Superior Health Council warns against nuclear energy: “Belgium is particularly vulnerable”

The Superior Health Council (SHC) is very critical of the role of nuclear energy as a ‘sustainable’ energy source and points to a whole range of risks. This is stated in an advice that Belga was able to view. Belgium is also “particularly vulnerable”, according to the advisory council.

–

The federal government will soon make the decision: must our country pull the plug on all nuclear power stations in 2025 or will the two youngest reactors remain open? Now that the deadline is approaching, the discussion about the nuclear phase-out is heating up again.

–

A new advice from the Superior Health Council (SHC) is already critical of the role of nuclear energy as a ‘sustainable’ energy source and points to a whole range of risks. Because they have almost no CO₂ nuclear power plants are seen as a possible lever to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But the reality is “more complex”, notes the Superior Health Council. Nuclear energy has its own risks and raises serious questions.

–

A serious nuclear accident cannot be ruled out, even in the best nuclear power plants.

HGR

–

Nuclear waste

The SHC points out, among other things, the risks of long-lived nuclear waste, possible accidents and the risk of terrorism. According to the SHC, “a serious nuclear accident cannot be ruled out, even in the best nuclear power plants”. Belgium is also “particularly vulnerable because of the characteristics and the locations involved: close to major cities and international arteries”, according to the advisory council.

–

The Superior Health Council recognizes that new technologies are being developed and that smaller and safer reactors can be built in the future. However, these reactors are still in a development phase and require further research, including in the area of safety. Even though these developments could create future perspectives, these reactors in any case do not offer a solution for the current choices that Belgium has to make by 2025.

–

The SHC remains somewhat vague about the manner of the nuclear exit.

–

The Advisory Council comes to a number of striking conclusions. For example, the SHC finds that “from an ethical, environmental and health point of view, nuclear fission energy, as currently used, cannot be said to comply with the principles of sustainable development.” In addition, the SHC judges that the “exit from nuclear energy is possible for Belgium, at a relatively limited cost, also in terms of CO₂-impact”.

–

The SHC remains somewhat vague about the manner of that trip. “There are arguments for and against the possible extension of two nuclear reactors after 2025. (…) Each option entails risks, although of different nature and with different consequences in economic and ethical terms, in terms of energy security, of the environment and public health.”

–