South China Morning Post
Advertisement
Advertisement
Fukushima nuclear disaster and water release
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
A dosimeter shows the radiation level near a new protective shelter placed over the remains of nuclear reactor Unit 4, at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, on November 29. The explosion of Unit 4 in the early hours of April 26, 1986, is still regarded as the biggest accident in the history of nuclear power generation. Photo: EPA
OpinionComment

Hong Kong needs answers on Taishan nuclear plant risks, as painful legacy of Fukushima lingers

Frances Yeung says work on the power plant should be suspended, amid the need for greater clarity of the potential risks, in the interests of public safety

Fukushima nuclear disaster and water release
Frances Yeung
Why you can trust SCMP
It’s hard to believe that it was just six years ago when an earthquake, followed by a tsunami, caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, sending three reactors into meltdown and contaminating everything within a 20km radius and beyond.

Over 15,000 people died, 2,000 plus still remain unaccounted for, and more than 146,000 people living in nearby towns were forced to evacuate.

In Iitate village, about 39km from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the Japanese government has attempted to “decontaminate” the area by removing radioactive topsoil around homes and along the sides of major roads.
Bags of contaminated soil lined up at Tomioka, in Japan’s Fukushima prefecture, on February 22, as the fallout of the March 2011 nuclear disaster lingers. Photo: Xinhua

Three Years On: Stories from Fukushima

But no matter how hard they try, the decontamination will not be able to reach the forests that cover about 75 per cent of Iitate’s area.

Radiation does not die – one simply needs to look at the effect of the Chernobyl disaster

Radiation does not die – one simply needs to look at the effect of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster as a clear example. Caesium-137, one of the radioactive materials released from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, takes 30 years to decay to half its original size. It has only been six years since Fukushima – the pollution is expected to last for a long, long time.

Yet the Japanese government thinks enough time has passed for Fukushima victims to return home. On March 31, the government plans to lift the evacuation order on Iitate village, allowing the 6,000-plus residents to go back home.

Dying robots and failing hope: Fukushima clean-up falters six years after tsunami

According to recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the maximum dose of radiation that is safe for people to be exposed to in a year is one millisievert (1mSv/year).

However, Greenpeace Japan measured seven residential sites in Iitate and found the average exposure dose at 0.5 microsievert (μSv) to 1.2μSv per hour – two to five times greater than the government’s long-term target. That means, if these 6,000 residents were to return, their so-called safe living space would expose them to radiation equivalent to having a chest X-ray each week.
A mother and son retrieve belongings from their destroyed home in Ishinomaki, in Japan’s Miyagi prefecture on April 10, 2011, a month after a devastating magnitude-9 earthquake and tsunami. Photo: EPA

Thirty children diagnosed with thyroid cancer in Fukushima nuclear crisis survey

The nuclear power industry frequently conceals the truth to safeguard its own vested interests – it claims nuclear power is safe, in complete disregard for people’s lives.

Here in Hong Kong, in addition to the Daya Bay nuclear power plant in Guangdong, we face threats from the Taishan nuclear power plant. China General Nuclear Power Group, the main investor in the Taishan plant, issued a notice a few weeks ago saying that, after an evaluation of the “subsequent engineering construction plan and relevant risks”, it would delay the commercial operation of Taishan Unit 1 by six months to the second half of this year. So what exactly did they find out about the plant’s safety risks?

Radiation fears in Hong Kong from China’s unproven and possibly faulty nuclear reactors nearby

What we do know is that, two years ago, the French Nuclear Safety Authority admitted there were safety concerns about a European pressurised reactor being built in Flamanville in northern France. They warned that Taishan, which shares the same design and whose pressure vessels were produced from the same supplier as the French project, may also suffer from the same safety issues. So what is the China nuclear power group not telling us?

French warning on nuclear reactors being built in China’s Guangdong

If the Taishan plant, which features the same faulty design as the one in France, is classified as risky, then how can they expect it to go into operation in the second half of the year?

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was a painful lesson for humanity and should serve as a warning. We have our own nuclear threat right here on our doorstep – a nuclear power plant built with knowingly faulty and unsafe parts.
The joint Sino-French Taishan nuclear power station outside Taishan city in Guangdong province, in December 2013. Photo: AFP

Hong Kong-listed operator of Taishan nuclear plant urged to come clean over possible safety flaws

The Hong Kong government must ask the central authorities to temporarily halt the Taishan nuclear plant, make the project’s risk assessment public, protect the rights of all Hong Kong people to know, and keep us safe.

Frances Yeung is a senior campaigner for Greenpeace

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Demand answers on Taishan nuclear plant safety risks
Post