Topic 6 Current controversies

For students | Theme 2 | Topic 4 | Topic 5 | Topic 6 | Home

Today, nuclear technologies for medicine and research are well accepted. Other applications, for example nuclear power, remain controversial. At the centre of much of the controversy is the question: Should we build and use nuclear reactors? Many other issues flow from this central question. Some beneficial nuclear technologies – such as most medical radioisotopes – can only be produced in a nuclear reactor. Reactors also create many unique opportunities for scientific research and innovation. However, they all generate radioactive waste requiring thousands of years of secure management. Some reactors produce plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, but only if those countries possess the technology to reprocess spent fuel.

Generating energy

Nuclear power is a vigorously debated topic, with very strong feelings on both sides of the debate. Should society generate its electricity from fossil fuels, from nuclear energy, or from 'sustainable' sources such as solar, wind and hydro power? Every year, each person in Australia consumes the energy equivalent of 10 tonnes of coal! Indeed more than 90% of this energy comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, producing many more tonnes of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. This is unsustainable not only because of the environmental damage caused, but also because fossil fuels will eventually run out. Those in favour of nuclear power argue that it presents a plentiful and reliable supply of electricity while generating no greenhouse emissions. The 400 or so nuclear power reactors operating around the world save approximately one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

Critics of nuclear power argue that society should reduce its energy consumption, and fulfil these reduced needs from renewable sources. These technologies are not yet adequately developed, but perhaps could be with increased investment. In addition, opponents of nuclear power argue that it has other detrimental effects, which make it an unacceptable solution to the world's power needs. These issues are discussed below. To some extent, many of these arguments also apply to nuclear research reactors. Of course many others dispute these arguments!

Reactor safety

A nuclear reactor is an extremely powerful piece of technology, and for some people quite frightening. Others feel that the risks from nuclear reactors are small compared to many other technologies and activities. They argue that, in terms of life expectancy, cars are much more dangerous due to their polluting effects and risk of accident. A major nuclear accident can have more significant results than some other accidents; however, not necessarily greater than significant chemical releases such as Bhopal in India (1984) where approximately 3,800 people died and many more were permanently disabled. Such accidents will be very rare, but whether they are rare enough is another source of disagreement.

In addition to the risk of accidents, some people are concerned about routine discharges of low level radioactivity from nuclear facilities. ANSTO limits the maximum local radiation exposure levels due to emission from its facilities to well below the 0.02 mSv limit set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, which is below European and US standards. However, the significance of these routine discharges is disputed. This is because of the scientific uncertainty over the health effects of low level radiation, which was discussed in Topic 4 Biological effects of nuclear radiation. For example, experts agree that residents within 80 km of the Three Mile Island reactor received about 0.01 mSv of radiation. According to the official government report, the average life expectancy of these people is shortened by just 6 minutes. Antinuclear groups argue that the real figure is 72 minutes, while the nuclear industry claims it is more likely to be zero! Similarly, estimates of the long-term death rate from Chernobyl range from a few dozen to 17,000! In addition, Chernobyl caused much social disruption, and economic and psychological hardship.

Radioactive waste

As with most aspects of nuclear technology, enthusiasts and critics disagree on whether radioactive waste is a significant problem. Supporters of nuclear technology argue that the waste storage solutions (discussed in Topic 5 Controlling the atom) provide adequate protection for human health and the environment. Indeed, they point out that the likely pollution from radioactive waste is much less than the massive amounts of pollution poured into the atmosphere every second by burning fossil fuels. This perspective is reinforced by doubts as to the significance of low doses of nuclear radiation (discussed in Topic 4 Biological effects of nuclear radiation).

It has been suggested that Western or South Australia should host a deep repository for high level radioactive waste from around the world. This is because these areas have some uniquely stable, dry and isolated geological areas. We would be paid for our stewardship of other countries' high level radioactive waste.

This proposal has not been popular in Western or South Australia. Both states have passed laws forbidding the importation of radioactive waste. Few communities are enthusiastic about a local radioactive waste repository – even one of national or international benefit. Negotiations over siting a repository for low level waste have been conducted in Australia since the 1980s, but firm agreement has yet to be reached. Instead low level waste is stored at more than 100 sites, including hospitals and universities around Australia; some higher level waste is also stored at ANSTO or shipped overseas for reprocessing. Environmental groups oppose burying radioactive waste as an 'out of sight, out of mind' solution. They argue that existing waste should be stored at the reactor site where it can be properly monitored. For them, the best solution is not to produce any new waste, which means no reactors and no medical applications.

Figure 6.1 Deep geological repositories for high level radioactive waste have been planned for many years, although none have yet been built.

Nuclear weapons

The nuclear issue of greatest concern for most people is the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation. At present, ten countries possess nuclear weapons, and a small number of others are thought to have programs to acquire them. Many people would like to see a world without any nuclear weapons; however, this does appear remotely likely at present. In the 1980s the USA and the USSR (which no longer exists, but included what is now Russia) reduced each of their nuclear arsenals by about one third; however, the real significance of these reductions is questionable.

Nuclear weapons are weapons using nuclear fission to produce massive explosions of energy.

ANSTO's new reactor

In Australia, recent disagreement over nuclear technology has centred on the replacement of the HIFAR at ANSTO. Australia's only nuclear reactor has reached the end of its life after over 45 years of operation. The need for a replacement reactor has been accepted by the Australian government and many Australian scientists, and construction of the replacement research reactor has begun. The new reactor will continue providing hospitals, research institutions and industry with a reliable supply of fresh radioisotopes, and a powerful neutron source for research. It will also expand and improve on some of these functions.

The decision to replace HIFAR was not without argument. Critics acknowledge that at present some medical radioisotopes must be produced fresh in a nuclear reactor (not a cyclotron). However, they have wondered whether further research might solve this problem without the need for a very expensive reactor. At a cost of over $286 million, the replacement research reactor will be Australia's most expensive technological investment! Many groups also oppose the new reactor because of the radioactive waste it will generate, and the risks associated with running a nuclear facility, as discussed above.

Privacy | Legal | Contact Us