The document discusses the ongoing effects of radiation from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. While many residents have returned to their homes and farms near the facility, a 12-mile radius remains closed. Experts say they cannot definitively say there is no radiation risk, and a link to cancer also cannot be proven. Cesium-137 released in the disaster has a 30-year half-life and remains in the environment. The document expresses concern for the health and safety of residents living near the area and argues that nuclear energy poses too many risks to both people and the environment.

1. Fukushima radiation: still a threat?
Ng Ding Xuan (1i318)
As a result of the March 11 2011 earthquake, there has been a nuclear disaster at the Dai-ichi
nuclear facility. Though it has already been a year since the disaster, still the question
remains: is it safe?
The article mainly talks about the uncertainty of the long-term effects on the residents living
around the nuclear plant and the workers. Though most of the residents of the surrounding
regions have moved back to their houses or farms, a large part of the Fukushima has been
closed down- an area of 12 mile radius around the facility. Experts say that there is no way to
say that there is totally no radiation risk. A link to cancer cannot be proven too. Radioactive
iodine-131 released from the plant had only a half-life of only eight days, but cesium-137,
which has a 30-year half-life, is still likely to be in the environment. From the Fukushima
disaster, however, a lot of engineering mistakes were revealed, like the 4 reactors sharing two
emergency exhaust stacks, leading to the destruction of reactor number 4 even though there
was no fuel inside.
I really pity the people living around the area. They have to move back, not knowing whether
it is actually safe or not. If it turns out to be not safe, they might have to face major
consequences such as contracting cancer. Currently, the scientist have no way of determining
for sure if there is or isn’t harmful radiation around the facility, especially since it is a low
dose. Though the radioactive exposure is low, it cannot be proven that there will not be a link
to cancer. I think that having a nuclear plant is very risky. Though it can generate a lot of
electricity in a very short time with very little resources, if anything goes wrong, then a lot of

2. things will have to be sacrificed.A major disadvantage of using nuclear energy is that it has a
risk of accidents, and once they happen, they are often very serious. Other than this incident,
there is also the Chernobyl accident, which was the worst nuclear accident in history. Nuclear
energy is also causing the environment to degrade. The complex process of creating nuclear
energy entails environmental hazards. The mining, refining and enriching of uranium and the
production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area.
Worse still, some of these isotopes are long-lived, and can live for a few hundred years. This
will have a negative effect on us. Nuclear waste also harms the environment. The cons
obviously outweigh the pros of nuclear energy, and this can be proven by science. I think that
scientist can use science to prove then disadvantages and dangers of using nuclear energy to
generate electricity to convince nations not to use it.
In short, I think that nuclear energy is extremely harmful to the environment. I hope science
can help to persuade nations to stop using nuclear energy as it has very harmful effects on the
people and the environment.