ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
Many science centers have exhibitions on energy. A few centers include
nuclear energy, with greater or lesser amounts of detail. Most of us have
avoided getting into the thicket of issues surrounding this option. At this
moment, events in Japan might make us wish we had done more, since there are
certainly public concerns about the damaged Japanese reactors, and those
concerns are (or should be) worldwide. Ideally we would be prepared to
respond by providing effective forums and public education.
I was trained as a physicist, while I did not specialize in nuclear physics,
I have at several points in my career been called upon to try to explain
nuclear issues to the public. I thought I might share with you a few
thoughts on what is happening in Japan right now. I'd urge any science
center asked to comment or deal with this issue to enlist a nuclear
scientist or engineer, and not try to do this on your own unless you have a
resident physicist or engineer. Finding a working nuclear expert who can
talk effectively with the public will take some care, as it does in all
fields of science (see the "Portal to the Public" project at the Pacific
Science Center for a model of this kind of care).
At the moment the situation of several reactors in Japan is extremely
serious. There will not be a nuclear detonation (there is no known way for
that to happen, short of bringing in an actual nuclear bomb and exploding it
there), but the kinds of failures happening in several Japanese reactors
lead to the possibility of non-nuclear explosions. Those could spread large
amounts of radioactive material locally, regionally, or even globally. The
Chernobyl disaster spread a plume of radioactive material far beyond its
country of origin, and health consequences will continue for decades
downwind of Chernobyl.
Today's New York Times has several exemplary articles on what's happening,
the dangers presented, and some of the ways to mitigate them, especially the
simple measure of people taking potassium iodide pills if they are in any
significant danger of exposure to one of the most dangerous potential
emissions. You couldn't do much better than to recommend these articles to
people who ask for information. Here are three good articles to cite:
On the history and context of nuclear reactor accidents, especially in
Japan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13nuclear-industry.html?hp,
On what's happening now with the four damaged reactors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14nuclear.html?_r=1
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14nuclear.html?_r=1&hp> &hp
On what's more or less dangerous in escaped radioactive material from these
plants, and the use of potassium iodide pills:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/science/13radiation.html?ref=asia
These stories are high quality science journalism. I wish I could say the
same for what I'm seeing on television. For example, I've seen several
commentators and reporters use the words "nuclear" and "explosion" in close
proximity while failing to distinguish between nuclear detonations (like a
nuclear bomb, which can't happen) and non-nuclear ones (like a steam
explosion inside the plant, which can and perhaps already has happened).
Both kinds of explosions are extremely dangerous, but for very different
reasons. The measures to prevent them, the kind of damage they cause, and
the steps to mitigate that damage are also different. It make keep viewers
glued to their sets, waiting for video of a mushroom cloud, but this kind of
sloppy journalism can also cause panic, accelerate false rumors, and hinder
appropriate responses. What would we do without the kind of quality
reporting in the New York Times that seems to be available from a shrinking
number of sources today?
Here are a few personal observations, for what they are worth. Nuclear
power is a tantalizing but problematic solution to the need for energy. In
one sense it should be one of the cleanest forms of energy: essentially no
emission of global warming gasses, and widespread sources of the basic fuel,
which can be mined relatively easily and safely compared to deep coal mines,
hydrofracking for gas, or deep drilling off-shore for oil. Countering these
arguments for nuclear power are two major concerns: the storage of nuclear
waste produced by the reactors, and the safety of operations of nuclear
plants.
The storage issue is complex and long-standing. I think there may be
solutions to this problem which, while not perfect, are in totality less
risky in both the short and long term than the continued use of fossil fuels
as we are doing today. But it takes political courage and will to choose a
solution, and that has been lacking.
The safety issues of operations are equally complex and long-standing. One
important reason why safety remains a big concern is that cutting corners in
order to save money is always a temptation in every industrial endeavor,
even in the nuclear power industry where the consequences of failure are so
high. Both the Three-mile Island and Chernobyl accidents can in large part
be attributed to such corner-cutting. I've always been worried about
for-profit operation of these plants, because no matter how responsible a
corporation tries to be, there apparently will always be some in the
organization who are intent on improving short-term return-on-investment,
even at the risk of courting some kind of disaster. We can all think of
examples, in both nuclear and non-nuclear fields, from oil drilling to
packaging loans to toothpaste manufacturing.
I had thought Japan's tight regulation in most areas would reduce this risk
for their nuclear plants. Their regulation of building design seems to have
been very effective in mitigating damage to buildings and people from the
earthquake itself. But as the first Times story cited above discusses, in
the case of the nuclear industry commercial operators may have too cozy in
relationships with their regulators, and the operators have been less than
transparent in revealing practices and problems. We've heard a lot of that
much closer to home in the past few years (again think of finance, off-shore
drilling, etc.).
France has, as far as I know, has an enviable record of safety in its
nuclear power program, and obtains more than three-quarters of its electric
energy from nuclear power plants (a far higher percentage than Japan does).
These plants are all state-owned and run. The system isn't perfect, and has
its detractors, but it certainly seems like a model the rest of the world
should examine urgently and closely. But given this week's events in Japan,
that may not happen anytime soon, if ever. Which makes conservation and
renewable energy options even more essential. Alas, our own fractured
government seems incapable of dealing with energy policy. And our own job
of public education and providing reasoned forums becomes all the more
important and urgent.
Alan
****************************************************
Alan J. Friedman, Ph.D.
Consultant for Museum Development and Science Communication
29 West 10th Street
New York, New York 10011 USA
T +1 917 882-6671
E [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
W www.FriedmanConsults.com <http://www.friedmanconsults.com/>
a member of The Museum Group
www.museumgroup.com <http://www.museumgroup.com/>
***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.
Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.
The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
|
