The nuclear disaster that resulted from the explosion at a second reactor in Fukushima, Japan, raises questions about whether the full range of doomsday scenarios have been anticipated at the world's nuclear reactors. When Japan was struck by a destructive earthquake that caused a tsunami, nuclear power experts were surprised that the reactor systems working under emergency conditions were able to halt the operations of the nuclear plant. But the problem, according to nuclear power experts, was that in order to halt the plant completely, its core, which remained hot, should have been cooled by using water, and this is where everything went wrong. The water tanks were unreachable, and the electricity current was cut, which halted the work of electric pumps; the emergency pumps did not work, and none of the emergency measures worked either, meaning it was not possible to cool the nuclear reactor. Every country with nuclear reactors is now anxious; they should re-evaluate the work of their nuclear plants, and examine how they were built, and whether all of the doomsday and possible emergency scenarios were taken into consideration. This is because what happened in Japan was an exception – the emergency cooling pumps should have worked even in the event of a tsunami, according to the experts. This issue has now been raised for all countries that have nuclear power, and they are many. France, for example, relies on electrical power for 80 percent of its nuclear power. If a country like Japan, distinguished by its considerable technical progress, faced such a disaster, the question arises for the case of the Bushehr reactor, which the Russians built in Iran. While the Gulf is not prone to a tsunami, Iran lies on an earthquake fault line. The question is whether those who built the Bushehr reactor took into consideration the existence of nuclear reactors on fault lines, and no one has the answer. However, the fears here are legitimate, and apply to all reactors that are located in earthquake zones. This is the case for civilian reactors. In France, an expert said that all of the earthquakes that struck the country are being studied, such that emergency measures are taken to confront the most extreme possibilities. The question that arises here is: Were these criteria taken into consideration in building nuclear plants in other countries? Nonetheless, the majority of these energy experts believe that nuclear power should remain an important source of power, because the world requires nuclear power over the long term; nuclear energy complements other primary sources of energy, which will not be sufficient over the long term, such as oil and gas. The experts say that nuclear technology in general is quite advanced, and the security measures are stricter than those in the manufacture of airplanes and engines. They say that these measures are reviewed and tightened up on a regular basis, but that nuclear power is not the problem – the problem involves how the security of this energy source is monitored over a period of years. This is why the Japan disaster raised many questions, because it took place even though the country is an important, advanced industrial power. Now, after the most dangerous civilian nuclear disaster since the 1986 explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine, the impact of opponents of nuclear power throughout the world has become stronger. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the postponement of a delay on developing the life of German nuclear power plants for three months. In Japan, 30 percent of electricity is generated by nuclear energy, while in France, this figure stands at 80 percent. Germany decided ten years ago to abandon nuclear power, and developed alternative sources of energy, which now generate 20 percent of its electricity. And now, the Japanese disaster is posing important questions about the security of this energy, because opponents of nuclear power are saying that the dangers cannot be eliminated, no matter how advanced the technology.
