Do First, Worry Later

As I was enjoying my “nasi lemak kukus” for “buka puasa” one day, I noticed an article in the newspaper wrapper with the head line “Govt gives go ahead for nuclear power plant by 2021”. Reading intently on the articles ended up with my mother’s lecture for not helping her with the cleaning up the dishes, but I say it’s rather worth it.

The article starts with: Malaysia announced on Tuesday (4^th May 2010) aiming to build its first nuclear power plant by 2021, saying it is the only solution to the country's growing energy needs. It got me thinking. Wait a minute, the only solution? What happened to solar or hydro power or even bio-mass? Don’t these alternatives deserve to be considered as well before venturing into something controversial like nuclear power?

Not wanting to be prejudice to the government’s “good” intention I continued reading. Apparently the minister responsible (Minister for Energy, Green technology and Water), dear Mr. Peter Chin, announced that by 2021 we will have our first nuclear plant. He said the nuclear option will be the solution to Malaysia's energy needs, and indicated the government was not keen to debate with critics, saying the priority was to reassure those living in the vicinity of the eventual site. "No point engaging (with all stakeholders). Only when the site is identified we will engage those affected. There must be a sincere debate on energy security," he said. No point engaging to all stakeholders? Only those affected? I thought when it comes to nuclear power, everyone will be affected. Remember Chernobyl? The whole country is affected even hundreds of miles away from the disaster.

The country's first 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant, under the state’s energy firm Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) will be constructed at a cost of 3.1 billion dollars. Currently, half of Malaysia's power plants run on gas, and the rest on coal and hydropower. Chin described Malaysia's existing energy mix as "unhealthy".

"Energy demand keeps increasing. Going into the future is to go nuclear. That is the only viable option," he said. Three times the words “the only and viable option/solution” came out from this short news article.

I am not against new technologies that can help us to improve our way of life and furthermore at the same time can reduce the burden to the environment. My concern is more on the irresolvable uncertainties surrounding nuclear power’s safety and its impacts to the environment. Is the nuclear power plant is much more ‘greener’ than other non-nuclear energy generating technologies? This article had prompted me doing a little more digging about nuclear power. There are some facts I found from an article titled: The Radioactive Gravy Train: The Trouble with Nuclear Power in Malaysia, by Yin Shao Loong supports my concerns.

Economy

Based on 2007 figures, it is true that Malaysia is overly reliant on coal and gas. The Malaysia’s five-fuel policy (oil, gas, coal, hydro-power and renewable energy e.g.: biomass and solar power) was supposed to be about diversification, but the fifth fuel, renewable energies, have suffered from neglect. Although uranium still wins out by a weight-energy factor of around 375 times that of coal, but fuel is not the only cost involved in generating nuclear power. Based on a survey by the UN in 2000, operation and maintenance costs for nuclear plants in the US were around three times those incurred for fossil-fuel plants. 70% of the cost bulk goes to construction and decommissioning of the plant only. Raw uranium accounts for about 2% of generation costs. Even so, since more and more countries are setting up nuclear power plant, like other limited resources, uranium would also be an import and it too is subject to market fluctuations just like coal.

There is no operational nuclear power plant in the ASEAN region today yet. However, all of the 10 member nations except Brunei and Laos, have active plans for adding nuclear power into the electricity-generating mix. In terms of scale, Vietnam has the most aggressive nuclear power ambitions, eight plants by 2030! Indonesia plans to have four nuclear plants by 2025. Thailand has plans to develop two nuclear plants to generate by 2022. Singapore, which generates the majority of its power from increasingly scarce gas, has a feasibility plan for nuclear power under way. And it just came out from my over analyzed mind about the commencement of the Malaysia first nuclear power plant in 2021, a year after became a fully developed country (Wawasan 2020). What a stylish way to show to our neighbors that we have become a fully developed nation.

Nuclear Waste

A 1,000 MW light-water reactor plant like the Malaysia is going to build will produce 371 to 573 tonnes of waste per year. During its operational life, a nuclear plant will produce hazardous waste that needs to be stored securely from any contact with humans or the general surface environment for thousands of years. Thousands of years, why? Well, due to the high radioactivity level, the nuclear industry regards it as favorable to store waste fuel for at least 40 years before further processing, in order to let radioactivity drop by a thousand-fold. Deep underground storage has been proposed in order to deal with spent fuel and vitrified waste, but presently no country has agreed detailed plans for their type and location. The nature of the spent-fuel waste which contains plutonium which is weaponisable also means that the waste facilities need serious security measures in place to guard against nuclear weapons proliferation. No wonder the US government went berserk when Iran announced their nuclear power plan.

