Topic 12 How does society decide?

For students | Theme 4 | Topic 10 | Topic 11 | Topic 12 | Home

How does society make decisions about nuclear science and technology? This is an important but difficult question, given the significant contributions to research, medicine, the environment and industry the technology provides and the wide differences of opinion over its use. Ultimately major decisions are made by our elected representatives in Federal Parliament. But on such a scientifically complex subject, how can politicians hope to understand and assess the different options? Clearly scientists have an important role in providing advice on such matters. However, scientists do not always agree on the reliability and relevance of different scientific facts. Also, scientists' judgements are not automatically trusted as impartial and complete. The nuclear industry and environmental groups clearly have very different ideas on what are appropriate uses of nuclear technology in Australia. How do politicians let alone citizens decide whose advice and expertise to trust?

Figure 12.1 National decisions about nuclear technology in Australia are made in Federal Parliament in Canberra, after consultation with scientific experts, community members and international guidelines.

There is no shortage of information and opinion to choose from on any nuclear issue. The government and opposition political parties all have views, as does the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the communities living near its facilities. Environmental groups and other members of society also voice their opinions. There are also the researchers, doctors and businesses which make use of the products and services provided by ANSTO, as well as their clients. In fact, all Australian citizens – including you – are stakeholders in this debate, because we all enjoy the benefits and endure the risks that result from our decisions over nuclear technology. So how are these decisions made? What is the role of scientific expertise? How are all these voices heard, and their differences reconciled?

Laws, processes, institutions

Decisions about nuclear technology are made with reference to Australia's laws, and to international guidelines and treaties. Safety standards for using radioactive materials are set down in laws such as the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANSA). This standard was developed in consultation with the Australian community, and with international standards developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA's guidelines are, in turn, supported by other international agencies, whose names make even more complicated acronyms. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) are particularly influential in developing and communicating scientific knowledge about the biological effects of nuclear radiation. Australian scientists participate in all these international agencies, and contribute their own perspectives and expertise.

Figure 12.2 The International Atomic Energy Commission, based in Vienna, produces guidelines for every aspect of nuclear technology. It also conducts inspections of nuclear facilities to ensure they are safe and legal.

Risks and opportunities

For matters which are not covered by existing laws, or where existing laws are inadequate, new Acts must be developed by parliament. Often, a special committee is set up to examine the new issue in detail, and to hear scientific evidence and advice from different stakeholders. In recent times, Australian government committees have examined a number of nuclear issues: Should Australia build the new replacement research reactor? Where and how should Australia manage its radioactive waste? Invitations to participate in these deliberations are published in The Australian newspaper, and listed on government websites.

These decisions require that the benefits and risks of the different options be weighed up, to decide which is the best option overall for Australia. This process is known as risk analysis, and is often extremely difficult! How can different risks even be measured for comparison? One way of measuring risk is to estimate the average loss of life expectancy resulting from different risky activities. For example, we saw in Topic 6 that the estimated cost for residents within 80 km of Three Mile Island was 6 minutes off their life expectancy, though this figure was contested both by nuclear proponents and critics. Compare this loss to the risk posed by some other common activities in society.

Risk activity	Cost to life expectancy
Cross a road	24 seconds
Be within 80 km of Three Mile Island accident	6 minutes
Smoke one cigarette	10 minutes
An average year of driving a car	2.8 days
A lifetime drinking coffee	6 days
Be 1.5 km from Hiroshima ground zero	43 days
Be 30% overweight	3.6 years
A lifetime smoking	4.2 years

Figure 12.3 Making decisions about nuclear technology requires risks and benefits to be weighed up and prioritised. However, different people often have different ideas even about what counts as a risk and an opportunity!

When put like this, the risks of nuclear radiation may seem very small indeed, even taking into account scientific disagreement over whether the Three Mile Island accident, for example, cost residents zero, six or 72 minutes. However, life expectancy is not the only dimension of risk that many people find relevant. Risky activities can cause environmental damage, social and economic disruption or psychological stress without directly reducing life expectancy. Also, people often care whether a risk is voluntary or not, who benefits from taking the risk, and whether they have any personal control over their exposure. How should these factors be measured and prioritised? Some of these questions are ethical and political as much as scientific.

Choosing the future

Amid the many questions over nuclear technology, one thing is certain: the science cannot be ‘undiscovered’. At any rate, few people would be willing to give up all the advantages of nuclear technology. But deciding just which applications to develop is a challenge for all of society, and an exciting one! How should Australia fulfil its energy needs? What is the future of nuclear weapons around the world? Should we develop and use research reactors? Is there an acceptable way of managing radioactive waste? In all these questions, science and citizenship are joined in complex and fascinating ways. Society's opportunities – as well as your own – are waiting ready for you to explore and choose!

Privacy | Legal | Contact Us