Playing with Fire: Why Nuclear Power is Too Risky for the
Philippines
The debate on nuclear energy has persisted for decades. While some
nations embrace it for efficiency and low carbon emissions, the dangers it
presents are too severe to overlook. The discovery of radioactivity by Henri
Becquerel in the 19th century, later expanded by Marie and Pierre Curie, laid
the foundation for nuclear fission. This breakthrough by Otto Hahn and Fritz
Strassmann paved the way for nuclear power plants, which generate
electricity by splitting atoms, producing immense heat to turn water into
steam and drive turbines.
Many developed nations, including the United States, France, and
China, rely 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 catastrophic disasters of
Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 are proof that no system is
infallible. When accidents happen, the consequences are devastating—
radiation exposure can cause cancer, genetic mutations, and irreversible
environmental damage, rendering entire regions uninhabitable.
In the Philippines, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was built in
1984 under President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. to address energy shortages.
However, concerns over safety, corruption, and the Chernobyl disaster led to
its abandonment. Despite never operating, the government still spends
millions on its maintenance. In 2022, Executive Order No. 164 under
President Rodrigo Duterte reconsidered nuclear power, with discussions
continuing under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. While some argue it could
reduce dependence on fossil fuels, others warn that our country’s
vulnerability to natural disasters makes it too risky.
I firmly oppose nuclear power in the Philippines. Sitting in the Pacific
Ring of Fire, we face constant threats from earthquakes, typhoons, and
volcanic eruptions. A nuclear accident could displace millions and
contaminate vast areas. Worse, nuclear waste remains hazardous for
thousands of years. Instead of taking this dangerous gamble, the
government should invest in renewable energy—solar, wind, and
hydroelectric power. These alternatives are not only cleaner and safer but
also more sustainable.
Energy security is vital, but it should never compromise safety.
Investing in renewables isn’t just a choice—it’s the only way forward.
REFERENCES
Camacho, T. (2017). The controversy of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.
Retrieved from https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/camacho2/
Large Stanford
Department of Energy Philippines. (2025). Philippines strengthens nuclear
emergency preparedness response plan. Retrieved from
https://doe.gov.ph/press-releases/philippines-strengthens-nuclear-
emergency-preparedness-response-planDepartment of Energy
Gozum, I. (2023). Nuclear is clean. But can the Philippines handle its risks?
Retrieved from
https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/document/1687310426_6492505a399b6.p
dfPIDS+1PIDS+1
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-dangersPIDS+1PIDS+1
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.pdfieefa.org
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.pdfCBCP Laiko
