We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
By Paulina De Césare
Paulina De Césare @paulinadece //
"An atomic power plant provides services for 30 or 40 years and generates waste that remains dangerous for 20, 50 or 200 thousand years."
-How did the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity arise?
-The business logic is initially military. Atomic power plants for peaceful purposes are all military power plants in disguise. At the end of World War II, atomic power plants stopped making sense, so the armed forces considered what they could do in peacetime. The answer was: "This raises heat." So a nuclear plant is a very complicated and dangerous way to boil water, nothing more.
-What are the advantages of producing electricity in this way?
-For the nuclear operator, the great advantage is secrecy. Under the pretext of technological secrecy and sovereignty, no one ever audits the accounts. On the other hand, it is the only case in which industrial facilities are put into operation without solving technical problems. When the nuclear power plants started in the late 1940s, they did not know what they were going to do with the waste, but they were convinced that by the time the problem appeared, science would have advanced. The waste is still there.
-What about that aspect of the waste in particular?
-Mounting an atomic plant without having solved the technical problems is a political-military emergency: "The Russians or the Yankees are going to have it and I want more bombs than they do." An atomic power plant provides services for 30 or 40 years and generates waste that remains dangerous for 20, 50 or 200 thousand years, depending on the type of radioactivity. But they also have chemical toxicity: when they lose all radioactivity, uranium, mercury and lead will continue to be toxic.
-What risks do the residents of the plants run?
-In Argentina the fiction that emissions are zero was always handled. In no country are they null. We had a very complicated case with the waste from the Ezeiza laboratories, which at some point they buried them thinking that by the time they reached the napas and the earth, the radioactive components would have leaked. There was a complaint from neighbors, it was the Justice and a serious geological expert, Fernando Máximo Díaz, was called, who found uranium under the atomic center. The Atomic Energy Commission said it was natural uranium and falsified the tests to prove it.
When the issue grew, they fired Díaz and put in an expert who answered the atomic ones.
"The great advantage for the nuclear operator is secrecy," says the environmentalist.
-What about the plant workers?
-Protection standards are different for the general public than for plant personnel. The worker can be subjected to higher levels of radiation than anyone by regulation, and is also bleached.
What is even said in the corridors of the unions is that when a worker wants to extend his vacations, he is subjected to a greater radiological exposure, thus they are given more days. The issue of permitted thresholds needs to be discussed again. The allowed threshold has to be zero or as close as possible.
-Is radioactivity equal to cancer?
-Radioactivity interferes with cell division and, of course, an altered cell division can mean the birth of tumors.
-Are there alternative energy resources that generate the same energy as nuclear plants?
-The question is whether the amount of energy we use is what we need.
In a society in which energy is a commodity, what electricity companies need is that we consume. And the more the merrier. So the statistical tables that relate well-being and development to energy consumption are tricky. In satellite photos of the planet showing brightly lit cities, what you see is waste. If there were rational use of energy, nothing could be seen from the satellite.
-Is wind energy, then, a good alternative?
-Every time you go to southern Argentina, everyone is angry with the "damned Patagonian wind." With the size of Patagonia there would have to be hundreds of wind farms and sell electricity to neighboring countries
-Is there any other alternative?
-Hydroelectric energy, which is being used in some places in the south and for a very short time in a small fishermen's settlement in front of Rosario. But with the tremendous energy of Paraná, you have to use it for the entire city. In addition, it has no environmental impact: it does not burn anything, it does not lose anything, it cannot explode, it is not radioactive. The issue with this alternative is the following: Where is the business of selling fuel and making people desperate that there is an energy crisis and that we have to wage war?
* Note from the interviewee: I want to share with you an interview that two journalists from TEA conducted about the false option that nuclear energy represents. After many decades of publicizing it as a marvel, nuclear operators have opted for silence. However, they continue to carry out discreet steps that lead to expanding an unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily dangerous activity. The specter of the energy crisis is often an argument to convince uninformed and desperate politicians.
A necessary clarification: at the end of the note, when I talk about the energy of rivers, I do not mean to rebuild large dams. There are passing turbines, which take advantage of the movement of rivers, in the same way that wind generators take advantage of the movement of air. Except that the business is not to produce a lot of energy but to spend a lot.