog.


It-traġedja ta’ Chernobyl ħalliet ħerba mhux biss fejn seħħ l-inċident  u madwaru, iżda effettwat ukoll pajjiżi diversi. Ir-radjuattivita li xterdet inħasset mijjiet ta’ kilometri l-bogħod. Issa l-impjanti nukleari jistgħu jkunu ta’ sigurta massima fis- sens li jaħdmu sewwa dejjem u bl-aħjar teknoloġija. B’nies mħarrġa kif imiss.


Kull ma hemm bżonn huwa żball uman wieħed. Li kif tafu, bil-buonavolonta kollha jista’ jiġri f’kull ħin. Bi żball uman wieħed, jiġifieri, jkollna ħerba wara l-bieb.


Issa żid ma din li fiċ-ċentru tal-Mediterran hawn ukoll attivita’ sismika. Ħarsu ftit x’ġara fil-Ġappun is-sena l-oħra.


Dan jonqos fil-Mediterran ! Kontaminazzjoni ta’ radjuattivita teqred il-ftit ħut li baqa’ apparti dak li tagħmel lit-turiżmu !