Will nuclear power help end global warming?

By Daniel Gurah

The Scientific grand challenge of the 21st century is to develop reliable technological solutions for secure and cheap energy, at the same time safe guarding the environment. Fossil fuel has failed to save guard the environment and at the same time provide the amount of energy that we need. However, nuclear technology can provide enough energy which will meet our growing energy demand and at the same time protect our environment because of it CO2 free power generation and electricity transmission and distribution. Nuclear should be seen as ‘greener’ as it is found to contribute a lesser amount of CO2 during it construction, transportation and enrichment (fuel preparation). If the world refuses to embrace nuclear power, we may soon have to ready ourselves for an epidemic of Skin cancer; which has already revealed it self because present renewable energies alone cannot satisfy our energy demand. The more we use therefore, the more the risks of disease outbreaks.

But the question that baffles our minds is “Is it biologically dangerous to use Nuclear? If the answer is ‘Yes’ then the Nuclear Industry has been lying to the world for such a long time. If the answer is ‘No’, then anti-nuclear activists are clearly ignorant and should give us a break.

The nuclear industry claim that it is biologically safe to use nuclear has however in past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc proved to be false. Yet they still claim that with new reactors like generation IV and V, such accidents are not likely to reoccur because it now has better safety features than before. How can we believe this since only few of their next generation reactors are in operation/under construction? Will they should wait until a major accident happens before they can confidently come to a conclusion. Will that be a worthwhile experiment?

Anti-nuclear physicians claim that large amounts of radioactivity are released into the atmosphere daily. They should stop throwing dust into our eyes; if nuclear pollutes the environment then what is the job of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in terms of regulating the radiation released from our nuclear plant? Are they taken bribes and not doing their job? Are they living in a community/planet outside where the nuclear plants are and if there is any out break of cancer due to the radioactive released from the plant, won’t they be affected? Do you think they will jeopardise their lives in the name of money?


Do you believe the anti-nuclear physicians? They say building more nuclear power plants is terribly dangerous from a biological and medical perspective. How can we believe them when there is no evidence? France has the world’s leading nuclear power plants in the world and it produces 80% of it electricity from nuclear. Has there been any out break of genetic diseases/cancer. So who is telling the truth here? Whether nuclear plants or no nuclear plants, cancer will still persist because of background radiation especially as the Ozone is getting thinner.


However the nuclear industry has not been able to prove with substantial enough evidence as at now on how we are going to deal with long term radioactive waste problem. What are we going to do with the radioactive waste problems? Are we going to pass it on to our next generation to come and deal with this problem? This seems to be unfair because they will not have benefited from this waste. The long term disposal problem of this high level radioactive waste still remains a mystery. Perhaps the anti-nuclear physicians are right when it come to long term disposal of this waste.

However, plans are underway to burry the waste underground in an isolated restricted area. Well who knows what can happen next as they remain underground for such a long time span. Will it leak into streams/soil where plants grow? Will natural nuclear reaction take place as it happened in Gabon, West Africa some millions of years ago.

What about counties who are turning this safe and clean energy into an economic trade? North Korean is now profiting from sales of nuclear after accepting to shutdown its nuclear reactors in an exchange for economic benefit. Countries are diverting this technology into something else and trading it for economic benefits.

However some countries like Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden have already remove nuclear power off from the table by passing legislations not to build new nuclear power plants. Even with these countries which already have commercial nuclear power plants, they are fears of processing nuclear weapon. Although having commercial nuclear plant makes it easy to divert it into weapons, it is not as easy at the anti-nuclear activists claim because it needs more enrichment (90% to 97%) as compared to (2% to 4%) enrichment in commercial nuclear power plant. Because of this most countries have refrained from supporting nuclear power build and this has also been the source of high tension between the West and the Iranians.

So what do you think?

NUKE or no NUKE?

Understanding Mugabe

By Norbert Osamo

Any attempt to analyze the Zimbabwean situation naturally has to begin with at least a basic knowledge of what exactly is going on there. A recent incident was the assault of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition party in Zimbabwe. He was beaten up after being arrested. Also, after freelance camera Edward Chikombo smuggled pictures of a badly injured Tsvangirai out of the country, he was abducted from his home in the Glenview Township. His body was later discovered near the village of Darvendale 80 Kilometers west of the capital, Harare. At one stage it became a nightly ritual for scores of opposition activists and their relatives to be attacked by government sanctioned gangs.

