The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent.
To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.

12 Responses to “Nuclear energy – a safe alternative for Jamaica?”

1. Raisinets says:

   April 27, 2011 at 2:16 pm

   I think I would feel alot safer and content with solar energy as amore suitable alternative. Both for safety and economical reasons. Nuclear and Jamaica, cannot go together my friend.
2. Omugabe says:

   April 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm

   First off, nuclear energy HAS NEVER been “used safely” in ANY country!
   NONE! NADA!

   The nasty nuclear pollution IS ALWAYS seeping into the environment & damaging the life-giving environment.
   And the massive amounts of LONG LASTING nuclear waste are just waiting patiently for the day when they too WILL escape massively into the environment.

   There is absolutely nothing ‘safe’ about ANY dangerous substance that is IMPOSSIBLE to neutralize in short order, and which WILL remain dangerous and deadly for MANY MANY GENERATIONS of descendants.

   Jamaica is blessed with an abundance of sunshine & wind.

   The energy, time & attention WASTED on contemplating the eventual & INESCAPABLE contamination and destruction of the life-giving Ja environment with nasty nuclear pollution, would be better spent seeking to exploit those natural & renewable resources to the max.

   Those at the University who are suggesting/promoting the extremely dirty nuclear energy for earthquake prone Jamaica, are either mouthpieces & servants of evil & myopic wealth addicts, or those so-called intellectuals have way too much time on their minds. And the nuclear devils are finding work for idle university minds.

   These kinds of insane ideas coming from overworked imaginations on their campuses, remind us again that these universities are truly Institutions of Higher Mis-education.

   One can well imagine that there was a time in the past when the destructive pollution of fossil fuels was ALSO considered safe.
   In fact, despite all the evidence to the contrary, there are STILL some highly influential & evil people in the world who will swear fossil fuel emissions are harmless; and they will continue to push fossil fuels until the last human chokes to death on the pollution.

   Nuclear pollution is so many thousands of times more dangerous and deadly than fossil fuel emission, only the truly evil minds will promote it. These minds are incapable of sensing any connection outside of their narrow existence, and to the plight of GENERATIONS of descendants who MUST suffer nuclear pollution spewed by their forebears.
3. donna says:

   April 27, 2011 at 3:38 pm

   The first thing that springs to mind is Chernobyl and Japan and also the lesser known Sellafield.

   In Wales 25 years since Chernobyl livestock entering the food chain has to be thoroughly checked before it’s even considered fit for human consumption.

   How would Jamaican’s cope with a leak? The population is small. your economy is poor at the best of times; your biggest asset is tourism.

   Any fall out would caused contamnation of the Island. Agriculture is a source of income for many people as is tourism. Your economy would never recover.

   There are other things to consider such as the side effects of nuclear energy, many countries are experiencing the consquencesS Spending on health care is extremely high due to the increas of cancers.

   Jamaica have a lot to think about before they even consider Nuclear Energy.

   Japan has one of the best economies in the world and they are worried.

   Regards,

   Donna
4. carole fitzroy says:

   April 27, 2011 at 10:44 pm

   Hell no.
5. Craig Hibbert says:

   April 27, 2011 at 11:48 pm

   Obviously you have not done your research in writing this article, and so I will help you along. For all it’s benefits, nuclear power has one major draw back, one that Jamaica, in the recent years has had to fight hard not to fall victim to. That is it’s waste, the waste from nuclear plants is the most toxic substance on earth, and is considered high level radioactive waste, meaning, it stays radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be isolated until it loses it’s radioactivity.
   Between 1998 and 2000 the Association Of Caribbean States, as well as several Latin American countries, were in uproar against Plutonium or “Mixed Oxide” shipments passing through our waters en route to the Panama Canal.

   Bottom line is it may be cheaper to produce power than oil, but you have to pay for the disposal of its waste and anything made by man can break, Jamaica neither has the resources nor the population density to survive a meltdown.

   Why not recommend Solar and Wind farms??
6. KT says:

   April 28, 2011 at 8:13 am

   Energy,Energy,Energy,this must become the new buzz word on every Jamaican’s lips in terms of finding more efficient sources,cheaper sources,and restructuring our current sources to make it more efficient.We must also have long term goals such as Nuclear energy to rid our selves of this White Elephant breaking our backs called J.P.S.
7. Don Chung says:

   April 28, 2011 at 9:08 am

   Dear Teri Ann,
   The new fifth generation nuclear power plants do not have the problems of nuclear fallout. The uranium is stored in 360,000 balls, each of which has about nine different layers of insulation preventing the leakage of nuclear radiation, so they can be used to play billiards safely even when they have uranium. The uranium is released only in a special chamber at high temperatures and added one a time. If the working temperature is exceeded their is a failsafe mechanism which stops the addition of any more balls, and each balls is removed after passing through the chamber for the specific time to release some of the energy contained. Each ball is recycled several times before the uranium is all used up, so the system can be charged up with new balls after three or four years and does not have to be stopped for recharging. The only problems of storage is how to develop games to use the spent balls which are hard and about the size of a billiard ball. Anyone for a game of marbles?
8. KJ says:

   April 28, 2011 at 9:56 am

   If we look at it entirely from a cost perspective, it is 100% the way to go. However, as a country susceptible to hurricanes and earthquakes do we have the capital to effect control measures in case of a disaster? Japan is struggling presently with a worse case scenario. How would we fair in a country known for dropping the ball in emergencies?
9. teriann says:

   April 29, 2011 at 12:38 pm

   Hmm well said Craig however, I was never recommending nuclear energy for Jamaica just giving voice to our options despite the risk. Your comments are valid and many of my readers have also indicated their preference for Solar energy as a way of solving our energy problem. Hope we get the word out!
10. Danna Johal says:

    May 25, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Thank you for posting this. It helped with a lot of questions which I had.
11. Ares says:

    June 14, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Although I personally agree that Jamaica would benefit from nuclear energy the truth is the risk outweighs the benefits. Therefore, the better solution for Jamaica is wind and solar energy. Also, the bloom box or bloom energy although expensive could also be considered as well.
12. Guido says:

    August 4, 2011 at 1:29 am

    Helpful information. Fortunate me I found your site by chance, and I am stunned why this coincidence didn’t took place earlier! I bookmarked it,