Most technologies involve several disciplines: no individual is competent in all of them. It takes years of education and decades of experience to acquire the necessary expertise in any one discipline. There is no reason why a Nobel Laureate in physics should be better qualified than the rest of us to judge biological issues. The bad news is than we cannot expect to decide on our own from first principles the acceptability of any technology: and none of us has the time to do this for all the technologies affecting our lives. The good news is that there are techniques to help us reach informed conclusions.
How then can members of the public reach their own conclusions on nuclear issues? The best advice is not to be intimidated. One does not need to be a nuclear scientist to understand the issues, as opposed to the underlying disciplines. Anyone who reads newspapers, listens to the radio or watches television is qualified to review the arguments underlying each issue, to judge the validity of contradictory claims and to resolve the issue to personal satisfaction. The purpose of this website is to aid the process, not to substitute for the reader's own judgement. To that end, each issue is clearly defined at the start of its chapter, and a factual summary that is intended to be noncontroversial is provided at the end.
The next piece of advice is to be sceptical - of what is in this book and of all other statements on the issues by proponents, opponents and the media. Beware of media that seek controversy not reconciliation, that provide entertainment not enlightenment. Beware of the systemic problem of U.S. experience being used out of context in discussions of Canadian issues, e.g., the phrase "the military-industrial complex" (Chapter 14). This is exacerbated by the dependence of our media on U.S. sources. Chapter 14 identifies many of the myths that are current, but there are many others and more are being born all the time.
Whenever possible, proponents and opponents should be challenged to be specific in their claims, to provide facts and figures. For instance, if a proponent claims that nuclear energy is "environmentally benign", ask which pollutants or other effects are involved, and how much; if an opponent claims that plant emissions are harmful to the health of neighbouring communities, ask what the exposures are and how they compare with regulatory limits. Opponents should not be allowed to criticize nuclear energy in isolation: nothing is perfect and anything, including nuclear energy has disadvantages. The advice is therefore to apply my Principle of Alternatives and Consequences (Chapter 13): examine what alternatives are available to achieve the desired objective, estimate the consequences of each, then decide which is preferable.
A technique from quality control of production processes can be useful in determining the credibility of any participant in the nuclear debate - sampling. The reader can select any point where there seems to be a contradiction between different sources and examine it in depth. Representatives on both sides can be asked to substantiate their positions to the satisfaction of the reader. Both proponents and opponents of nuclear energy advertise their willingness to respond to inquiries (see Chapter 5 for websites). If one source is found to be unreliable in the sample greater scepticism should be applied to its other claims.
A scientist working in the nuclear industry, Jeremy Whitlock, has considered how members of the public can reach their own decisions on nuclear issues in the face of conflicting statements and arguments. He has produced eight tests of credibility that can be applied to any claim. Gordon Sims, an author with long experience both in the nuclear industry and as one of its regulators, has documented in a book "The Anti-Nuclear Game" his reasons for believing that many claims by the nuclear critics are misleading.
Another means available to readers to resolve conflicting claims and allegations is to consult the reports of the many independent inquiries, both national and international, that have been conducted into all aspects of nuclear energy. Because there have been more than 30 such inquiries, most of which have resulted in reports filling one or more large volumes, it is impracticable for the average reader to read them all. For this reason, in 1993 I reviewed and summarized those available then in a 40-page report. This report, prepared by me as a private individual, was published by AECL, as AECL-10768, and is available from that organization.
The report summarizes the composition and major findings of more than 30 inquiries. It is intended to provide a survey of all relevant Canadian inquiries, but some environmental assessments and hearings of the National Energy board are too narrow in scope to be included. Other inquiries are included where they have relevance. My credibility in providing fair summaries can be tested by checking back at random in the original report of the inquiry.
The first and most obvious conclusion from my review is that nationally and internationally there have been many inquiries relevant to the use of nuclear energy. This contradicts the claims of some critics that the subject has never been openly examined. The second conclusion is that, while some inquiries have been broad in scope and some have treated only a single topic, between them all conceivable topics have been covered. These include not only technical topics such as reactor safety, but also ethics.
Several of the reports resulting from the inquiries make recommendations to improve the current situation, often with regard to maintaining or improving the safety record; some conclude that nuclear energy is not yet needed in a national energy program; and one recommended a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in Canada pending agreement on waste disposal. However, the most striking observation is that none rejects nuclear energy, when needed and under stipulated conditions.
Since the publication of my review another major inquiry in Canada has issued its report. The report of the Panel on the concept for the disposal of nuclear fuel wastes has been discussed in Chapter 9 . Even this inquiry, flawed as it was, does not contradict the primary conclusion of my review: while the Panel as whole did not endorse the concept, the majority of its members supported its Scientific Review Group's recommendation that the concept is adequately safe to proceed to siting.
Finally, we should recognize that there is no universal, "correct" conclusion, no answer at the back of the text book. While there is an ethical obligation to examine the facts before reaching a conclusion (see Chapter 13), other, imponderable, factors also have to be considered. These include value judgements on matters such as our attitude to conservation; the worth we assign to security of energy supply, and to clean air and water; and where we balance risks versus benefits as these affect us personally. Reasonable and sincere individuals may therefore reach opposing conclusions on the acceptability of nuclear energy.
| Go to Contents of Book |