The economy has shrunk by 50 per cent from 2000 to 2007. The inflation rate is 2,200 per cent. There are frequent power and water outages. Harare’s drinking water is unreliable and in 2006 an epidemic of dysentery swept across the city. Unemployment in formal jobs is running at a record 80 per cent and there is widespread famine. One-quarter of the population is infected with HIV. Then of course there is the unproductive land policy instituted by the Mugabe administration where land was forcefully taken from white Zimbabwean farmers and given to Black Zimbabwean farmers who mostly do not have the business acumen and technical capabilities to manage the farms productively. Now there it is, the disaster that is Zimbabwe today.

I will start by stating my position on the issue succinctly. Mugabe was a good freedom fighter. He is not a politician, nor is he a capable government executive. His radical nature was useful when Zimbabwe was trying to free itself from the chains of colonial exploitation but now it’s a burden.
Individuals who have turned out to be iconic leaders have simply been in the right place at the right time in a country’s history. Despite his obvious extremities Hitler was a big hit with the Germans, this is because his idiosyncrasies were well suited for the peculiarities of German society at the time. German national pride and ego had been damaged in the aftermath of the First World War; as a result Hitler’s psychotic nationalism was welcomed by a Germany desperate to regain global dominance. In the same way, Mugabe’s eccentricities were well suited for a Zimbabwe burdened with domination, oppression and exploitation of the black population by the white minority.

In an ideal situation, after helping the country gain independence and a considerable amount of political stability, Robert Mugabe would gracefully bow out and be held in high regard globally. This would have accorded him the same reverence suited for the likes of Mandela. Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter and is by no means an ideal politician or government executive. But he came and left when he was supposed to. Mugabe has refused to do the same and unfortunately all the good things he did for the country are now irrelevant.

Mugabe has turned his freedom fighting persona into a political gimmick. When he is confronted by the international community about the state of Zimbabwe, he simply mentions the words “imperialism”, “western domination” or “interference by the west” and he gains just enough credibility to maintain his brutal and dictatorial regime. Perhaps, the British Empire is to blame for providing the circumstances that created the monster that is Mugabe. Or perhaps the Zimbabwean people are to blame for keeping him in power long enough to amass the influence and power he now has over the country. Or the international community is to blame for doing nothing effective about the situation. The fact however remains that he has become drunk with power and would do anything to hold on to the privileges and comfort his office allows him. He does not care about democracy or the economic and social wellbeing of the Zimbabwean people.

How does he live with himself? How can he sleep at night knowing about the suffering and hardship he has inflicted on helpless and innocent children? He has convinced himself and truly believes he is doing what is best for the country. Its amazing how humans beings can convince themselves about the nobility of their actions even while performing the most barbaric and atrocious acts. So in Mugabe’s selfish philosophy, it is better for Zimbabweans to live in desperate poverty than to be subservient to western powers by being benefactors of western-led globalization. This is how he copes with his conscience.

So what must be done? Unfortunately it is most unlikely that Mugabe will voluntarily vacate his office, the more the international community puts pressure on his government in the form of sanctions and inconsequential public condemnation, the more he hold tight to his office and thus the more brutal he is to whatever little opposition exists in Zimbabwe. So we could all wait for him to die of natural causes, the way most dictators do after inflicting immeasurable hardship on millions of people, or the international community can work towards regime change. It is sacrilegious to even suggest that in public, given that the west especially Britain is ridden with guilt over its own past atrocities thus political correctness is the order of the day. Thus even though the powerful countries all want regime change for Zimbabwe, they would never mention it, so Zimbabweans must continue to suffer because those who can do something about the situation feel too guilty about causing the problem in the first place. But that is the only solution, regime change that would remove Robert Mugabe and his cronies from power. How and when this should be done is dependent on a variety of circumstances that should be the focus of another article.

Editorial - What the Polls say about the British Voting Public (15/10/07)

In a matter of a week, Gordon Brown's fortunes with the British public has so dramatically changed according to the Opinion Polls, especially those conducted by You Gov, that he is presently trailing the Tories by 7 points and if an election is called today, the Labour party will lose by as much as a 7% deficit.

