A friend of mine from Italy came for dinner the other night. I hadn’t seen her in a while and over the course of dinner she filled me in on old friends and relations – who’s well, who’s ageing, who’s had a baby – the usual stuff. But then she mentioned her own health and mentioned a thyroid problem, adding that her mother too (now in her mid eighties) had also had thyroid problems. She’d gone to a doctor on Elba, the island off the west coast of Italy. “The doctor told me that it’s very common. It’s all because of Chernobyl.” She then added that the doctor had told her that in the local cemetery that since the 1980’s everyone had been dying of cancer.
Needless to say, I expressed mild surprise. She insisted that Elba had been hit by massive fallout and that was the reason, adding that other parts of Italy had seen similar things.
The exchange really brought home to me the significance of Jim Al-Khalili’s recent Horizon programme “Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe?” in which he tried to lay out the pros and cons of nuclear power, trying hard, as a theoretical nuclear physicist to appear as open and as unbiased as possible. It is a difficult challenge, because if you work in a field called ‘nuclear’ you are probably going to be dismissed as biased in the first place.
Horizon’s approach was to start the programme as close to the site of the Fukushima accident as possible, to describe how the accident had occurred and drawing on some excellent footage recorded by a member of the international investigation team that visited the site a few months ago. Eery and disturbing it show people in full NBC suits and breathing apparatus surveying the site, intercut with helicopter shots of the steaming pile (excuse pun) of post-accident debris. It is nightmarish stuff, that has a powerful emotive impact.
Jim unpicked how nuclear power stations work – reducing them schematically to a large kettle and explaining very simply how fission works and the origin of the daughter products. He then proceeded to explain how the accident had come about, pointing out the failure of the diesel pumps that provided water cooling and the subsequent reaction of the zirconium fuel rods with the water to produce hydrogens. And then the huge bangs. Chemical bangs, of course, but that led to the scattering of the radioactivity. Much was made of how the design was flawed – the reactors are themselves 40 years old and we have learned much about how and why things can go wrong in the intervening years.
But the concern of the programme was not so much on the power station itself as on its human impact. In a particularly moving section, Jim provides a camera to a young man evacuated from his home when he returns to collect a few belongings. Touchingly, the man and his wife water a few plants that have miraculously have survived – not the radiation of course – just plain old neglect in a village that has had to be abandoned. The sadness of the villagers is palpable and their sense of rage at the unfairness of it all. And Jim’s gentle questioning brings this out very movingly – would that “real” journalists would sometimes have the same delicate and empathetic touch.
The scene then shifted to Chernobyl, the most notorious accident of all. Here the camera followed a woman in her late 40’s returning to her flat for the first time in the 20-odd years since the accident. She is almost inarticulate in her pain, repeating the words “strakh” (fear) and “uzhas” (horror) over and over and whimpering about how death stalks her every move. It is heart-breaking stuff and yet she appears in a normal state of physical health. A psychologist who, as a child was exposed to the radiation from the accident, and who now works specifically with other victims points out that the vast majority of medical problems in the region are ones of mental health; the fear of radiation taking its toll on the population.
This is borne out by the statistics -while some 3-4,000 childhood cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed in the years after the accident, in part a consequence of the slowness of the authorities to issue iodine tablets to the population, only seven of these patients died. A more than 99% survival rate. It is a stunning conclusion, and that can be verified by looking at the reports from UNSCEAR and from the Chernobyl Forum. The mental health consequences have been very severe and compounded by the huge political and economic changes in the Ukraine and Byelorussia over the same time period.
So there is a paradox – that few of the catastrophic predictions made at the time of the accident have come to pass. Yet the legacy, for local people and further afield in Europe remains one of fear and suspicion, hence the immediate, knee-jerk referendum in Italy, for example, to abandon all nuclear projects, while in Germany Angela Merkel brought forward the date for decommissioning of existing stations.
The real question, as Jim points out, is where are we going to get electricity from as we attempt to deal with climate change. To reject nuclear out of hand, even as a stopgap technology, leaves mighty few alternatives. And to do so without considering the evidence fully is profoundly troubling.
The programme then traced the history of the nuclear industry, showing how uranium and plutonium-based technology were chosen, essentially because they fitted into the American military-industrial complex. The alternative thorium option, that would have used a more abundant and less easily weaponizable element, was cut short arbitrarily decades ago leaving us with what we have today.
What the programme did not really look into was the issue of waste. At the ILL research reactor in Grenoble they showed a process by which radioactive waste could be converted into isotopes more benign and short-lived that would not require storage on the kind of geological timescales that make everyone nervous. But there was little sense of whether this kind of process really could be scaled up. Could one really deal with all the waste coming out of the world’s nuclear kettles.
And for all that, one is left with lingering doubts. My father, who was Secretary of UNSCEAR for almost two decades, voted against nuclear power in the Italian referendum. He argues that nuclear power will always be a problem because of the culture of secrecy that surrounds it, and the difficulty of getting full and proper disclosure from an industry terrified of doing the least thing wrong.
It is a spectacular example of the difficulties and dilemmas of policy-making, of balancing short term and long term risks, of balancing the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns across different timescales. And always buffeted by the media and the blogosphere.
It was a beautiful and brave programme, that combined the small human stories with the much large issue of how we power our future. Nuclear power offers so much and could solve so many problems. And yet, as Jim made clear, there is no thing as a free lunch.
As to me, would I be happy if a reactor were built a couple of miles down the road? I’d like to say, categorically yes. But I know that I’d want a of detailed questions answered before I signed on the dotted line.