PROGRAMS FOR HEALTHY ORGANS!

 

DEACTIVATING NUCLEAR-INDUCED PROGRAMS: A WAY TO ATTAIN HUMAN HEALTHY ORGANS

 Penned since July, 2022 by Bolaji M. Anifowose

            The world, as it is known, has a beginning and will equally end one day. However, the incessant production of toxic substances in some quarters might fast-forward the end of the mother earth than ever thought before. The deactivation of nuclear militarization programs in the world should be upheld by every well-meaning nation.

            One of the reasons to have the nuclear energy programs stopped in countries where they are being embarked on is the unresolved nature of the issues surrounding waste management. Where can those by-products of the activities involved in generating nuclear energy be disposed if not into the body of water around or at least somewhere on the surface of the earth? The cost of keeping those stuffs safe from human contact should be something that should have discouraged going into the program in the first place. A situation of “more borrowing” was noted for Japan in its bid to clear the mess created by the nuclear energy trouble of 2011 in Fukushima and it was posited that that could “lead to higher interest rates in [the country] and in the world as a whole” (Oka). Deactivating nuclear programs due to unresolved issues on nuclear wastes should be strongly considered.

            For instance and as a matter of fact, France who was observed to be “relying on nuclear for 80% of its energy production” still considered it a necessity to contact other countries like Germany “to meet their needs.” And apparently, Germany is a country that is doing away with nuclear energy programs and it is in the fore-front of countries advocating for clean energy. It had energy during the winter naturally from the sunlight and wind, and thus could provide France with such. Whatever the mother earth provides mankind with, is ordinarily enough to sustain them. It is clear from this that, that a country is relying on nuclear does not make it energy-independent.

            Another reason to go for nuclear programs’ deactivation is the unsafe condition such create. Uranium is a material used in the generation of nuclear energy and it can only be mined. Besides the fact that this resource is unlike the renewable fossil fuels, and that the process of mining it posed danger, keeping it safe afterwards is another threat to life. The meltdown instance of the reactors kept in the nuclear plant at Fukushima in 2011 was not a good scene to remember. A call for “a stress-test for all nuclear power stations” was afterwards deemed necessary, as a result, in Europe and “in neighboring countries” (Leinen). Unsafe condition created by the nuclear programs is a vital reason to disregard going back on the decision to deactivate nuclear programs.

            The threat of possible repetition of the like of atomic bomb witnessed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as seen in Fukushima’s nuclear event of 2011 mentioned above bluntly pointed out the risks of nuclear power. As a reactionary development, Italy masses voted out every idea on the continuation of nuclear energy program in their country. A total sum of some 90% votes recorded apparently shrank back the nuclear energy’s programs in Italy. In the same way as read on https://www.debatingeurope.eu, other European countries including the Left ideologies, the Social Democrats and the Greens all displayed some levels of disavow towards the nuclear energy programs. They all want that the programs should be put under close check.

            The last reason provided here to buttress the need for the deactivation of all nuclear programs on the surface of the earth is the concerns nursed on nuclear weapons proliferation. One of such concerns centers on the situation requiring avoiding unplanned wars which could be apparently catastrophic. While Peter Schellinck posits that “nuclear energy is remarkably clean, safe and powerful,” there is no 100% guarantee that it could not fall on wrong hands. Even countries like Iran that claims to be embarking on a nuclear program for peaceful use, still declared it needs nuclear power to protect its nuclear plants. Nuclear weapons proliferation is real, and it is enough a reason to rollback the nuclear energy programs wherever they are.

            The need to deactivate nuclear-induced programs has been made necessary because of unresolved issues on toxic nuclear waste management, unsafe condition of the nuclear plants’ situations and the concerns on the nuclear weapons proliferation. Despite the fact that nuclear power is pointed as the only serious option in availability if humans “are serious about cutting carbon emissions,” doing away with it in its totality is the quickest way to help man attains healthy organs and a definite clean atmosphere (Schellinck).