Really?! Forgive my complete bafflement because just a week ago Gordon Brown was expected to win by as much as 14% of votes cast! I sincerely do not believe polls mean anything but a measure of public or is it private perception. Human reasoning and decision making is surely not that erratic. Or is it?

Is it possible that the British voting public can be so swayed by electoral promises of inheritance tax, emphasis on 'promises', and conference speeches without a reference to written material by David Cameron, to rise as one man and say damn Gordon Brown and Up up David Cameron.

Despite my unbelief in the reliability of these polls, they might just be true. If a voting public has to choose between two parties that are so similar in almost every way and that is from policies to leadership, why wont they switch in a matter of weeks. If they are so similar that they can actually share party members between themselves in a matter of weeks, similar to the polls; then why not poll results.

Mark my words, most British voters will not vote if an election is called unless something dramatic happens. The interesting thing maybe that all those that where sampled for the 'great' poll results will stay at home on election day.

Why nothing will be done about Burma

By Prince Abbey

It was a picture that shook my senses. A Japanese journalist lay wounded on the floor after the military of the Burma Government opened fire on a crowd of protestors without warning. Kenji Nagai, the journalist was later confirmed as one of the nine people confirmed dead after the violence. In the background you see many people fleeing for their lives in a stampede.

And yet I know that there is nothing the rest of the world can do. I am not writing this article because I believe anything can be done. I feel sorry for all the people of Burma who are risking their lives, some of them sending us information through the internet at a huge peril to their lives. I wish I, or even the leaders of the world could help them but I know it won’t happen.

By the violent reaction of the military top brass to a peaceful protest by their revered Buddhist monks, they have shown a heart that will not be turned. They are determined to rule their people with brutality and oppression, no matter the opposition. They have ceased to think like humans…or at least like normal human beings and have become ‘gods’ to themselves. It will not matter what the people do or say or how many of them die; nothing will change. In 1988, a protest by students saw 3000 people killed. It makes these times seem like better times.

So will the ‘policemen’ of the world rise up? Will the US, Britain and more recently France, seek to topple this useless government and restore democratic rule. Probably not! Britain and especially the US have lost so much credibility by engaging in an unjust war with Iraq and failing to ‘win the peace’. Any mention of military action by the US and its allies only sends scorn into our hearts now. Yes, the Government of Burma are behaving like animals but we definitely don’t think Bush and America can teach them better ‘humanistic’ governance anyway.

Will the diplomacy of the EU and UN work? Well, the least said of that the better. It gives me shivers down my spine to believe that we have really put so many livelihoods in the hands of these white-washed tombs. These institutions are full of dead men’s bones and are mere talk shops controlled by people who don’t even bother to attend its meetings. The greatest insult to the rest of the world is the Security Council and the veto powers of its permanent members.

And that introduces China and Russia. Will they rein in their brothers-in-blood? China is the single largest supporter of the illegal government in Burma and of all other illegal governments around the world. I am not one for democracy, especially the type advocated in Washington and made as ‘one size fits all’, but neither do I believe in the supremacy of one man or a group of men over a nation because they think they know what is best for all. So I really don’t care what China or Russia does, and I believe that will be nothing in particular in these circumstances. If the world should want to get rid of governments like Burma, it must first get rid of governments like Putin’s Russia and the Red China. But unfortunately, they have the veto for that action.

God help us all, especially the people of Burma.

THE CURSE OF NATURAL RESOURCE ABUNDANCE

There is a growing consensus that large natural resource endowments are a curse to any economy.

It is widely believed that abundance of natural resources should help promote economic growth because it increases revenue (from increased exports) which can be used in providing infrastructure to develop the economy.

On the contrary, since the 1970s growth failure has been recorded in almost all resource-rich countries except for a few success stories like Mauritius, Botswana, Chile and Malaysia.

The questions then arise, why does natural resource abundance seem to be a curse? Why do resource-poor countries perform better than resource-rich countries? Why do some resource-rich countries seem to escape the resource curse?
Many reasons have been advanced as to why large resource endowments lead to growth collapse. A distinction has been made between point-source resources and diffuse resources and their effect on economic growth. It is generally agreed by economists that point-source resources (oil, minerals, coffee and cocoa because of the concentration of their ownership) have a more negative effect than diffuse resources (agricultural commodities) on political institutions thus inhibiting economic growth.

