The public don’t fully trust the government when it comes to nuclear power and shale gas.
That’s according to MPs on the Science and Technology Select Committee who have concluded the public don’t see the Government as an “impartial” source of information about risks linked to the energy sources.
The MPs suggest the UK Government’s backing of nuclear power makes it difficult for the public to trust it as “impartial”.
Instead, they say independent regulators such as the Health & Safety Executive and Office for Nuclear Regulation should take up a bigger “public profile” to communicate risks – because they are independent of Government.
Andrew Miller, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee said: “The public must be able to trust the information it receives on the risks of nuclear power and other energy technologies – such as fracking or carbon capture and storage.
“Developing the public profile of independent regulators as trusted and authoritative sources may be one way of increasing public trust and understanding of such risks.”
The MPs point to the Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukushima as an example of how public perceptions were not managed as well as they could have been.
They say classifying Fukushima at the same ‘Level Seven’ magnitude as Chernobyl was “confusing” because there were significantly lower levels of radioactive material released and no deaths directly attributable to the accident.
Andrew Miller MP, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee added: “Fukushima was no Chernobyl, but the public were left with a confusing picture of the real risks from the accident partly because it was classed as the same magnitude.
“The accident has made it clear that the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale is not up-to-the-job. The International Atomic Energy Agency should come up with a better and more accurate way of communicating the risks involved in any future nuclear accident.”
July 9th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
“They say classifying Fukushima at the same ‘Level Seven’ magnitude as Chernobyl was “confusing” because there were significantly lower levels of radioactive material released and no deaths directly attributable to the accident.”
It is comments like those that raise the alarm in public perception in the first place. It is my understanding, corroborated by existing (but varying) reports that the amount of radioactive material released at Fukushima far surpassed Chernobyl. Here’s an alarmist article to the same, but has some useful links and references http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/12/nuclear-expert-fukushima-10-times-worse-than-chernobyl-1-million-cancers/
Make up your own mind, I guess, but stop lying. Nuclear energy is essential to move towards less polluting energy sources but you have to be honest about it.
If I’m mistaken please correct me, because otherwise it undermines your whole article.
July 10th, 2012 at 11:31 am
The arrogance of the authorities beggars belief.
The proposed use of the regulators as the PR voice of government and the nuclear industry is paving the way for the same cosy relationship that led to disaster in Japan. The make up of the Government Committee already makes the point.
UK nuclear expansion is reckless and uneconomic. Even an outside chance of major accident at Hinkley Point could be like the radioactive plume from Fukushima blowing onshore instead of thankfully offshore, as it was and thus (dare I say) minor compared to what it could have been.
With our South Westerly prevailing wind, such an incident from Hinkley Point is statistically most likely to spread across the middle of Britain, through Bristol, Welsh Borders, Oxfordshire, Central England, Birmingham, East and West Midlands, North East and North West, onward to Scotland.
My evidence to the Hinkley Point Inquiry showed that an event on the scale of Chernobyl would wipe out UK food production indefinitely by the third day ! 60 million people with most food production gone, radioactive contamination across the country, short and long term health risks, economic disaster etc etc., . Is this a wise risk even at odds of one to – (what shall we say) ?
My evidence to the Hinkley Inquiry, that critical ecological pathways will change over time was cited by the inspector. The case remains, unpredictable critical path into the future.
Huge nuclear waste storage at Hinkley (16% of current UK) and no long term plan.
We cannot take the risk and dont need to. We need to take Germany as Best Practice Guidance (they eclipse us on most things, economy included). They are planning 25% reduction in electricity while we are planning to double consumption. They already have biogas production to grid, we are barely thinking about it.
We hear Whitehall speak about innovation but little evidence and backward thinking on nuclear policy.
The public are right to trust their judgement, they are usually right.
Dr Richard Stow
Environmental Scientist and Engineer – EnviroScience