Peace and Environment News* July-August 1998
|
Peace and Environment News * July-August 1998 |
by Mike Kaulbars
Thomas Pynchons book Gravitys Rainbow includes a series of proverbs for paranoids. One that has always stayed with me is If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they dont have to worry about the answers. This proverb is a good one to bear in mind when discussing environmental or social justice issues, and nuclear power is no exception.
I read Jeremy Whitlocks article on nuclear power with interest because over the past couple of months I and others engaged with Mr. Whitlock in an email debate on perc.forum, the discussion group on the perc web site (perc.ca). I wont repeat what transpired there, but I want to share some of the highlights of that debate (the full exchange is at the URL given above).
I guess the most obvious aspect of our exchange was that it was not a dialogue. Mr. Whitlock confined his points to particular aspects of nuclear technology, while I tried to raise more fundamental, broader questions. For all I know, most things that he had to say were completely accurate; by and large he seemed knowledgeable and informed. However, throughout he could not, or would not address any of the fundamental points, any of which might render the particulars of the technological questions irrelevant. These included:
The whole question of the value of nuclear energy is based on the premise that we need the energy. I contend that we do not need nuclear energy because we do not need more energy. We may want it, we seem to want to wallow in profligate consumption of every form for immediate gratification, but we dont need it. Given the risks and costs of nuclear energy, and indeed many other energy technologies, a critical examination of the need is justified.
Nuclear power is often described as safe because it involves good science and good scientists. Scientists, engineers, and technologists are human. Completely, utterly, irredeemably human. That has many good sides to it, and some bad. Those responsible for the safety of nuclear energy are by and large as prone to error as the rest of us. The trouble is, the consequences of their errors with nuclear technology are much more horrific. I grant that they are a highly trained, highly professional group, but so are medical doctors, and we are coming to learn how fallible some of them can be. The ultimate point is, you cant eliminate human error from systems designed, built, and maintained by humans.
Technology, systems, human endeavour: they all fail eventually. The question is never if, but always when and how. As reactors and other parts of the nuclear energy system age, they begin to break down. Repairs, retrofits and overhauls never produce anything that is as up to specs as the new system was. Yes, most are decommissioned safely, i.e., safe in industrial societies terms, but it really is just a matter of time before another major accident, and then another. If nuclear power is so safe, why wont any insurance companies insure them? For that matter, why wont the industry release their safety records and data? As the Globe and Mail reported on May 7, 1998, AECL wont release safety information because it would hurt their competitiveness. Excuse me if the first thing that leaps to mind is that lack of safety would be what makes you uncompetitive.
In this article by Mr. Whitlock I find much more to take exception with. Take, for example, his suggestion that nuclear energy is now alternative because it receives less funding. Frankly the logic escapes me. For the record, "alternative" refers to the entire paradigm, not simply the particular technology. He also seems to suggest that funding for nuclear energy is now on a par with solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources. This is utter nonsense. Of course he doesnt say thathe just seems to imply it. And on it goes.
I have already made my points on the web site, so I wont repeat them here. But I will state that until someone provides some real answers to the core issues, I will remain a firm opponent of nuclear power.
Mike Kaulbars is coordinator of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre.
Converted August 14, 1999 - Lg
To follow up on this article, contact the author or the organizations/individuals mentioned; do not contact the Peace and Environment Resource Centre - we cannot provide follow up or contact information. This article is an archival copy of the printed one in the Peace and Environment News (PEN). Viewpoints expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre, the PEN, or our supporters.
