The article below shows the harmful effects a nuclear disaster has on the environment, as a news team explores the remains of the world's largest nuclear disaster- the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine.

The passages in white shows the extent of the toxic radioactivity in the place even after 22 years- a member of the group went over his exposure limit to radioactivity just 10mins after being at the site, which shows how serious the radioactivity is at the place.

The passages in pink shows the political aspects of a nuclear power- how the United States is willing to "donate" the money to Ukraine so as to "secure the future of nuclear power", otherwise other people will object to their government building nuclear plants (such as in the article 'Villagers against Indonesia's plans for nuclear power plant', one of the villagers is fearful for the same thing in Chernobyl to happen in Indonesia should they build a nuclear plant there. "'I don't want that recent incident in Japan or the Chernobyl disaster to occur here,' said Suhadi, whose red-brick home is 1 kilometre from the planned plant.")

The sentence in orange shows how lasting the effects of a nuclear disaster will be- a steel arch that costs $1.5billion will only be able to contain the radiation for 100years. After the 100years, the people of Ukraine will have to find another way to overcome to contain the radiation, as the radiation will still be there.

Chernobyl, 22 Years Later
Exploring The Rubble Of The World's Largest Nuclear Disaster

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine, March 31, 2008

(CBS) Twenty-two years after the world's worst nuclear accident, radiation danger at Chernobyl is still so severe that a 16-mile area remains sealed - reached only through two checkpoints. CBS News correspondent Bill Plante was allowed inside with a camera crew.

The meltdown left a simmering stew of toxic radioactivity under the rubble, covered by a hastily built shelter that's crumbling.

"There's still a massive inventory of radionucleides inside the shelter - and the shelter is far from being airtight," said project manager Laurin Dodd.

Work is finally underway on a permanent solution, but Chernobyl today is still a very dangerous place.

Special protective clothing is required. The radiation level is so high that you can't stay long.

The construction equipment cabs have lead sheeting; every bucket of rubble is monitored for radiation.

The solution, 10 years in the planning, is an enormous steel arch, to be built in sections, then moved on tracks over the reactor.

At 345 feet, it'll be taller than the statue of liberty - and wider, at 840 feet, than the St. Louis Gateway Arch.

Not only is the project huge, but so is the cost: almost $1.5 billion. And the United States is the largest-single country donor. Why? Not just to help Ukraine, but also to help guarantee the future of nuclear power.

"Nuclear power will always have a shadow over it as long as Chernobyl is a message of concern," said U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor.

CBS News was on the site less than 10 minutes when one member of the group went over his exposure limit.

"Right now the dose rate is 200 times the background of what you'd have in Washington, D.C.," Dodd said.

The steel arch is supposed to keep the radiation contained for at least 100 years - while future generations figure out how to dispose of the mess.

© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/31/eveningnews/main3984592.shtml

A few alternatives to replace nuclear power would include:

-using geothermal heat, which is obtaining power using the Earth's interior heat, is a good alternative source of energy because it is environenmentally-friendly as it does not emit CO2 or other greenhouse gases in the process. And Indonesia is a good country to use geothermal heat because "Indonesia sits atop one of the best geothermal heat sources on this planet. The islands formed over a vast subduction plate boundary where the Eurasian and Australian plates are in collision. These processes are still very active. About 200 volcanoes are distributed across the Indonesian island arc and many of the areas which surround them could host viable geothermal power plants." [1]

-hydropower, which is obtaining energy using moving water, is environmentally-friendly because it does not emit CO2 or other greenhouse gases in the process. Although Indonesia has high hydropower potential, because of its hilly terriains and high precipitation all year round, this potential is highly untapped because "the greatest potential (over 35%) is in Irian Jaya, which has less than 1% of total electrical demand, while Java, with about 80% of the demand, has less than 10% of the total potential, most of which has already been developed" [2]

-natural gas, which is using liquified petroleum gas to generate elecity, is not a good source of energy because it is depleting the country's natural resources. Furthermore, Indonesia is already running out of natural gas, "Indonesia is in danger of losing its dominance of the world's market for liquefied natural gas as its fields are running out of gas faster than expected."


[1] Taken from: http://geology.com/news/2006/11/indonesias-geothermal-potential.html
[2] Taken from: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=fnNYtXaZpr0C&pg=PT49&lpg=PT49&dq=indonesia+hydropower&source=web&ots=
dHJveo74fM&sig=3LkRKGI_bGPQ-LQOoPHF4jLuges&hl=en
[3] Taken from: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/09/bloomberg/bxgas.php

Although building a nuclear plant has certain advantages such as having "lower fuel costs and the absence of air pollution", which would mean a big plus for the Indonesia government as they are "Desperately seeking new sources of electricity to meet rising demand", a nuclear plant would spell danger for the residents residing near Mount Muria volcano, where the nuclear plant would be built, due to the fact that "the slightest tremor could trigger a fresh eruption and spell disaster for any reactor in its path. A radioactive leak could lead to human catastrophe on Java, one of the world's most densely populated islands with more than 100 million people. "

Online meeting on MSN
Time: 9pm-9.30pm
Date: 31 March 2008
Attendance: Joan, Jiali and Marie

Agenda:
1) Progress of the online journal

Progress of online journal

1) As Mr Ang have asked for the journal URL to be given to him by Friday, we decided to have a meeting to discuss the progress of our online journal and how we can improve it further since it will be graded.

1.1) After reviewing the articles as well as research done, we realised that our points were very scattered. Even though we were supposed to do a specific part according to the Scope of Research (minutes of meeting 2), many articles and research will have more than 1 point in them. Thus, we decided to collate these points together, as well as answer the questions from the scope of research, and add any extra information if needed. Subsequently, after someone has posted her article or research, she will edit the post and add on the the collated points. Hence, the whole journal would look more organised.

1.1.1) Jiali will be collating points 1 and 2 from the Scope of Research (Minutes of meeting 2). Joan will be collating points 3.1 and 5, and Marie will be collating points 3.2.

1.2) We realiesd that most of our annotations in articles or reseach do not follow a specific format i.e. Marie and Joan were posting the whole article with the annotations, as well as a summary of their annotations on the blog. However, Jiali summarised her main points and just posted the main points. In the end, we reached an agreement that we would leave it as it is, and leave the authors to format the blog for themselves, as different people would have different preferences. Furthermore, the format of the post would not affect the quality of the research.

1.3) We have also decided to extend all the datelines so that it would fall on the same date. The datelines for all 4 points would be on 25 April as we thought that more articles might surface given a longer period of time.

1.4) Jiali reminded everyone that the font colour should not blend in with the skin of the blog, as problems might arise when the words cannot be seen clearly.