Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
“The Tokaimura Accident: Nuclear Energy and Reactor Safety”, written by Michael E. Ryan under the Department of Chemical Engineering University at Buffalo, is concerned with the ethical issue of lack of proper supervision which led to the Tokmiura accident. Michael wrote on the events leading up to the accident of 1999 where three technicians caused a radiation leakage in the JCO power plant due to the use of nuclear energy. The two different articles I have found address the same ethical issue with very similar views. In this paper, I will analyze the way these articles differ and coincide with each other.
In an article from the Vedpuriswar organization titled “Managing Environmental Risks” [2], the ethical issue of supervision is addressed for various accidents. In 1989, Exxon (a leading oil company) was involved in an environmental disaster. In this accident, one of the Exxon tankers spills 11 million gallons of oil in Prince Williams’s sound of Alaska [1].In 1986, there was a major leak of septic water into the Rhine River due to a fire at Sandoz chemical factory in Switzerland. In 1984, a pesticide plant in the city of Bhopal (India) discharged 40 tons of deadly MIC gas. The accident resulted in the killing of 22000 people. In this article, the environmental responsibility of numerous natural resource organizations is addressed. Vedpuriswar believes that “tight supervision and control would prevent accidents”. After extensive research on various environmental accidents, Vedpuriswar sites numerous sources where he had determined that “environmental risks typically create confusion and vagueness in the minds of decision-makers”.
In another article by Heinz Luegenbiehl named “Ethical Issues in the Japanese Nuclear Power Industry” [3], the ethical issue of adequate supervision addressed along with others. Luegenbiehl goes into detail of circumstances that provide the basic inception of Japanese very unique nuclear power policy. In the beginning years, the Japanese nuclear industry had very few minor accidents. So, the safety records were good. Starting in 1995, the situation was a bit different. In 1995, a major leak occurred at the Monju experimental fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga [3]. There wasn’t any injuries and environmental risks involved with this accident, but it was highly publicized because the plant operator tried to hide the extent of leakage [3]. In 1997, there was a fire explosion at a fuel reprocessing plant in Tokimura by the same corporation. In this accident, 37 workers had minor exposure to radiation. The most serious accident occurred in 1999 at the JCO power plant. 2002 and 2003 were the worst years for the Japanese nuclear industry because most of the power plants were closed. The most severe accident in terms of life occurred in 2004. Five employees were dead immediately after the accident, and six were seriously injured. The cause of this accident was a pipe. This pipe wasn’t inspected since 1976. All these accidents damage the public trust in the nuclear industry. According to Luegenbiehl, the components that lead to these accidents are unethical.
Since both articles study the accidents that were caused by the same factor of inappropriate supervision, I am going to pick one accident from each of the above-mentioned articles and give its thorough consideration. It will lead to defining similarities and differences in both articles and, consequently, accidents. The issues I am going to analyze are The Valdez oil spill from Vedpuriswar’ article and the Tokaimura accident from Luegenbiehl’s one. The analysis will be done according to the following:
- Lack of proper management as the main cause of the accidents;
- Measures were taken by the management after the accidents happened;
- The consequences of the accidents that the authors of the articles are concerned with.
Evaluating both articles from the first criteria, I should say both authors claim that it was the lack of proper supervision that resulted in the accident. Neglecting its duty, the authorities responsible for both accidents failed to prevent the disaster.
Moreover, the authorities did not manage to take proper measures after the accident happened. The main drawback of the actions they took is rooted in the sluggishness: both, Vedpuriswar and Luegenbiehl admit that valuable hours were lost because of inadequate conduct of the management (the spill was cleaned slowly, and firefighters were not informed in a proper way, respectively).
The consequences of the accidents have various interpretations in both articles. Vedpuriswar’s main concern is the ecological problems that the accident in Alaska had. Namely, it is the earth’s atmosphere that interests the author. Vedpuriswar studies what consequences the Valdez oil spill will have in the nearest future. At the same time, these are economic issues that Luegenbiehl is puzzled by. In this way, the article differs, having a similar problem under analysis but various approaches to the study of the consequences.
The process of comparison has revealed to me that every conclusion about the accidents we make should be grounded on an appropriate study of the relevant source. The more sources are studied, the more unified conclusion will be reached.
The two articles I have analyzed have the same perspective that adequate placement of supervisory personnel could have promptly resolved if not prevented the accident altogether. Both articles present adequate evidence to support the claims of unprofessional supervision that led to the accidents. Though the same conclusions about the accidents’ reasons are made, the authors of the articles differ in their assumption of the consequences the disasters have. Vedpuriswar’s article is a more comprehensive report of resource organizations and the obvious disregard for the environment, while Luegenbiehl’s article is concerned with analyzing the industry actions.
References
- Michael E. Ryan , “The Tokaimura Accident: Nuclear Energy and Reactor Safety” Department of Chemical Engineering University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
- A.V. Vedpuriswar. “Managing Environmental Risks” 2005.
- Luegenbiehl, Heinz “Ethical Issues in the Japanese Nuclear Power Industry” 2004.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.