On Second Thought, Maybe Reactors Near Cities Aren’t a Great Idea

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


I came across a news story from the Singapore-based Strait Times on a public lecture that Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), gave last August that he probably wouldn’t deliver today.

The headline, “Nuclear plants ‘need not be far from urban areas,'” offers a good sense of the main point of his comments. Amano goes on to highlight Japan as a key reason we should have confidence in locating plants near urban areas:

He gave two examples of nuclear power plants built close to urban areas in Japan to stress his point. One is the Shimane plant, located just 10km from built-up areas in the town of Kashima-chou in the Matsue city in Shimane prefecture. The other, Tokai No. 2, sits 15km from populated areas in the town of Tokai.

Addressing concerns about safety, Mr Amano said that while it was not possible to eliminate all risks of accident, these could be contained in three ways to give ‘credible assurance of safety’.

First, he said, the design of reactors is much more advanced now and much safer, reducing the risk of an accident like the one in Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the world’s worst nuclear power plant accident killed 56 people in 1986 and caused thousands more cancer deaths.

The second measure related to having well-trained people run the plants, and the third, to having good construction work. ‘It is like a house: even though the design is nice, if the construction work is sloppy, then the plant is not good,’ he said.

In Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis, Japanese officials have called for the evacuated of those living up to 12 miles from the site and urged people to remain indoors if they live up to 19 miles from the site. The evacuation has affected up to 200,000 people—a figure  that would have been vastly higher if the plant were closer to a major city.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Corporations and billionaires don’t fund journalism like ours that exists to shake things up. Instead, support from readers allows Mother Jones to call it like it is without fear, favor, or false equivalence.

And right now, a longtime friend of Mother Jones has pledged an incredibly generous gift to inspire—and double—giving from online readers. That's huge! Because you can see that our fall fundraising drive is well behind the $325,000 we need to raise. So if you agree that in-depth, fiercely independent journalism matters right now, please support our work and help us raise the money it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard. Your gift, and all online donations up to $94,000 total, will be matched and go twice as far—but only until the November 9 deadline.

$400,000 to go: Please help us pick up the pace!

payment methods

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Corporations and billionaires don’t fund journalism like ours that exists to shake things up. Instead, support from readers allows Mother Jones to call it like it is without fear, favor, or false equivalence.

And right now, a longtime friend of Mother Jones has pledged an incredibly generous gift to inspire—and double—giving from online readers. That's huge! Because you can see that our fall fundraising drive is well behind the $325,000 we need to raise. So if you agree that in-depth, fiercely independent journalism matters right now, please support our work and help us raise the money it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard. Your gift, and all online donations up $94,000 total, will be matched and go twice as far—but only until the November 9 deadline.

$400,000 to go: Please help us pick up the pace!

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate