Reply #20: If you're concerned about being hoodwinked by agenda driven spin [View All]

[GliderGuider]

You would do well to educate yourself on the facts. That way nobody with an agenda on either side of the question will be able to smoke your butt.

I have serious concerns about nuclear power, but long term radiation risks from waste isn't one of them. As others have said, compared to the scale and nature of the waste we have already released from other processes, I think it's an insignificant risk. Not zero, but very low.

Now, you could argue that any additional risk to our civilization or species is unacceptable, and I'd be tempted to agree with that. The question then becomes on of relative levels of risk and costs of avoidance for the activities under consideration. One should always tackle the highest risk with the lowest cost of avoidance first. Unfortunately, the analysis on either of those points is complex and open to value judgments where nuclear power and fossil fuels is concerned, so it's hard to do quantitatively.

Here's how I see the safety issues:

High level nuclear waste from power reactors:

• It is relatively dangerous over the short term but the danger decays along with the radioactivity.
  
• It occupies a relatively small volume, so is easy to contain.
  
• It poses no danger to the planetary climate regime over either the short or long term.
  
• Currently and as long as containment can be maintained it poses no immediate threat to public health.

Waste from fossil fuels:

• Causes many deaths per year (on the order of a million) due to respiratory disease.
  
• Is warming the planet.
  
• Will continue to warm the planet for thousands of years (CO2 has a half-life too, thanks to the carbon cycle).
  
• May warm the planet enough that the climate tips into a new regime, becoming inhospitable for many organisms.
  
• Contains highly toxic materials including heavy and radioactive metals.
  
• Is diffuse and impossible to sequester.

Based on these considerations fossil fuels look like a very dangerous energy source in comparison to nuclear power. I personally believe that's the case. It's not the whole story though.

Nuclear power has marginal social benefit compared to fossil fuels. Many nations get along just fine without nuclear power. No nation can get by without oil, very few use no natural gas, and only a few use no coal. Replacing fossil fuels altogether would be very difficult. Stopping the use of nuclear power (or refusing to expand it and having the industry shrink through attrition) just isn't that damaging, either socially or economically). On the other hand, for fossil fuels the cost of risk avoidance through not using them is far too high for most people to accept.

I don't buy the "Lovelock argument" that nuclear power is a civilization-saving technology. My objections are that it's too capital-intensive, too centralized, many not provide the carbon savings it promises, and can't do many of the things that fossil fuels can do.

Given the public perception of high risk (warranted or not), the fact that it's not an essential energy source and the cost of risk avoidance is relatively low both socially and economically, it's hard to imagine that nuclear power will have much of a future unless something remarkable happens (and it may, we're going to see some truly remarkable events offer the next 3 decades).

Fossil fuels on the other hand will continue killing us well into the future. There is a general acceptance of (or at least a willingness to ignore) the known risks and known damage because of the perceived social benefits.

Human behaviour on both sides of this issue is driven by a strange mix of fear, hubris, denial and rationalization. We owe it to ourselves not to let photographs jerk us around emotionally so much that we become incapable of using our greatest gift - our ability to reason.