|
1998 March 19
To the Editor:
The Environmental Assessment Panel reviewing AECL's plan to bury nuclear
waste deep in the Canadian Shield has just released its report, and it is
setting a very dangerous precedent. The report concludes that, "while
the safety of the AECL concept has been adequately demonstrated from a
technical perspective, from a social perspective, it has not". It then
recommends against acceptance at this time and calls for the
establishment of an independent agency to oversee all activities related
to the nuclear waste issue, with full public participation. (The report
is available on-line at:
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/panels/nuclear/reports/report_e.htm).
This priority given to public acceptability is not a bad idea; what is a
bad idea is the inclusion of this acceptability, by the panel, within the
definition of "safety". The report states that "safety must be viewed
from two complementary perspectives: social and technical". This is an
absurd notion. Safety is the "freedom from harm or danger", which is
distinct from the perception of safety, or the perception of risk. While
these latter considerations are important in the assessment of a
technology's psycho-social impact, they have no place in the assessment
of safety. The effect on human and environmental health, now and into
the future, is a matter of scientific determination. How we may feel
about those findings is equally important, but another chapter altogether.
The precedent is dangerous. Already, anti-nuclear activist groups are
assembling behind the banner "Panel Declares Waste Disposal Unsafe",
which is a falsehood. Word-processors are busy typing "I told you so"
rhetoric in fund-raising literature. The position of the EA Panel is no
fluke: For years the more astute anti-nuclear activists, having
recognized the low risk of nuclear power's operations, have strategically
stressed the social factor. The more legally-minded have invoked our
Charter of Human Rights, claiming that radiation dose, no matter how
insignificant, and regardless of the direct benefits (e.g. clean
electricity, cancer therapy), should be banned if an individual chooses
not to be exposed to it, as a matter of personal rights.
This is an engaging debate, and one that leads straight to the question
of "personal choice" versus "societal benefit". However, nowhere does it
impinge on the question of safety. The EA Panel, by redefining the word,
has undermined the credibility of those working to improve safety, and
has made Public Opinion the last word on the success or failure of their
efforts.
The EA report is well-intentioned, but poorly executed. It will be
misinterpreted and misused for years to come, and other technologies will
suffer, completely regardless of the societal benefit and risk they
represent.
Jeremy Whitlock
|