The Scotsman

Opposition to nuclear power is based on slogans and fear

Scotland needs a cohesive energy policy, writes Prof Tony Trewavas

-

In 2007, Alex Salmond rejected any new nuclear Scottish power stations. Policies based on fear, rather than facts, may feel good, but they increase the overall risk by not educating the public. Successful democracy requires people understand the decisions they make; otherwise it becomes a loose cannon, with decisions based on slogans.

Accidents, when amplified by the media, induce fear far beyond realistic risk. At Fukushima none died from radiation exposure. At Chernobyl only 46 died as a result of radiation damage, an accident caused by faulty safety design and irresponsi­ble neglect of safety procedures. Neither are applicable to western nuclear power where safety is paramount. Local wildlife at Chernobyl has actually burgeoned. In Hamburg in 2011, 54 died from eating organic beansprout­s and 3,500 experience­d kidney damage. This supposed- ly safe produce was contaminat­ed with E.coli from clearly untreated manure; but which then is safer?

What did subsequent­ly kill thousands resulting from Chernobyl and Fukushima was the psychologi­cal trauma of enforced, and in most cases unnecessar­y, evacuation of local population by government edict and without explanatio­n. Evacuation implied serious danger, ignorance of actual radiation risks led to depression, alcoholism and suicide. Good safety is a matter of distinguis­hing clearly those situations that are safe from those that are dangerous. Both Soviet and Japanese government­s through inadequate understand­ing of radiation risks failed their people.

Nuclear power is a green environmen­tal solution. It generates no CO2 during electricit­y generation and very little during fuel processing and waste disposal. A western individual’s lifetime electricit­y use requires 3,200 tonnes of coal. A golf

ball size of uranium can provide the equivalent and waste is of similar size. James Hansen, well-known climate scientist, has shown that currently nuclear power has saved two million lives by offsetting use of polluting coal and saved 64 Gigatonnes CO2 equivalent. But reaction to Fukushima saw closure of nuclear power stations in a number of countries and their replacemen­t by coal; a healthy source of power replaced by an obviously unhealthy one. This regressive step is an inevitable failure of untrusted government to clarify real nuclear risks from imaginary ones.

The key to comprehens­ion about risk is rate of exposure; intensity/unit time. Low exposure rates of background radioactiv­ity are not only benign, they can cause reductions in cancer. As rates increase, the human body adapts and synthesise­s protective mechanisms (acting like vaccinatio­n) and definitely reduces cancer risk.

Cancerous cells are induced by damage to DNA. In each human cell/ day about one million mutations occur, induced by oxidative damage because we respire oxygen. Every day all but one mutation is repaired; a natural protective mechanism. At the radioactiv­e threshold, about 10-12 additional mutations are induced; swamped and thus rendered irrelevant by the million others.

Present uranium-fuelled power stations produce waste but they do so by design because uranium is cheap andabundan­t.presentrea­ctordesign uses 1 per cent of the fissile uranium before it is removed as waste. Fourth generation reactors, fast breeders, leave little or no waste, nothing for weapons proliferat­ion and would require little enrichment of uranium for use.

The fearties in this timid SNP government have again bowed to unrealisti­c fear in seemingly banning GM crops, fracking and synthetic gas. In not highlighti­ng the potential advantages of these technologi­cal advances, it abdicates any leadership. By choosing only the unreliable sources of wind and solar for electricit­y generation, it has also ensured that essential backup to stabilise supply is used minimally, intermitte­ntly and thus inefficien­tly. Consequent­ly it is no longer profitable and won’t be built. Scotland therefore loses the ability to generate its own stable electricit­y supply, the bedrock of economic growth and developmen­t. The decision to ban new nuclear power was foolish. Time to reconsider. l Professor Tony Trewavas, chairman, Scientific Alliance Scotland

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom