核能源安全讨论(英).docVIP

Is nuclear energy worth the risk? CNNs panel debate on the future of nuclear energy takes place later this month. Here Malcolm Grimston of Chatham House and Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace express their opinions on the nuclear energy issue. Add you voice to the debate by leaving a comment or question we can use in the show. (CNN)?--?The more things change, the more they stay the same... Explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, leaks of radioactive materials into the land and sea, heroic workers braving significant doses of radiation, material detected overseas -- though not in the same league as Chernobyl this is certainly a serious nuclear accident. (Full coverage of the nuclear crisis in Japan) The effects on nuclear power globally of the last major accidents -- at Three Mile Island in 1979 and at Chernobyl in 1986 -- were severe. Several countries abandoned plans to build nuclear plants or decided to phase out their existing reactors. New safety requirements were hugely expensive -- extra costs, long delays in construction programs and, at Shoreham in New York State, refusal of an operating licence to a completed plant because it proved impossible to devise an evacuation plan. But Fukushima does not change the basic arguments over nuclear energy. Of the 13 reactors which were subjected to the Scale 9 earthquake and 14 meter tsunami, only the four oldest ones (all commissioned in the 1970s using 1960s technology) suffered significant problems. The incident demonstrates the extraordinary safety standards and robustness of more modern nuclear power stations. Against the background of an unimaginable tragedy that has taken more than 12,000 lives so far, it is extremely unlikely that the radioactive emissions from Daiichi Reactors 1 to 4 will add a single long-term casualty, with the possible exception of some of the emergency workers. And the basic question remains; if not nuclear, what? In Japan the future has come early. Japan imports 84% of its energy requirem