Playing with Fire: Why Nuclear Power is Too Risky for the
Philippines
The debate over nuclear energy has been ongoing for decades. While
some countries rely on it for its efficiency and low carbon emissions, the risks
involved are simply too high to ignore. The journey began in the 19th
century when Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity. Marie and Pierre
Curie expanded this research, which later led to the discovery of nuclear
fission by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann. This breakthrough paved the way
for nuclear power plants, which generate electricity by splitting atoms to
produce heat, converting water into steam to drive turbines.
Several developed nations, including the United States, France, and
China, heavily depend on nuclear power. South Korea’s Kori Nuclear Power
Plant, for example, has been generating over 7,000 megawatts since 1978.
However, nuclear energy comes with a dark side. The Chernobyl disaster in
1986 and the Fukushima meltdown in 2011 serve as tragic reminders that no
system is foolproof. When accidents occur, they leave long-term
consequences—radiation exposure can lead to cancer, genetic mutations,
and severe environmental destruction, making entire regions uninhabitable
for generations.
In the Philippines, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was built in
1984 under President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. to address the country’s energy
demands. However, concerns over safety, corruption, and the aftermath of
Chernobyl prevented it from ever becoming operational. Despite this, the
government continues to spend millions on its maintenance. In 2022,
Executive Order No. 164 under President Rodrigo Duterte reignited
discussions on nuclear energy, which persist under President Ferdinand
Marcos Jr. Some believe it could provide energy stability, but others argue
that the Philippines is too disaster-prone for such a risky venture.
I strongly oppose nuclear power in the Philippines. Sitting in the Pacific
Ring of Fire, we are highly vulnerable to earthquakes, typhoons, and volcanic
eruptions. One nuclear accident could displace millions, contaminate
ecosystems, and destroy livelihoods. Moreover, nuclear waste remains
hazardous for thousands of years. Instead of gambling on a dangerous
energy source, the government should invest in cleaner and safer
alternatives like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. These sources are not
only sustainable but also pose no threat to human lives and the
environment.
Energy security is crucial, but it should never come at the cost of
safety. The Philippines must prioritize renewable energy—not just as an
option, but as the only responsible path forward.
REFERENCES
Camacho, T. (2017). The controversy of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.
Retrieved from https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/camacho2/
Department of Energy Philippines. (n.d.). National Renewable Energy
Program. Retrieved from https://doe.gov.ph/national-renewable-energy-
program
Lagmay, M. A. (2022). Fault lines, volcanoes: Scientist raises questions on
Bataan nuke plant safety. Retrieved from
https://www.abs-cbn.com/spotlight/06/02/22/scientist-raises-questions-on-
bataan-nuke-plants-safety
Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2023). Philippines unprepared
for nuclear-related dangers. Retrieved from
https://www.pids.gov.ph/details/news/in-the-news/philippines-unprepared-
for-nuclear-related-dangers
Reynolds, S. (2021). More risk than reward: Assessing the risks and hidden
costs of nuclear power in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://ieefa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/Assessing-the-Risks-and-Hidden-Costs-of-Nuclear-
Power-in-the-Philippines_February-2021.pdf
Rodolfo, K. S. (2016). Geological hazards of the Bataan Nuclear Plant.
Retrieved from
https://www.cbcplaiko.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Geological-Hazards-
of-the-Bataan-Nuclear-Plant.pdf
World Bank. (n.d.). Philippines - Vulnerability | Climate Change Knowledge
Portal. Retrieved from
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/philippines/vulnerabili
ty