At the end of its useful lifetime, the same containment measures are required for a nuclear plant when it is decommissioned. This means that the decision to build a nuclear plant, which can at most provide 50 years of electricity, will make areas of a country hazardous zone from around 200 to several thousand years! While fossil fuel-based plants generate great amounts of toxic pollution, they do not have the same ‘scorched earth’ effect as nuclear does. In the UK, the nuclear industry has preferred to seal disused reactors and leave them for 135 years before decommissioning. This effectively means pushing the problem and cost of to future generations. Doesn’t seems like a sustainable technology to me at this point.

Huge Water Demand

A nuclear reactor requires vast amounts of water for cooling, which is why they are typically sited near bodies of water such as lakes, rivers or the sea. This water is used to cool the steam leaving the turbines in the massive hourglass-shaped condenser towers that are a signature feature of power plants. A 1,000 MW plant, like Malaysia’s, consumes 476,500 gallons of water per minute. The hot condenser water is typically discharged back into the original water source, meaning the lake, river or the sea itself. This can have a negative impact on aquatic life such as coral and other marine animals, and this is in addition to the hazards posed to life-forms when the large quantities of water are sucked into the cooling system. Physical blockages of this system have caused nuclear power plants to shut down, and they can take five days to start. The water leaving a nuclear plant often contains significant radioactivity level. Well-designed nuclear plants usually have a treatment system, but radioactive water is typically discharged into the environment once it falls beneath legal limits. I guess that sooner or later, we will be start seeing three eyed fish in our restaurant menu or perhaps a "Godzilla" terrorizing our poor fishermen.

Radioactivity and Human Health

Last but not least, the health impact of radiation to humans. In 2008, the German government completed a study indicating that a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in Leukemia among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The results have been accepted by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. The US National Academy of Sciences has concluded that there is no safe level of radiation. Even at low exposures, negative health impacts such as cancers can result. Leukemia, blood disorders, spontaneous abortions, stillbirth, and increased chances of heart diseases, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, asthma, and allergies are some of the common ailments associated with radiation poisoning. Since the location of the Malaysia’s new nuclear power plant is confidential, I bet some of you already beginning to consider of moving to different countries.

It is true that nuclear power does not have anywhere near the greenhouse gas emissions of coal and gas. However, nuclear power does involve the release of greenhouse gases in the mining and transport of fuel (uranium), so it is incorrect to claim that no greenhouse gases are released in its life-cycle. More to the point, nuclear power produces considerable and long-lasting quantities of other pollutants. It is not ‘clean’ and it is not safe to humans or the environment since even small doses of radiation can be harmful. I think the government or perhaps the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, should really try its five-fuel energy diversification policy first before going for nuclear power. If Germany with limited sunshine can be a global solar market, why not Malaysia with all-year sunshine? Why Malaysia must just have only viable option to go for nuclear for our future energy needs? Renewable energy is abundant, unlimited and easy to harvest. Further more, it is free. No cost for mining or refinement, the only cost involved is construction, operation and maintenance. What’s not good about that? But I guess, being the typical government, as Mr. Yin puts it, “Jump in head first, worry about brain damage later”. Being typical me to simplify things, i prefer "do first, worry later". Cheers

Interesting info worth sharing…

Last World Cup (2010), for the first time, all of Nike’s national teams, including Brazil, Portugal, and the Netherlands, had worn jerseys made from recycled polyester, which the sports-apparel giant is hailing as the most environmentally friendly and technologically advanced kits in football history.

With the recycled jerseys, Nike has diverted nearly 13 million plastic bottles from the landfill. Each shirt comprises up to eight recycled plastic bottles, a move that reduces energy consumption by up to 30 percent compared with manufacturing virgin polyester. Besides saving raw materials, Nike also diverted nearly 13 million plastic bottles (or nearly 560,000 pounds of polyester waste) from the landfill—enough to cover more than 29 football pitches. I did some calculations on my own. 13 million bottles equals to 1,625,000 jerseys! That’s a lot of jerseys for a football event…

They claimed if the recycled bottles used to produce the jerseys were laid end to end, they would span more than 3,000 kilometers (roughly 1,860 miles), a distance that exceeds the entire South African coastline.

