ID :
175290
Thu, 04/14/2011 - 02:23
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/175290
The shortlink copeid
Chernobyl redux?
Korea must be on highest alert against radiation
The month-long nuclear crisis in eastern Japan has finally reached the proportions of the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine in 1986. It is just surprising how Tokyo could end up letting an atomic accident take its own course to become a worst-level disaster because of its initial misjudgment and subsequent series of missteps.
True, Fukushima is different from Chernobyl in more than a few ways, at least so far, such as the amount of radiation leaked and the course of its spread, resulting in far fewer casualties.
If the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. fail to prevent the further melting of fuel rods or the explosion of hydrogen, however, the radiation leakage could be even larger than Chernobyl???s, as a senior TEPCO official acknowledged.
In the hitherto worst nuclear disaster that took place in the former Soviet Union a quarter of a century ago, 56 people died as direct victims of radiation, and an additional 4,000 lost their lives later of cancers due to exposure to radiation. But the international environmental group Greenpeace estimates casualties reached up to 200,000 in only three countries of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
Unfortunately, most Koreans are not finding it easy to rule out the worst-case scenario, mainly because of the Japanese officials??? less than reliable crisis management, especially their willingness to play down the disaster and their reluctance to share essential information in a transparent manner.
We don???t want to sound like fusspots or exaggerators, as it is the Japanese people that are bearing the brunt of the unprecedented triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and radiation. Yet Tokyo needs to show a sense of duty by considering the concerns of its nearest neighbor and minimizing the latter???s collateral damage.
Even harder to understand in this regard are some Seoul officials??? irresponsible attitude. Prime Minister Kim Hwang-shik, in responding to lawmakers??? grilling about the government???s incompetence in dealing with the Japanese nuclear crisis, said, ``It is not Seoul but Tokyo that is incompetent,??? briefly triggering unnecessary diplomatic tension between the two countries.
Kim, who is now visiting China, must have seen how his Chinese counterpart behaved in a similar context later. In a telephone conversation with Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao delivered his people???s concerns about Japan???s dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific and requested Tokyo to provide related information swiftly and comprehensively.
Knowledge-Economy Minister Choi Joong-kyung went even one step further, when he told lawmakers there are ``impure elements that distort and exaggerate radiation damage.???
We agree on the need to maintain calm even amid crisis. But Choi???s remark was the least desirable one to be made by a responsible government official, much less by a Cabinet minister responsible for energy safety policy. It is not just the foreign government???s indifference that drives Koreans into anxiety about the worst development imaginable but also the easygoing, irresponsible stance of their own government.
The time has long past for Seoul to come up with phased and detailed manuals to cope with any aggravation of the crisis, both domestically and diplomatically.
The month-long nuclear crisis in eastern Japan has finally reached the proportions of the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine in 1986. It is just surprising how Tokyo could end up letting an atomic accident take its own course to become a worst-level disaster because of its initial misjudgment and subsequent series of missteps.
True, Fukushima is different from Chernobyl in more than a few ways, at least so far, such as the amount of radiation leaked and the course of its spread, resulting in far fewer casualties.
If the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. fail to prevent the further melting of fuel rods or the explosion of hydrogen, however, the radiation leakage could be even larger than Chernobyl???s, as a senior TEPCO official acknowledged.
In the hitherto worst nuclear disaster that took place in the former Soviet Union a quarter of a century ago, 56 people died as direct victims of radiation, and an additional 4,000 lost their lives later of cancers due to exposure to radiation. But the international environmental group Greenpeace estimates casualties reached up to 200,000 in only three countries of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
Unfortunately, most Koreans are not finding it easy to rule out the worst-case scenario, mainly because of the Japanese officials??? less than reliable crisis management, especially their willingness to play down the disaster and their reluctance to share essential information in a transparent manner.
We don???t want to sound like fusspots or exaggerators, as it is the Japanese people that are bearing the brunt of the unprecedented triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and radiation. Yet Tokyo needs to show a sense of duty by considering the concerns of its nearest neighbor and minimizing the latter???s collateral damage.
Even harder to understand in this regard are some Seoul officials??? irresponsible attitude. Prime Minister Kim Hwang-shik, in responding to lawmakers??? grilling about the government???s incompetence in dealing with the Japanese nuclear crisis, said, ``It is not Seoul but Tokyo that is incompetent,??? briefly triggering unnecessary diplomatic tension between the two countries.
Kim, who is now visiting China, must have seen how his Chinese counterpart behaved in a similar context later. In a telephone conversation with Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao delivered his people???s concerns about Japan???s dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific and requested Tokyo to provide related information swiftly and comprehensively.
Knowledge-Economy Minister Choi Joong-kyung went even one step further, when he told lawmakers there are ``impure elements that distort and exaggerate radiation damage.???
We agree on the need to maintain calm even amid crisis. But Choi???s remark was the least desirable one to be made by a responsible government official, much less by a Cabinet minister responsible for energy safety policy. It is not just the foreign government???s indifference that drives Koreans into anxiety about the worst development imaginable but also the easygoing, irresponsible stance of their own government.
The time has long past for Seoul to come up with phased and detailed manuals to cope with any aggravation of the crisis, both domestically and diplomatically.
