Enformable |
|
Posted: 10 Dec 2013 10:17 AM
PST
In Japan, like the United
States, utilities have a lot of influence in politics and regulations, and
lobby to delay legislation which affects the bottom line of their nuclear
facilities. At Fukushima Daiichi, we have also repeatedly seen the
negative effects of constant financially-based decisions both before and
after a nuclear disaster.
In the wake of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster it has become clear that national nuclear programs
still need drastic changes to encourage the sharing of information which can
prevent or help mitigate against nuclear accidents.
The nuclear industry also needs
to focus energy and manpower on the creation of a common international
language and globally standardized approach to prevent nuclear disasters and
investigating them.
The IAEA is about as able to
provide this role as the now-defunct NISA was in Japan before the March 11th
earthquake and tsunami. The IAEA is more focused on the promotion of
nuclear power then its regulation and oversight.
Having an international
regulator like the IAEA has done little if anything to make national nuclear
programs more transparent; they aren’t making much progress in Iran, they
couldn’t prevent the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, they didn’t prevent
uncertified components from being installed in South Korean nuclear
facilities or the Monju fast breeder reactor in Japan.
The fastest way to increase
international understanding and competency is through transparency and
exchanging information. Without an intrusive international regulator,
it is impossible to prevent the type of collusion which lead to the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster.
The post Are nuclear
regulators making the industry safer? appeared first on Enformable.
This posting includes an
audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
|

No comments:
Post a Comment