If those people can no longer wear the jerseys, I wonder whether it can be recycled back into plastic bottles. All 1,625,000 of them…

Green Building

1. Introduction

Green building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building life-cycle: from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability and comfort.

In Malaysia, Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (SIRIM) promotes green building techniques. Driven by environmental needs, Green Building Index (GBI) was jointly founded and developed by Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) and the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM) in 2009. GBI (M) is a profession driven initiative to lead the property industry towards becoming more friendly. It is intended to promote sustainability in the built environment and raise awareness among developers, architects, engineers, planners, designers, contractors and the public about environmental issues.

2. Green Building Index in Malaysia

Malaysia's Green Building Index or GBI(M) will the only rating tool for the tropical zones other than Singapore Government's GREENMARK. GBI(M) parameters are within the tropical climatic conditions. Its scoring priorities are very much customized for the current state of Malaysia where a lot of priority is given to energy and water efficiency scores. GBI(M) differs markedly from Singapore's GREENMARK thus understandably GBI(M) rating priorities should be like-wise customized to suit - both Malaysian climate and also the current the current state of the country's development and existing resources.

The GBI is developed specifically for the Malaysian-tropical climate, environmental and developmental context, cultural and social needs and is created to:

• Define green buildings by establishing a common language and standard of measurement


• Promote integrated, whole-building designs that provides a better environment for all


• Recognise and reward environmental leadership


• Transform the built environment to reduce its negative environmental impact; and


• Ensure new buildings remain relevant in the future and existing buildings are refurbished and upgraded to improve the overall quality of our building stock.

For details: http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/index.html

3. Our First Green Building!

Finally, we have our first green building in Malaysia, GT Tower! The building is located on a strategic prime location in Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Tun Razak and just a few hundred meters from the KLCC Park. The first green building construction project has been successfully certified by Building and Construction Authority of Singapore (BCA) with Green Mark Gold Status.

'Dry Water' Could Make a Big Splash Commercially, Help Fight Global Warming

An unusual substance known as "dry water," which resembles powdered sugar, could provide a new way to absorb and store carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, scientists reported at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

The powder shows bright promise for a number of other uses, they said. It may, for instance, be a greener, more energy-efficient way of jumpstarting the chemical reactions used to make hundreds of consumer products. Dry water also could provide a safer way to store and transport potentially harmful industrial materials.

"There's nothing else quite like it," said Ben Carter, Ph.D., researcher for study leader Professor Andrew Cooper. "Hopefully, we may see 'dry water' making waves in the future."

Carter explained that the substance became known as "dry water" because it consists of 95 percent water and yet is a dry powder. Each powder particle contains a water droplet surrounded by modified silica, the stuff that makes up ordinary beach sand. The silica coating prevents the water droplets from combining and turning back into a liquid. The result is a fine powder that can slurp up gases, which chemically combine with the water molecules to form what chemists term a hydrate.Dry water was discovered in 1968 and got attention for its potential use in cosmetics. Scientists at the University of Hull, U.K. rediscovered it in 2006 in order to study its structure, and Cooper's group at the University of Liverpool has since expanded its range of potential applications.

One of the most recent involves using dry water as a storage material for gases, including carbon dioxide. In laboratory-scale research, Cooper and co-workers found that dry water absorbed over three times as much carbon dioxide as ordinary, uncombined water and silica in the same space of time. This ability to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide gas as a hydrate could make it useful in helping to reduce global warming, the scientists suggested.

Cooper and colleagues demonstrated in previous studies that dry water is also useful for storing methane, a component of natural gas, and may help expand its use as a future energy source. In particular, they hope that engineers can use the powder to collect and transport stranded deposits of natural gas. This also exists on the ocean floor in the form of gas hydrates, a form of frozen methane also known as the "ice that burns.

" The powder could also provide a safer, more convenient way to store methane fuel for use in vehicles powered by natural gas. "A great deal of work remains to be done before we could reach that stage," Carter added.