The production of point-source resources are usually more capital-intensive requiring high levels of skilled labour. Their production has no linkages in the economy so they do not have much positive impact on the rest of the economy while diffuse resource production is more labour -intensive and can make use of surplus rural labour thus creating linkages in the economy. Thus, it appears it is point resources and not just all natural resource endowment per se that have negative effects on growth.

Natural resource endowments delay rapid industrialization and urbanization because the rents they give make it possible for governments to continue pursuing growth-inhibiting policies for a longer period of time. Rents from natural resources result in the inefficient use and allocation of resources as well as corruption.
Resource booms, which may be as a result of a sharp temporary increase in the world price of a resource or the discovery of natural resource deposits, lead to increased government spending which results in excess demand due to increased money incomes. This results in inflation and high levels of importation to meet the excess demand. Deficient demand reduces activity in the real sector causing increased unemployment and decreased real incomes. Unsustainable expenditures and large debt profiles resulting from borrowings against future earnings cause reduced incomes and output when the real incomes differ from the projections.

Poor political institutions, high level of corruption, income inequality and political instability are characteristic of many resource-rich countries. One then wonders why some resource-rich countries have been able to escape the 'curse' of natural resource endowment. Different reasons have been given for this but there is a general consensus that good political institutions which pursue good policies are responsible for their apparent success.

Good political institutions are necessary to provide public goods and to formulate, implement and monitor good policies. The presence of good political institutions constrains the government to pursue policies that are in the collective interest of the citizens. It also makes the government accountable to the people thus checking its excesses.
In resource-poor countries, low per capita income constrains a government to pursue policies that promote the growth of labour-intensive manufacture exports which increase domestic investment and precipitates the growth of heavy industry. Since resource-poor countries are constrained by scarce resources, low income and the low tolerance of the citizens for inequitable wealth distribution, they usually abandon infant industry and closed trade policies earlier than resource-rich countries.

Many resource-rich countries do not have the ability to pursue coherent policies because of various interest groups who see reforms as threats and will do anything to maintain the status quo even if it means overthrowing the government.

Successful resource-rich countries like Malaysia and Botswana have been able to pursue policies that promote diversification of primary exports so that they are insulated against price shocks in the world market. It has also been able to use natural resource endowment judiciously due to economic policies by successive governments to ensure equitable distribution of income and increased employment thus maximizing national welfare.

Slow economic growth in resource-abundant countries can be said to be a product of poor institutions and policies and not just the mismanagement of resources. The role of government, through established political institutions, cannot be over-emphasized.

To stimulate economic growth, the government has to pursue policies that diversify exports to offset declining terms of trade, ensure fiscal discipline, and promote openness to trade. Excess revenue should also be used to develop other sectors like manufacturing and in the accumulation of social and human capital.

Macroeconomic planning should be based on conservative projections of resource prices and income to avoid budget deficits. Resource booms should be followed by devaluation policies that reduce the appreciation of the exchange rate. The government can also keep excess revenue in a stabilization fund (to cushion the economy against price shocks) or a savings fund (for the use of future generations) as practised in Norway and Kuwait.
We can then conclude that large natural resource endowment is not a curse in itself but the absence of good institutions to pursue good policies to promote growth is responsible for the growth failures associated with resource endowment.

OPINION FORUMS

SHOULD AFRICA UNITE NOW
It’s a good idea. It would definitely make the continent stronger in putting forward arguments for more favourable terms of trade; etc. I do not see it happening anytime soon though. African leaders would not be willing to concede any portion of their powers to promote this kind of unity. Unity requires that you place the collective good ahead of your own personal needs. Most Africans place their needs ahead of others; some even suffer from the PhD syndrome - Pull Him Down. I don't see it happening in my lifetime. - Nii Ampa-Sowa
MAN KILL MAN - OPINIONS
Violence begets more violence. If each side responds with destructive force instead of seeking for a more amicable solution, then there is very little that can be done to resolve the Palestine-Israel case. In Iraq's case, how else would you expect nationals of a country to react when another country invades your country? I must say however, that it does not make it right. My personal views...Killings are NEVER justified. No man has a right to take another man's life.- Nii Ampa-Sowa


