ABSTRACT
At the most general level there are those who believe that the modern industrial society based on consumption is an undesirable aberration. They would favour a state of equilibrium in an ecologically based society, relying on maximum recycling and minimum net consumption. Others object to the scale and centralisation of modern industry and Government and the depersonalised decision-making that can often result. Both groups see modern lifestyles as having high social costs and view nuclear energy as a particular manifestation of modern society to which they can offer resistance. These views about the fundamental structure of society and our way of life are political rather than technical. (The counter argument would stress the economic and social benefits that have flowed from industrial development and the economies of scale in the present century and for some time previously.)
The military origins of nuclear engineering have left many with the conviction that civil and military uses are inseparable and that reactors are bombs in another guise. They are not reassured by statements that nuclear reactors cannot explode like bombs, and test data and calculations do not convince them that such events are impossible. Objectors emphasise the errors and problems that have arisen with high technology. What is remembered are the misjudgements and the things that go wrong, such as the dislodged tiles on the space shuttle, difficulties with the Advanced Passenger Train, expense and frequency of breakdowns with modern equipment in the home, thalidomide, Flixborough, Seveso and Bantry Bay. Even those who are technically educated realise the approximations in design arithmetic and the inherent problems with complex control in engineering systems: in general, the more complex the system the more likely it is to give trouble and the more safeguards must be built in. Nuclear engineering involves extensive calculation and complex control and engineering systems. Ergo, the reliability of these systems must be suspect and this means, to the critic, that the plant that relies on them is unsatisfactory and could blow up and release large amounts of radioactivity. (The industry, on the other hand, will point to its good safety record and to the design and other safety precautions built in to reduce risks of failure to negligible proportions and to
ensure that, should any release occur, it would be contained so that the impact on the public would be minimal.)
There are those who consider that, even where the risks of radiation release are minimal, it is nevertheless uniquely dangerous. Radiation cannot be seen, its effects may not be felt for many decades and it can not only lead to cancer but can also produce genetic damage which may be transmitted to future generations. Following from the argument of the preceding paragraph, they doubt the effectiveness of the technical provisions for the containment of radiation and would argue that there is always a chance that some will escape. The nuclear industry of course accepts that some radiation is released to the environment in the course of normal operations: the concerned objectors feel that even minuscule amounts are to be avoided and that the safest course, therefore, would be not to produce radioactive materials, i.e. not to employ nuclear power. (The industry would point to the fact that radiation is something that mankind has always lived with and that the releases to the environment are kept well below the levels to which we are accustomed in our everyday lives from natural sources. It would point to the fact that the effects of radiation are more intensively researched than most other hazards. It would also point to the facts that burning coal in power stations releases radiation and that radiation from nuclear power stations is neither unique nor uniquely dangerous. Many chemical substances are mutagenic and/or carcinogenic and their effects are only revealed after prolonged periods of induction. The industry would recognise the danger of radiation but would argue that this danger has to be seen in perspective and that it is small compared with many other dangers that we face without concern.)
An associated concern relates to radioactive waste and its storage and disposal. The quantities are small in volume but the fact that such materials have to be isolated from the environment for centuries, or even millennia, disturbs many people. (The industry is confident that wastes can be safely encapsulated and contained and disposed of in repositories that would not be adversely affected over tens of thousands of years even if there were extensive glaciation.)
Further general concern arises from the view that the spread of civil nuclear power will lead to a spread in the knowledge and materials required for producing atomic weapons. Such a spread is universally recognised as being undesirable and some feel that civil nuclear power should be banned for this reason. (The industry would share the view that nuclear weapon proliferation is undesirable but would argue that abandonment of civil nuclear power would do nothing to turn back the clock. Knowledge cannot be eradicated and the technology is not impossibly difficult. Reduction of the risks of proliferation is a political rather than a technical matter.)
The foregoing paragraphs describe some concerns that relate to the use of nuclear power. There are other concerns that relate less to nuclear power per se and more to specific nuclear systems or specific investment proposals. Thus objectors at the Sizewell Inquiry have questioned the need for additional generating capacity at a time when the amount of plant installed significantly exceeds the maximum system demand. The economic case for the Sizewell reactor is also questioned. Critics argue that the performance of PWRs in the United States does not come up to expectations, that the capital costs are likely to be higher than the CEGB expects and that coal prices are likely to be lower, so the economic benefit will be much less than the CEGB claims and, arguably, would not justify investment ahead of the need for additional capacity on demand grounds. At a more general level some argue that determined programmes of energy conservation, schemes of load management, etc., could reduce demand and further defer the date when new capacity would be required within the British electric power system. Some argue that reductions of demand achieved in these ways could be sufficient to enable the world to rely on fossil fuels until such time as alternative energy sources, such as wind, waves, solar, etc., can take over, thus dispensing with the need for any commitment to nuclear power. (The proponents of nuclear power would argue that it is a benign and
environmentally attractive source with considerable advantages over fossil fuels in both this respect and in terms of economics. They would argue that it is also expected to be considerably cheaper for base-load electric power generation than renewable sources in general, and that to forego such an attractive source and the benefits it offers would be silly even if it were practicable.)
There are other objectors who, while not completely convinced about the attractiveness of nuclear power, regard the British Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor or some other system as safer and more acceptable than the American-designed PWR. They point to the operating problems experienced in the U.S.A. and to the high pressures required in the PWR with the consequent control problems. (The industry would argue that no reactor would be built in the United Kingdom unless it was capable of meeting the stringent safety requirements laid down by the Nll.)
Another problem that has appeared in the relatively recent past is a concern on the part of many members of the public that they are not provided with sufficient information and facts and that the large organisations are secretive. This is parallel to the growth of scepticism about the evidence and judgements of scientific and engineering experts. Those with the greatest expertise are, almost inevitably, those working actively within an industry, and these are regarded as having a vested interest and are therefore thought to be biased. This problem is not confined to the nuclear industry (The chartered engineers, scientists and designers within the nuclear industry are professionally motivated and consider that they apply very high standards of responsibility and care in their work; they would argue that a great deal of information is published and made available though it is rarely read, or if read is either poorly understood or soon forgotten. The industry regards bodies such as the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the National Radiological Protection Board as independent, and finds difficulty in seeng why others do not accept this view wholeheartedly.)
A.2(b) Nuclear Reactor Accidents
There have been two reactor accidents which resulted in members of the public being exposed to radiation: Windscale in 1957 and Three Mile Island in 1979.
