Nuclear Industry Provides Object Lesson

A year on from the Japanese tsunami I would like to think about how the consequent disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant is something of a parable of the problem of increasing scale without rethinking design. This is a story told by Adam Curtis in his documentary : here I apply it to the need to rethink our economic scale.

In its early days the nuclear industry was dominated by scientists; sometimes they were rather over-exuberant and they made claims that they later found it hard to meet, but for the first generation of nuclear developers, science was queen, and their respect for her was appropriate. What they designed was a nuclear reactor for use aboard submarines, to enable them to continue to function without the need for refuelling, a crucial geopolitical advantage in the era of the Cold War.

At the size necessary to power a submarine the reactor could not go into meltdown; there was simply insufficient fuel to enable this to happen. But at this scale nuclear reactors to generate electricity could not be profitable: in order to create a nuclear generation programme the reactors needed to be built on a much larger scale. A difficult conflict arose between the need for safety, which can never be guaranteed when a chain reaction is technically possible, and the need for scale in order to create scale economies and ensure profitability.

The argument was won as soon as the US companies Westinghouse and General Electric moved into the production of nuclear plant on a large scale. They gambled that they could persuade the engineers to move with them, and they sidelined the question of safety by inventing the concept of ‘containment’. Although much of the debate around the Fukushima disaster has focused on this concept, it is in reality an example of discourse manipulation rather than scientific debate. It is of the nature of nuclear energy that it is explosive and cannot be contained: once a chain reaction begins it will generate energy beyond the control of engineering systems. 'Containment' is a concept that makes us feel safe with nuclear power, a PR word and not a scientific concept.

I introduce this example to demonstrate how the gap between scientifico-technical responses and policy can be jumped without adequate democratic debate, especially when matters of survival can be cited as justification. Similar unaccountable decisions are being made right now, in the context of climate change, about the next generation of nuclear power-stations.

The example is also useful in demonstrating that what is meant by ‘economies of scale’ cannot really be interpreted without bearing in mind the economist’s other notion of an ‘externality’. Economies of scale can be achieved by ensuring that the costs of a production process are minimised. In the case of the nuclear industry this meant ensuring that any potential risks could be excluded from the cost curves of the companies engaged in developing the technology: the costs of accidents and decommissioning would not, and never have been, borne by those who built the plant.
. Tweet

What the Fukushima is Going on?

Well how could we possibly know? The major consequence of the Fukushima disaster in this household is that we now have a dish aerial so that we are no longer reliant on the BBC's coverage which, in this case, I can only designate as propaganda. The truth is beginning to emerge from Tepco, who are now admitting that three of the Fukushima plant's reactors melted down within days of the tusnami. Those presumably were the days during which the BBC was engaging a range of pro-nuclear stooges to reassure us that there was no problem.

While the internet appears to be ephemeral it can in reality provide a trace, and we can use this trace to assess exactly what we were being told by the BBC. On 14 March BBC churnalists were reporting the view of 'international nuclear watchdogs' (presumably the IAEA) that there was no sign of a meltdown, balanced by the comment of an unnamed minister that the 'melting of rods' was 'highly likely'. On 27 March the BBC reported that workers were 'trying to cool the reactor core to avoid a meltdown' at a time when we now know that three meltdowns had already occurred. Perhaps strangest of all was the constant repetition of the bizarre phrase 'partial meltdown', as though nuclear fuel could somehow resemble a chocolate fondant pudding.

We were, throughout the early days of the disaster, when people were still listening to the stories, being reassured that this was an old plant whose design is no longer used. This is, as made clear in a film made for the BBC by Adam Curtis back in 1992, when it still had a degree of independence, to entirely miss the point. The real question is why these plants were still running if they were not safe: and that is a question about politics not science.

The BBC's inability to provide clear information about the nuclear threat is no doubt a consequence of the increasing political pressure it has been under in recent years, making the inference that we no longer have an independent national broadcasting channel a sad but inevitable one. No wonder, then, that there has not been a reaction against nuclear power in Britain, compared to Germany, where the tide of revulsion from a better informed public has led to the closure of the entire nuclear industry by 2022 and the election of green governments in a number of the country's regions. Tweet

Take that, George!

Those who, like me, have been increasingly frustrated by the prevailing flavour of reassurance, and the serious absence of facts, around the Fukushima story, may enjoy the response to George Monbiot from Helen Caldicott.
. Tweet

Why Are Nuclear Reactors Like Dangerous Dogs?

Across the world we are waiting to find out whether Fukushima is to join the list of nuclear disaster zones: a place which, once unfamiliar, becomes a household name. In spite of the familiar faces of 'nuclear experts' trailing through TV and radio studios, it is clear that nobody can answer this question. The situation is out of control and the only science that is relevant is statistics. We are in the realm not of knowledge but of chance.

As a retired anti-nuclear agitator I find it amusing to watch the Grimes and Grimston show. Their webpages indicate that both are pro-nuclear, yet their TV appearances are bravura performances of scientific disinterest and thoughtful reassurance. The emerging line is that the power-station was damaged in the earthquake, which seems to me to gloss over the fact that the reason it is in trouble is that electricity and water supplies have failed. Such failues are common even in highly technological societies, and can only become more frequent as climate change leads to more unpredictable and more extreme weather events.

But what does all this have to do with our canine companions? I have been afraid of dogs since I was a child. What made me suspicious was my instinct that they were not really domesticated. That somewhere within them lurked the potential for sudden savagery. I can still remember my rage when owners used to say blandly 'He won't hurt you'. 'He won't hurt you', I thought back, but that isn't really the point is it? Just as the owners of those dogs thought they had them under control, so the proponents of nuclear power boast of their ability to 'tame the atom'. But the release of the energy of the nuclear bond has always been a high-risk endeavour. The myth of control is undermined by routine emissions and occasional catastrophes. It cannot be any other way, which is why Greens have always opposed nuclear power.

When the unpredictability of the dangerous dog is expressed the damage is one dead child or a person with a patchwork face. These are tragedies, of course, but on a relatively small scale. The tragedies that will be caused if Fukushima is in the midst of meltdown will be far more devastating. Direct deaths will be the source of infinite debate, and may even be statistically massaged away altogether. The brave workers who sacrifice their lives to save their fellow citizens, like the Chernobyl liquidators, will have their courage insulted by scientific manipulation of data. Who knows where the indirect deaths will occur? If the emergency results in radioactive emissions into the atmosphere we will all spend the rest of our lives with a few more atoms of Caesium or Strontium ticking away, decaying unpredictably, within our cells.
. Tweet