IRAQ WAR - OPINIONS

In 25 - 50 years from now, I do not expect the world to be a better place because of the War in Iraq. What I do think is that people (American and non Americans) would be wiser when politicians present them with evidence that a country possesses weapons of mass destruction. Considering everything that has happened Post 9-11, you can liken the US-led war in Iraq to Iraq invading Kuwait in the early 90s. Only the UN has the right to cross that line. Another lesson to be learned is that democracy does not work in all places... it is case/region-sensitive. If the power wielded by the US is that which gives them the right to destabilize an entire region, then with the full knowledge of China's growing influence in the world, I proudly smile. - Nii Ampa-Sowa
I think the entire world community would have grown wiser in the next two decades due to what Iraq would turn out to be. All of us, both those who support what is going on there and those opposed would learn rather painfully how not to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Cultural differences and their implications are too enormous to be grasped by those who are both intransigent and bellicose enough to think that simply by being powerful, the fates of an entire people can be sealed in some closed room somewhere. Safety is likely to be the preserve of non-Western peoples for Iraq is increasingly carving a niche for itself as the nursery for engendering hatred of anything western. That is not something that would create security now and in the future. - Emmanuel


G8 AND AFRICA - OPINIONS

I think the decision reached by leaders of G-8 to give $30b in aid to Africa is akin to treating the symptoms of a disease while leaving the disease itself to fester. Rather than giving out aid that they know will be embezzled by corrupt leaders,they should create more opportunity for African countries to participate in world trade by removing trade restrictions for goods which the African countries can produce more cheaply. This will help reduce poverty and improve working conditions for workers in these countries. - Alice


It is a two-way thing. I think Africa has the ability to progress by itself, but lacks the capacity to do that presently. Solution? Trade should be preferred to Aid at all costs. If the subsidies to farmers in the West and the EU are removed, some headway could be made. As to whether it would happen in my lifetime, the answer is simple: NO. - Nii Ampa-Sowa

I agree with Paanii and Bunmi about the importance of fair trade for Africa. It seems while most of us are so concerned about this all important thing. Our leaders and those seemingly fighting for us, i.e.Bob Geoldorf and Bono, are focusing on aid and poverty programmes. We all know it is not working and the money they give to us with their right, they simply take back with their left. I will also mention that we should not be focusing on UK and US in this issue. At least they did their part when it came to giving the aid promised at Gleneagles. The other rich countries like Italy and Canada are hiding behind them and doing nothing. In fact aid from Italy has rather reduced. Its time we begin to look at these nations too because they are also very complacent in the exploitation of Africa. Fair trade now!! - Prince Abbey

THE WEEK THAT WAS - Editor's Notes

Britain has been under flood waters for the whole of this week...yeah right. That is what the news stories and the BBC will have us all to believe. The fact that water entered the homes of people and journalist waded in river bursts doesnt make a flood...not in the least. For the information of pragmatic Britian, floods killed more than a 100 people in China. Now, that is what I call a flood. Next week I hear the sun will be out. Thank God. But I believe the next thing we will hear is Britain is suffering a 'massive' heat wave. Poor Britain


The pastor of the 23 South Korean missionaries abducted in Afghanistan on July 19 was found dead with multiple bullet wounds on Wednesday. The Taliban is wrong in every sense for this and what is particularly annoying is that people who claim to believe so much in faith as to be ready to die for it did not consider that same faith and belief exhibited by these Christians. This brings into fore the classic case of Greed or Grievance. The mask removes and the Taliban can be seen for what they are; Criminals without a cause.

Australia has released Mohammed Haneef, the Indian Doctor held for almost four weeks because his mobile phone SIM card had allegedly been found in the burning car that crashed into Glasgow airport last month. It was found out that the phone was in a relative's Liverpool flat and prosecutors say the case should not have been brought at all. Talk about a persecuted race!

A cat at a dementia hospice in Providence, Rhode Island has been able to predict accurately 25 times, the death of a patient. This is no news because it is commonly known in Ghana, an African country that if a cat leaves the house of its owner suddenly that owner was on his way. Do I believe it? Truly, I don't give a toss. If the cats heals...or maybe kills them, well then we can talk about it.

Tour de France has been caught up in drugs controversy during the week. I dont want to say this, but whoever thought up the idea of hundreds of people riding a bicycle in seething heat for days, for one yellow shirt, was asking for it.