By Mark Williams
After a long absence due to us all writing up our dreaded theses, we're back! This week, Mark Williams discusses the nature of ethics within nuclear and questions whether we are doing enough within the community to educate and inform the wider public.
After a day of discussion around the ethics of nuclear,
one thing seems to be clear: people want to know more about the risks, and they
want dialogue with experts in the form of an open forum.Earlier this month in Manchester University’s School of Chemistry,
3 invited speakers, who have a range of expertise in energy mix economics,
nuclear legislation and ethical studies, discussed their findings to a group of
nuclear researchers. Rather than preaching to the choir about the benefits of
nuclear, this was more of a critical assessment of how industrial and political
actions can affect public perception. Dialogue ranged from the cyclical
privatisation/nationalisation of energy markets to the building of another
fence around Sellafield. Analysis ranged from the extensive engineered barriers
to minimise radiation exposure to workers, to the perceived tarnishing impact
of being born in a prefecture with a nuclear contaminant history.
 |
| Are Sellafield's security measures symbolic of a loss of public transparency? |
Take tightening security at Sellafield, for example; “anywhere
with an electrified fence sandwiched between two razor sharp fences is going to
make passers-by believe there is something very dodgy going on inside,” said
one speaker. Interestingly, 25 years ago people were being shown around the site
by tour guides; all visitor facilities have now been closed off, however. Is
this a required security precaution in the light of increased terror alerts
post-9/11, or is it a considerable loss of public transparency?
What of the people of the Fukishima prefecture? Parents
in the region worry for their children’s future marital eligibility, but are
these anxieties a result of their misunderstanding of the radiation risks? More
likely it is the societal objectivity of a ‘contaminated’ community based upon
a fairly global misunderstanding of radiation risks.
I’m concerned for a nuclear-curious public who have very
limited public access to the nuclear industry. Politicians have been strongly
in favour of nuclear since January 2008, with Gordon Brown stating “more than
ever before, nuclear power has a key role to play as part of the UK’s energy
mix” in the government white paper of that year. Then, just months after Fukishima,
the current government said “we need […] a new generation of nuclear stations.”
But with lacklustre incentives to entice private sector investment and the
retraction of proposed carbon cost hikes to curb gas and coal [2011
white paper], nothing has been built and projections predict new build to
be connected to the grid no earlier than 2025.
The talk subsequently focused on what can be done about
public engagement. Other countries successfully engage with the public via open
forums to discuss nuclear plans with respect to waste disposal (France) but
little action takes place in the U.K. Perhaps some responsibility lies with nuclear
specialists and researchers to try to engage the public in an unassuming, honest
way, as opposed to allegedly acting like a fenced-off community, which people
should be wary of.