In another potential new application, the scientists also showed that dry water is a promising means to speed up catalyzed reactions between hydrogen gas and maleic acid to produce succinic acid, a feedstock or raw material widely used to make drugs, food ingredients, and other consumer products. Manufacturers usually have to stir these substances together to get them to react. By developing dry water particles that contain maleic acid, Cooper and colleagues showed that they could speed up the acid's reaction with hydrogen without any stirring, resulting in a greener, more energy-efficient process.

"If you can remove the need to stir your reactions, then potentially you're making considerable energy savings," Carter said.

Prof. Cooper's team describes an additional new application in which dry water technology shows promise for storing liquids, particularly emulsions. Emulsions are mixtures of two or more unblendable liquids, such as the oil and water mixture in mayonnaise. The scientists showed that they could transform a simple emulsion into a dry powder that is similar to dry water. The resulting powder could make it safer and easier for manufacturers to store and transport potentially harmful liquids.

Banned Fireworks and Firecrackers During Festivals

Hari Raya Aidilfitri, a celebration celebrated by muslims all over the world just around the corner. As usual each year, we can hear the sound of fireworks and firecrackers near our neighbourhood. But not many of us realize that the hazard during any festival in Malaysia especially Hari Raya, New Year and Chinese New Year not only come in burns and blasted fingers from firecracker mishaps, but also in smoke from firecrackers and pyrotechnics that are lighted up. But the only thing highlighted is all about burns.


Firecracker explosions release nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide which worsen the daily smog. As for fireworks, their colors come from the different temperatures of hot, glowing metals and from the light emitted by burning chemical compounds. Chemical reactions propel them and burst them into special shapes. Depending on the effect sought, fireworks produce smoke and dust that contain various heavy metals, sulfur-coal compounds and other noxious chemicals. Barium, for example, is used to produce brilliant green colors in fireworks displays, beside known as poisonous and radioactive. Copper compounds are used to produce blue colors, even though they contain dioxin, which has been linked to cancer. Cadmium, lithium, antimony, rubidium, strontium, lead and potassium nitrate are also commonly used to produce different effects, even though they can cause a host of respiratory and other health problems.


The chemicals and heavy metals used in fireworks can effect the environment, which can cause water supply contamination and even acid rain. Their use also deposits physical litter on the ground and into water bodies for miles around. For examples, some U.S. states and local governments restrict the use of fireworks in accordance with guidelines set by the Clean Air Act. The American Pyrotechnics Association provides a free online directory of state laws across the U.S. regulating the use of fireworks.


Fireworks is highly used around the world, including in countries without strict air pollution standards. According to The Ecologist, millennium celebrations in 2000 caused environmental pollution worldwide, filling skies over populated areas with “carcinogenic sulphur compounds and airborne arsenic.”


Walt Disney company, has create technology where environmentally benign compressed air was used instead of gunpowder to launch fireworks. Disney puts on hundreds of dazzling fireworks displays every year at its various resort properties in the U.S. and Europe, but hopes its new technology will have beneficial impact on the pyrotechnics industry worldwide. They also hoping that other companies will also green up their offerings.


Even though the approach is a good step to carry out, it still better not to use the fireworks or any firecrackers as they may cause more harm than benefit. They just give a moment of happiness but a long lasting negative effect to environment. Better approach such as laser light shows can wow a crowd without the negative environmental side effects associated with fireworks. Therefore, lets banned the use of firecrackers and fireworks during this festival. We can change the world by taking this small steps towards better environment….

The Unhealthy Effects of Chlorinated Shower Water

Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. While it prevented epidemics of one disease, it was creating another. Two decades ago, after the start of chlorinating our drinking water in 1904, the epidemic of heart trouble, cancer and other disease began.

Chlorine as we all know is a toxic chemical. It is used in water treatment to reduce and kill forms of biological agents, such as bacteria and viruses found in water systems. Chlorine is harmful to you not even when you drink it but also can harmful to your body when it is absorbed into your skin and inhaled into your lungs when you get shower.Normally when we return from a gym workout or a jogging session or a game of badminton, we not only feel thirsty but we usually shower or bath. We have been taught that cleanliness and health go together, and indeed they do, when chemical-free water is used.

