The political discussion about nuclear energy - related to the situation in Japan - is heating up here in Finland. (And also elsewhere.) And no wonder, we have elections coming up.
Last Thursday there was an uncommonly political discussion at work during the lunch hour. A colleague accused Kokoomus (a right-wing party) of no longer supporting nuclear energy, and thus he was going to switch his vote to Perussuomalaiset (a populistic party) who are pro-nuclear. (I guess they are pro-nuclear just because the green party is one of their favorite assault targets.) This resulted in a heated discussion. Have to see what happens next week, whether the topic is even hotter.
I'm a bit ambivalent about nuclear energy. On the other hand, I'm a physicist by training, and I studied in a university where there was a nuclear reactor on the campus. (A small one, used for medical and training purposes.) And I know enough of the details about the theory to know that in principle the reactions can be controlled.
However, I have become more and more sceptic about nuclear reactors recently, and mainly because of one thing: the human factor. It has become more and more apparent that humans, even well-meaning ones, can do extraordinary stupid things. And having a big nuclear reactor in the hands of humans is a spectacle I don't much like to think about.
So, even though Finland has generated quite a lot of welfare for the citizens thanks to the nuclear reactors, I'm in favour of thinking different. Why not go green in an intelligent way? However, here also one has to realize the stupid things even intelligent humans can do. Going green is by no means easy or unproblematic.
This is something one should think about deeply, but I'm quite exhausted, once again, as we did a kind of spring-cleaning exercise at home. But today I managed to go for a short walk and took some photographs, of which here are samples.
Posts
A moment of profound silence followed.
4 hours ago
3 comments:
"I know enough of the details about the theory to know that in principle the reactions can be controlled ...
... and having a big nuclear reactor in the hands of humans is a spectacle I don't much like to think about"
Well said, Juha. These two statements mark pretty much the field of discussion. Everbody has to draw his conclusion and balance his trust in others (engineers, but more problematic businessmen and politicians) with the expected benefits or risks. Alas, there are no simple solutions.
This issue is like choosing between a DSLR camera with just a standard lens kit and a marvelous compact like Panasonic LX3/LX3 or Olympus XZ-1
Both segments have their own plus and minus - nothing is perfect, the best way is to choose the best... which no body really know what is it actually... LOL
@Markus: At least the awareness of risks is better known now that we have one more sample point of failures. But better decisions in the future, of that I'm not sure.
@David: Well, sort of, although with a camera it is much harder to really injure people than with a nuclear reactor.
Post a Comment