Nuclear waste problems

Nuclear power is a tricky issue and society is hypocritical about their stance on its usage. On the one hand it’s able to provide energy for our everyday needs while relieving some of the dependency on fossil fuels, which has well known negative effects on the environment. However when it comes to the problem of storing the nuclear waste, no one wants to be responsible. We push it onto someone else’s shoulders, who push it onto others, and when there’s nowhere willing to take on the burden and the hype the government must step in. An article by Michael Wild “Hunt for nuclear waste dumps” details the nuclear waste dilemmas in Britain where the government is hard pressed to find a community willing to house a pocket of nuclear waste.

To try and solve this issue and make it more appealing to local communities the government has proposed a number of inducements as compensation, “a share of a £25m payout over the next 10 years, if the local council gives permission for an existing waste dump to be extended” (Wild 2008). The ethical issue with this solution is that it plays more like a bribe than an answer. It raises a number of questions like, are the affects on the local people being accurately considered when there is such a large sum of money in the balance? Community councils may be willing to agree to a nuclear waste storage site simply because they want the money without properly gauging the impacts it would have on their communities. Especially since these plans also include the high level radioactive waste, “which will remain toxic for 250,000 years,” (Wild 2008). The health risks of any leaks are should be considered; communities may be willing to accept the £25m without proper knowledge of what they are fully agreeing to. Therefore from an ethics point of view offering large sums of money to entice communities into storing nuclear waste is not the right thing to do.

From a utilitarian point of view, that large some of money could guarantee the happiness of a large amount of people. If a community had £25m at their disposal they would be able to upgrade and provide better services for their people. For example upgrades in schools and youth programs or welfare. However many people are not happy with a nuclear waste site anywhere near their community. They are afraid of the health risks and the inevitable falls in property value and the stereotypes and press that will come along with that £25m. Therefore its hard to determine what a utilitarian standpoint would be since it is difficult to gauge the overall happiness £25m can bring versus the negative effects of having the waste will cause. However it is easier to argue this solution from a utilitarian standpoint because of the minutely small possibility of any health affects, “It is mixed with cement, packed in steel containers and then left underground in huge concrete vaults,” (Wild 2008)

Overall I believe this issue needs more debate, offering money for storage space does seem very suspicious, but public hype on nuclear waste won’t easily convince a community it is acceptable unless there is a very large payback. Educating the public may help but there are too many stories in pop culture and also events in past history that would slow the progress. Making education too slow of a process to be considered for an issue that needs to be solved relatively quickly. However educating communities that might be willing to accept the money about the adverse affects it might have not just on health but also on their trade and property values should be the best method.

Resources:

Wild, Michael. Hunt for Nuclear Waste Dumps. BBC. January 17, 2008. Accessed October 29, 2009, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/7192291.stm