However when chlorinated water is used, bathing may be much less healthy that we ever supposed. Gasses are as a rule less soluble in hot water, and when water is heated or the free chlorine content in water is greatly reduced, the chorine escaping into the air. When we have a hot shower or run a bath we can sometimes smell the chlorine released as it escapes from the hot water. In a confined shower recess, however, especially one with poor ventilation, the chlorine escapes from the water as we continue the hot shower and steadily increases in concentration in the air we breathe.

The olfactory threshold for chlorine is about 3.5 PPM (parts per million) so when we can smell chlorine the concentration is already above this level. The lethal concentration for ten-minute exposure is about 600 PPM and that means regularly taking hot showers with chlorinated water could pose a health risk. Moreover they can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water.

Besides chlorine causes pulmonary edema, and it would seem likely that regular exposure to chlorine gas even at low levels such as in normal showering may reduce the oxygen transfer capacity of the lungs. This could be a critical factor for athletes and for others prone to heart failure. Another aspect to be considered is our skin. Our skin is an important protective barrier for our bodies. When we shower with chlorinated water we are essentially exposing our skin to a relatively large volume of a dilute chlorine solution. Some of this chlorine reacts with the oils in the skin to form chlorinated compounds and it is these compounds which may then be absorbed by the body. It seems very likely, considering strong oxidizing power off chlorine that regular exposure to chlorinated water serves also to promote the aging process of the skin, not unlike extended exposure to sunlight. Moreover, chlorine may actually enhance the aging effects of ultraviolet radiation by reinforcing the process of cell deterioration

It has been estimated that the "shower steam" in your bathroom can contain up to 100 times the amount of chlorine than the water, because chlorine evaporates out of water at a relatively low temperature. If you bath or shower in unfiltered tap water you are inhaling and absorbing chlorine into your body which finally can cause disease. Even at low levels of exposure in your shower and bath water, chlorine can overtime cause a multitude of symptoms and conditions including respiratory difficulties, corrosion of the teeth, inflammation of the mucous membranes, and increased susceptibility to emphysema, pneumonia, tuberculosis and even cancer.From the previous study showed that water filters is the effective methods to remove chlorine from your home shower especially with the use of carbon and ceramic filters.

Tap water or bottled water?

Water is essential for our body metabolism. We use water for drinking, washing, cleaning, and almost everyday life aspects can be associated with water. Good quality of water will enhance the excellent of health. It should be fresh and contained with dissolved minerals and nutrients and oxygen.

I came across this video about the story of bottled water few days ago. (Click here for the video). The video animation is about the industry of bottled water—how they created the market and manipulated and influenced the people in U.S. It made me wonder whether should we go for bottled water or tap water.

Bottled water exists due to its convenience. We can get a bottle easily when we feel thirst. Most of the shops even hotels around us sell bottled water. However, bottled waters are selling at higher price. No doubt that some bottled water sourced their water from pure natural spring, there are some bottled water source it from tap water. Besides that, it has a larger carbon footprint compared to tap water. From the life cycles: - harvesting of water, plastic manufacturing, product manufacturing, shipping and transferring, to refrigerate water, all need energy and emit pollutants to the environment. Moreover, only 20% of used bottle were recycled and the balance are dumped to the landfill. There is also leaching of toxic chemicals like Bisphenol-A (BPA) from bottled water when use at higher temperature.

With all the negative aspects of bottled water, do we really need it in our market? We can opt for tap water. It is also convenient and cheaper than bottled water. However, a point to ponder with-tap water in urban area i.e. Selangor and Kuala Lumpur may not seem good to be drink. Tap water that drains like teh tarik, kills the mood for drinking it from tap. Solutions such as water filter don’t really solve it and in reverse create more solid waste.

It seems that both bottled water and tap water has it weak spot. I think we can actually do something with our water source - education for our citizen to throw their waste in proper area; house compound cleaning; have proper septic tank; strictly enforcement on polluters; recycle mentality; and etc. By making the surface water especially the river cleaner, we can have less demand on bottled water.

Tap water or bottled water??! It is at your own choice to choose which one for better future as the only difference is money in your wallet and the waste bin.


Reference source:
Image: belmontfrontporch.wordpress.com
http://www.alkalifewater.com.my/malaysia-boiled-water-malaysia-bottled-water-dispenser-malaysia-distilled-water/
http://www.tapwater-bottle.com/index.asp