Tsunami tragedy and exploded nuclear power plant

This post was issued by me last year... as my concern to japan Tsunami tragedy and blast hits its Nuclear power plant.

Depending what you useit for, nuclear energy can be good (or bad). If you use it for peaceful purposes, then I am all for it. If it is making weapons, missiles and other things, then this is the wrong use for it.

My only concern is with nuclear energy itself and all the hazards associated, environmental and health, and the cost involved. Today with the climate change, nuclear energy is not the answer. Renewable sources of energy, changing lifestyle and sustainable development is part of the answer as well the energy efficiency and energy conservation

Nuclear energy is not a clean source. That is a terrible fallacy. Why? The use of nuclear energy is what do we do to dispose of radioactive waste, which lasts for thousands and thousands of years. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years! What is that? 240 centuries, 24 millennia. If prehistoric man started out with nuclear energy, today we would still be managing his waste. Here we are talking about radioactive waste forever

My greatest concern is the disposable of radioactive waste. Secondly, there are so many fallacies about the cost of nuclear energy. Nobody can say it cheap.

eTo have an energy mix between all sort of energy is must as depletion of fossil fuel, we will not have the energy we need. Of course we can reduce the pressure of the demand for energy through prudent use and becoming more efficient.

Environmnent and Politics

The mixture of involvement of politician for any environment decision especially for development project is bad situation. From my opinion, there are still a number of politician always think about their focus on development and achievement. From this he can show the world that how good he is as a leader to develop their territory. Not all proposed development that there are planning is good for environment. Especially for development project on the fragile area (island, coral area, steep slopes) of course harm the environment, if not immediately, maybe long term. If there are mitigation measures, sometimes it not really help and the impact for the environment is still bad.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is approved even while the environment is at a terrible loss? How could such body, supposedly to take care of the environment, gave a green light even as the coral reef system is being threatened unnecessarily?

The same thing happened to Broga. The EIA allowed the construction of the incinerator despite the knowledge that the incinerator site is in a proven water catchments area.

Perhaps the libertarian’s common belief is entirely true; one cannot trust the government.

Is the nuclear energy the answer?

Depending what you useit for, nuclear energy can be good (or bad). If you use it for peaceful purposes, then I am all for it. If it is making weapons, missiles and other things, then this is the wrong use for it.

My only concern is with nuclear energy itself and all the hazards associated, environmental and health, and the cost involved. Today with the climate change, nuclear energy is not the answer. Renewable sources of energy, changing lifestyle and sustainable development is part of the answer as well the energy efficiency and energy conservation

Nuclear energy is not a clean source. That is a terrible fallacy. Why? The use of nuclear energy is what do we do to dispose of radioactive waste, which lasts for thousands and thousands of years. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years! What is that? 240 centuries, 24 millennia. If prehistoric man started out with nuclear energy, today we would still be managing his waste. Here we are talking about radioactive waste forever

My greatest concern is the disposable of radioactive waste. Secondly, there are so many fallacies about the cost of nuclear energy. Nobody can say it cheap.

To have an energy mix between all sort of energy is must as depletion of fossil fuel, we will not have the energy we need. Of course we can reduce the pressure of the demand for energy through prudent use and becoming more efficient.

Environmnetal Career

Graduates in environmental science can appear for either work with both governmental and non-governmental organizations. Working with NGOs will give you rewarding exposure in the study of specific projects, issues, places and people. At an NGO you can be employed as Project manager, project officer, environmnetal manager, environmental scientist/engineer/consultant. Entry level positions (degree level)will fetch you a salary of RM1800-RM2500 per month. Government also recruits environmental officer (Pegawai Kawalan Alam Sekitar) from to time in different especially for Department of environment.

Working in environmental related sector required you to have strong interest in environmental and public health issues. You must also be passionate about building a career in environmental advocacy and organizing. You should be highly motivated and capable of leading a team. Not only that, you also have to deals with a variety of issues like pollution, oil spills and toxic waste. They are also involved in designing recycling or waste management systems. anyhow this career not required you to have qualification in Environmental science, the most important thing is you passionate about wildlife and committed to the conservation of the environment. The truth is that only specialized individuals can understand the issues involved in the protection and preservation of the environment!

Look out for sign of slope failure

There are four main types of landslides, namely slides, which are most common in Malaysia, topples, rock falls and debris flows also known as mud flows. Factor can trigger landslides are intense and prolonged rainfall as well as shocks or vibration such as seismic activity.

Public should look out for signs such as water or earth bulging appearing at the base of a slope or retaining wall as well as tension crack at the ground surface.
other sign are small stones falling from the slope surface, tilting the fences, retaining walls, utility poles and even tree. sign to watch for around the buildings are cracks appearing the ground or in the foundation of houses and other structures as well as soil moving away from the foundation. Door and windows that stick or become jammed for the first time are also considered as warning sign as well as appearance of springs, seeps or saturated grounds on the areas that have not typically been wet before

How efficient the EIA report

Have we placed undue expectation on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system as an environmental safeguard? Rightly or wrongly, many have come to rely on the EIA to be the shield against adverse impacts of development. To a great extent especially for would-be affected communities, the EIA is deemed their only chance of stopping an undesirable project. Department of Environment is the the government agency tasked to enforce Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 which gave birth to the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987 – has unwittingly become the Department of Everything, when its power is so limited.

While many agree that EIA is a planning tool to assist developers to avoid negative impacts on the environment, most concur that project proponents are more concerned about fulfilling a legal requirement to get the project going. From my point of view, EIA did not originate to support a project but to aid informed decision-making. Because the consultant is paid by project proponent maybe its the was to 'jaga the periuk nasi' to make sure their company growing.

There is consultant has suggested unrealistic mitigation measures when there is no proven technology or successful cases to support it.

How to solve this problem? Maybe DOE and the EIA consultant should sign a contract as equal clients that give sufficient clout to DOE to demand for unbiased assessment. Or maybe make it mandatory for project consultants to respond to public comments and publish comments of review panel for meaningful public participation