irregularities 's record company Electric Power Company, in charge of the Fukushima nuclear plant now at risk because of the earthquake-indicate that institutions such as the Chilean one is quite inadequate as to try to implement that type of energy.
With almost a year apart, Chile and Japan, have had to react before a devastating earthquake and tsunami. But there is one key difference: Japan, the third largest economy, with a formal and informal institutions far more developed than Chile, facing a nuclear risk to population, where the responsibilities seem to be not only natural but also human.
With almost a year apart, Chile and Japan, have had to react before a devastating earthquake and tsunami. But there is one key difference: Japan, the third largest economy, with a formal and informal institutions far more developed than Chile, facing a nuclear risk to population, where the responsibilities seem to be not only natural but also human.
It is from this difference, from which we must think globally, the nuclear issue for Chile.
If we are honest, before the earthquake of February 27, 2010, Chile reacted as it is: a developing country. Most of the institutions that should act when faced with danger, to protect citizens, failed. Only firefighters and emergency services responded well to the disaster. The rest will cost a few hours or even days to react to the shock. Others still believe that they did good ...
That poor institutions and "a la chilena", has allowed many "responsible" state and private-owners-no construction assume no liability or expense caused by their negligence. And the costs of government or corporate irresponsibility, continue to bear the ordinary citizens.
Our institutions are still ineffective in protecting citizens, although the current government to attempt to show otherwise.
Could an institutional way, support a nuclear energy program and the risks that this entails? I doubt it. As always, to a fault Citizens end up paying the negative externalities, must be evacuated, expropriated or contaminated, while others take profits and take a plane when the radiation approaches.
And I doubt even more, considering that even the Japanese institutional development, it seems much more efficient and disciplined than ours, presents serious irregularities on the issue of nuclear energy management.
Because something that few mention media is that Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the company in charge of the Fukushima Daiichi plant damaged before the earthquake had a history of serious irregularities, including falsifying safety reports and lack of control.
In 2002 the Japanese government closed some plants operated by the company, after it has been twenty years TEPCO acknowledged falsifying safety reports. Despite harakiri, in 2004, an explosion at a plant, was again omitted from the safety reports, and subsequent investigation revealed that the area where it occurred the accident had not been revised in 28 years, by anyone. It's no wonder that the earthquake caused serious damage.
So no wonder the seismologist at Kobe University, Katsushika Ishibashi, nuclear security specialist, says that failure is not just Fukushima Daiichi fault earthquake: "If the power was properly reviewed and updated should not have so many problems, but apparently not so."
As always in these cases, blame and irresponsibility were shared, or hidden, between the company and the state. In all cases, without blushing, the Japanese government acknowledged lack of rigor in the granting of permits, which in the case TEPCO had been approved based on studies of the seventies.
Sound familiar that dubious studies and awards going to bring the rules then have negative consequences for people or ecosystems?
However, as everywhere baked beans, this history, and as always, in February, the company had achieved the government permits Japan to extend for 10 years, the central activity of Fukushima, now damaged.
And as always, the cost of irresponsibility not assume the government and its friends some companies, but ordinary citizens .
Can you imagine what would happen in Chile with a nuclear plant, if it costs more transparent information on the purchase of a bridge, or the audit is deficient in several areas, because the lobby is imposed in exchange for financial support for campaigns?
All this will not stop ringing "very Chilean" if we think of many projects approved by committees of experts lobbyists, managers, bureaucrats, and vice versa, or no previous studies or dubious quality, which ultimately responsible not assume any cost. All I assume other citizens, fishermen, small farmers, neighbors, etc.. Clearly, much worse would be if the cost is to have more radiation than normal in the body.
The previous history regarding the management of some nuclear plants Nipponese, indicate that talk of nuclear plants in Chile is irresponsible considering the deficiency of our institutions at the environmental, public policy and advocacy.
is foolish despite lobbying the Chilean government, and agreements are to be imposed on citizens from despotic power, while the means we are focusing on Obama's smile .
In simple terms, if it happens in Japan, never mind what would happen in Chile with a nuclear plant.
0 comments:
Post a Comment