To anonymous professors who claimed to stop ‘no-nuclear power policy’

Lee Won-young(Professor, The University of Suwon · Institute of Country Futures)

original article>> http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/because/872866.html

A few days ago, with aid of the result of Taiwan’s plebiscite 218 professors in Korea plead to stop ‘no-nuclear power policy’ anonymously. They issued a public statement anonymously except Lee Deokwhan, a joint-representative of ‘Professors’ Association for Reasonable Energy Policy. However, the Taiwanese government said there is no change of the policy. They just deleted the clause that they will stop all nuclear power plants by 2025. They revealed clearly that their decisions not to prolong the life of the first, second, third nuclear power and their decision to stop the building of the fourth nuclear power plant will undergo no change. In fact Taiwan suffered the earthquake of 7.2 intensity in 1999 which produced thousands of victims and in 2016 140 casualties and missing persons by earthquake of 6.4 intensity. These earthquakes made the conservative Nationalist Party stop the atomic power plan. So this plebiscite of Taiwan could be said as something close to the national petition

Why the anonymous 208 professors come forward to assert to stop ‘no-nuke policy? They make a big contrast with 1052 professors to assert ’no nuclear power’ disclosing their real names in the time of Lee Myoungbak government.

The Korean peninsular is already deep in the age of ‘no-nuclear power.’ Firstly, not only civil society but also religious world began to attach a great weight to ‘no nuclear power’ society. The Catholic church made an official announcement of ‘No-nuclear power’ through bishops’ conference in 2013. In the same year Buddhism and One-buddhism held the international seminar on dismantlement of nuclear power, opening a new vision. Also protestantism did not keep silence. All these constant wishes for life and safety of the religious circles supported the President’s declaration of ‘No-nuclear power’ policy in 2017.
Secondly, The big problem is that of the radioactive wastes, atomic fuel. The confession of the professor who majored in radioactive wastes whom I met in that international seminar is very impressive: “There is no way to dispose the radioactive wastes.“ To build a nuclear power plant should be considered with the problem of disposal of radioactive wastes. We cannot build apartment without toilet, can we? To deal with these two issues separately was a fatal mistake of the former governments. Likewise in this government the public opinion of nuclear power plant of Singori 4, 5, 6 failed to notice this problem.

Thirdly, we should achieve ‘No-nuke country in the Korean peninsular.’ The former president Park Keunhye asked for retreatment of nuclear wastes to U. S several times, but U. S government continuously refused. Now the North Korea has the nuclear power technology even though it disposes nuclear arms. If one part of ‘unified Korea’ can still produce plutonium material, there will be some possibility of atomic bomb combined with the North-Korean technology. It is completely clear that if unified Korea has some possibility to be a nuclear power nation, the nuclear umbrella of U. S. will collapse, resulting in the crisis of global village. Thus ‘no- nuclear power’ of the South cannot but be a prerequisite to ‘No nuclear power’ in the Korean peninsular.

Fourthly, the no-nuke policy of government is a long-term task covering several years and is going on step by step. The cases of Germany and U.S.A. show the amazing results of making employments through energy-changing policy. Of course there is an another factors we should make an effort on. In transferring 30 % of electricity produced by nuclear power plant, economy in energy plays a bigger role. Supporting the remodelling of building as in Germany activates the economy of the village. Solar energy should be given more encouragements even for reducing fossil fuel and coping with the problem of fine dust. The appropriate price should be marked on the electricity for industry, which will make more healthy economy.

Fifthly, before everything else, danger is the first and the most important reason for no-nuke policy. When the president declared no-nuke country, he attached a great importance to safety and life of people. The earthquakes we got in Pohang last year and in Gyeongju 2016 support the historical facts that the southeastern district, nuclear-power plants congregated is an earthquake-prone area. No one knows what will happen tomorrow. The expectation that a severe earthquake will not happen is close to ‘blind belief.’ This belief that earthquake will not happen, that even if earthquake happens we will be safe, that even if we cannot mange radioactive wastes, we will get along well somehow, that U.S.A. will continue to hold with nuclear-power policy, is a superstitious belief that cannot be explained reasonably. 218 professors seem to fall in with this kind of unreasonable belief.

Can’t they look forward the future when their disciples must watch out for the danger of nuclear-power plant and launch into dismantling it?

Categories: Media Reports