The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has stirred up quite the conversation, urging the government to move a proposed 20-megawatt nuclear reactor from Nakhon Nayok to a more suitable location and calling for greater transparency with the public. This advice came hot on the heels of a petition by the Nakhon Nayok Citizen Association back in April 2022, claiming that the Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology (Tint) might’ve skipped over some crucial human rights steps in their project execution, as shared by NHRC member Sayamol Kaiyoorawong.
The petition raised several eyebrows as it revealed that Tint, intending to set up the reactor in Moo 2, Tambon Saimoon, Ongkharak district, had engaged a consultant for an environmental health impact assessment (EHIA) report. Yet, here’s the kicker—the project relied on data from 1990, including the chosen site. Even more concerning was that the EHIA report popped up without prior chats with the locals, rendering the public input essentially non-existent.
Ms. Sayamol illuminated further, noting that after a thorough review, the NHRC believed that the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation (MHESI) ought to prod the cabinet into rethinking the project’s location. Why? Because the area has undergone significant transformations over the past 30 years, starkly contrasting the early ’90s setting on which the project was based.
NHRC didn’t stop there—they emphasized that a more fitting site should be handpicked, taking into account geological, economic, and social parameters, not to mention the widespread public concern surrounding the venture. Ms. Sayamol echoed that the public should be brought up to speed on everything: from the project’s perks and potential hazards to possible impacts, inspections, waste management strategies, emergency plans, and rehabilitation frameworks. It’s a call for inclusivity where all stakeholders get a real shot at pitching their voices during the public hearing processes.
Moreover, the NHRC proposed a broader recommendation for the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning. They asked the National Environment Board to reassess all projects with potentially grave health and environmental repercussions and to firmly embed protective and emergency actions for these ventures.
It’s worth mentioning that the idea of setting up a 10-megawatt nuclear reactor in Ongkharak district dates back to 1990, rooted in the government’s initial proposals. However, the project hit a speed bump in 2010, primarily due to corruption scandals and outright resistance from the local populace.
So, while the NHRC’s recommendations seem to echo the voice of reason, the unfolding situation will inevitably be a test of how the government balances development ambitions with the community’s welfare and engagement. Whether the nuclear reactor will find a new home or undergo more scrutinized planning, one thing’s for sure—Nakhon Nayok’s journey with nuclear energy is far from over. Keep an eye out, as this saga might just be heating up!
Moving the reactor is the right decision. The community deserves transparency!
Come on, do we really need to move it? Nakhon Nayok can benefit from the power and jobs!
But nuclear energy comes with risks. Isn’t public safety more important than the benefits?
Benefits can outweigh risks if managed properly. There’s technology to prevent disasters.
True, but the lack of transparency is worrying. What else are they hiding?
You can argue both ways, but using outdated data is inexcusable!
Definitely! You can’t base a 2023 decision on 1990s data. That’s just asking for trouble.
Exactly, and imagine if something goes wrong. It’s not worth the risk.
Maybe they’re using outdated data because it fits their narrative better.
If they used updated data, would the project still be feasible?
Shouldn’t we focus on renewable energy sources instead? Solar, wind, hydro… safer options!
NHRC is right to step in. More oversight and community input are essential.
Oversight often just means more bureaucracy. We need clean energy now, not later.
True, but rushing without thorough checks can lead to disasters.
How many people actually think about where their energy comes from anyway? As long as it’s cheap…
That’s a dangerous attitude. We need to think about the impact of our energy choices.
Carlos has a point though. Most people just want it to be affordable.
Why is everyone so scared of nuclear energy? It’s actually one of the safest energy sources.
The resistance from locals should be reason enough to reconsider the site.
Nuclear energy in a seismic active zone? Really? This is a disaster waiting to happen.
Modern reactors are designed to withstand earthquakes. Fear-mongering doesn’t help.
Fear-mongering or precaution? History has some grim lessons for us.
Better safe than sorry. Community concerns should be the priority.
It’s not just about the reactor. NEB needs to reassess all high-risk projects. Sounds like common sense.
Why only now? The project’s been on the table since 1990!
Corruption and resistance halted it in 2010. This isn’t new, just resurfaced.
Seems like NHRC’s recommendations are a good balance between development and safety.
But can the government juggle both effectively? Call me skeptical.
What about the economic impact if the project is moved? Will the new location suffer backlash too?
Every location has its own set of challenges. Can’t please everyone.
Public hearings will likely drag this out for years. It’s good, but does anyone have the patience for that?
If it ensures safety and everyone’s voice is heard, it’s worth the wait.
Hopefully, this opens the door for discussions on cleaner energy alternatives.
If only policymakers could see the bigger picture like that.