In the wake of the ongoing overt nuclear catastrophe in Japan and the not so evident mess at all the nuclear energy generating plants, the so-called "debates" over the pros and cons of nuclear power have begun. Over the past we weeks, an "expert" on BBC has dismissed the idea that there is anything inherently dangerous with nuclear energy. CNN too has followed the same path, but by allowing a Greenpeace representative to rebut. The problem is that even though most issues come in shades of gray, when it comes to nuclear energy, there is only one viewpoint - this technology is inherently dangerous. Yes, all other technologies invariably come with some risks that can be minimized and managed. Yet most other technologies generate risks in the context of use. Nuclear technologies on the other hand, come inbuilt with risks, even in the context of so-called normal, safe, managed use. As long as we cannot figure our what to do with the steady accumulation of radioactive waste, any talk of managing risks is just talk. If anyone has time, they should seek out Langdon Winner's path-breaking article on "inherently political technologies".
It is not just the nuclear industry that is pushing hard for an image makeover during this critical moment. Their rivals - coal and natural gas industry - are inundating the TV networks with adverts to capitalize on the nuclear tragedy in Japan. The industry spokespeople as well as the self-appointed experts all hammer away at the "fact" that an industrial society needs energy and one has supposedly no choice but manage the risks associated with these technologies. None of them of course talks about the ecological impossibility of carrying on with absurd goal of unlimited economic growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment