Nuclear Power: Risk Perceptions and Reality - Essay Example

? Nuclear Power: Risk perceptions and Reality Introduction: There are certain issues pertaining to the modern society and the way of life which rise up heated debates on both sides of the argument. Many of these societal issues impact a large majority of the population in some respect and the governmental and institutional decisions taken with regards to these spark intense emotions. These issues can range from health, environmental, technological and general societal problems- both public and expert opinions are expressed compellingly and backed by various studies and research done on them. Though, as with any topic the level of information and insight the average person has on these often differs from that of the experts and can consequently lead to a difference in opinions. The concerns about these issues mainly focus on the adverse or negative effects of them and what should be done to either completely curtail or control the factors which lead to them. The public risk perception and assessment of the issues visibly colors these concerns- sometimes distorting the actual facts which are present and relying on the phenomena of self-serving bias to firmly entrench the arguments. One such issue which always comes up when rationally discussing the perceived risk versus the actual risk factors is that of Nuclear Energy. Once touted as the ultimate solution to mankind’s energy crisis, today the use of nuclear energy is viewed with extreme caution and mistrust. Ongoing studies and certain disasters with nuclear energy facilities indicated to the population that nuclear energy was not without its risks and it would be prudent to do further research in the safety and viability of using nuclear reactions to provide energy to our cities before world-wide implementation of the process. Nuclear Energy was introduced as a cleaner and cheaper alternative to fossil fuels. Unfortunately the facts about the process are not so clear-cut positive, and many of the positive aspects are lost in communication to the mass public. Nuclear energy just sounds too related to dangerous radiation poisoning and the devastating effects of nuclear weapons for the average person to be completely comfortable with it. Even with an increase in safety regulations and the concerns about climate change connected to increasing usage of fossil fuels, mass opinion is decidedly negative towards nuclear energy. This opinion then influences government policies and structure leading to real world consequences. What has to be decided is that whether this opinion is based on facts or does it stem from emotions and misconceived conceptions which could cause harm to the society in the long term. Nuclear Power- The Facts: The use of nuclear reactions for electricity generation began soon after the discovery of radioactive elements and their power emission. It provided a viable method for countries to become self reliant on energy generation and people were enthusiastic about the potential of nuclear power plants. The immediate concerns about the adverse effects of radiation were discovered soon afterwards and the scientists strived to come up with relatively safer processes for harnessing nuclear energy while controlling the poisonous emissions. The development was not a straight forward process, lots of experimental mistake were made and several later resulted in large scale disasters. Then in the WWII the focus shifted from the development of beneficial energy to the development of more effective weapons using the nuclear process. The world got to witness exactly how powerful the radioactive elements could be as well as the devastation they could cause when used with the wrong intent. The after effects of the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would go on to make future generations extremely anti-nuclear power and with very good reason. Afterwards any further research in developing nuclear energy plants was done so under strict governmental control and classification. The pros and cons of nuclear power plants are clearly laid out. The biggest supporting point for the energy is that these plants are said to emit almost no carbon dioxide. A large 1,250 250-megawatt nuclear facility produces an estimated 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime, In contrast, coal-fired plants produce close to 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year in the U.S. alone while also emitting lots of other pollution (Smith, 2011). Many environmentalists have become strong supporters of nuclear plants as they help to curb the carbon footprint and should curtail the climate changes taking place due to the green house effect caused by fossil fuel emissions.   Currently the major problem with nuclear plants is the 20-30 tons of radioactive waste that each reactor accumulates yearly. This waste is stored at nuclear plants across the country as new waste storage ideas are designed.  Nuclear waste it contains radium and it remains radioactive, and dangerous, for tens of thousands of years, and there is no safe way to dispose of this easily. Even with reactors which ensure radiation protection during the actual process and safety regulations during the mining process, storage of the nuclear waste can lead to a lot of problems even if one mistake is made. Cost of development of these reactors is touted as both a pro and con. While it is true that in the long run nuclear plants are cheaper to operate than those utilizing hydro-carbon or thermal energy the initial cost of developments are much higher-with estimates topping out at $10 billion per reactor. For any country this would be a big investment to make in a project which may have negative public perception. Public risk perception: “Presently, the anti-nuclear alarmists are having a field-day decrying nuclear power. The governments of Japan and Germany have turned decidedly anti-nuclear power. What is missing from today's anti-nuclear argument is an honest, objective risk/benefit analysis of nuclear power.” (Speth, 2011) The earthquake in Japan which led to fault lines developing at the Fukushima nuclear power plant and caused radiation to seep out sparked cries of alarm all over the world about the risk of the process and debates on whether it was a good move to continue to develop a process which could harm so many- despite the benefits it provided. The public risk perception of the nuclear energy was high and it was apparent that they would not support implementation of any new plans to construct nuclear plants. “But in reality, risk perception is not about the facts as much as how those facts feel.” (Ropeik, 2010). It has been suggested that the feelings and arguments of people both against or in support of any issue do not actually reflect the facts and information which are available; people do not give consideration to the probability of a disaster happening and then weigh in the cost versus benefits of working for or against the factors responsible. People are more likely to look at the extremity of the consequences which could be expected, and no matter the percentage of expectance, they will revolt against an event which can result in a ‘disaster’. “Radiation is associated with cancer, it cannot be sensed and avoided and it is even associated with the horrible images of nuclear war” (Sjoberg, 1999). The more people are reminded of these emotional views the more likely they are to reject the arguments in favor of nuclear energy and raise concerns. Despite the fact that safety regulations have become much more stringent in recent years and disasters such as Chernobyl were caused by human error more than any fault of the process or construction of the plant, the public are still not willing or unable to understand the actual risk of developing the energy source. And sometimes the reasons behind this negative perception are not quite as obvious as they seem. In his article on the risk of nuclear plants, Ropiek uses the anecdote of the town of Vermont to illustrate how strongly personal sentiments affect our rational thinking. The town government decided not to relicense the nuclear plant which produced electricity for the whole town after it expired in 2012. The decision was met with great support from the residents- but a discrepancy was seen in the consensus between the residents who lived close to the reactor and those who lived further. While the neighbors of the power plant are in much higher risk than the people of the town, they also get greater benefits in the form of high paying jobs, low taxation and high tax revenues. For them the immediate benefits are enough to mitigate the sense of higher risk they feel and they would want the nuclear plant to continue operating. “There's another psychological factor at work for the neighbors of Vermont Yankee too, perhaps the most important risk perception factor of all. Trust... Risk vs. Benefit. Trust. These intrinsic psychological factors color our view of any risk. And they can make our fears go down, or up. “ (Roriek, 2010) The trust mentioned here is the fact that the workers operating the plant live together in a same community and when they say that the plant is safe or that they will ensure there are no risks in the operations- their neighbors will tend to believe them. The people living further off use the electricity from the plant but they would not trust a face-less corporation or government body enough to allow them control of a facility with as high perceived level of danger as a nuclear reactor. The lack of trust and the influence of personal sentiments over that of facts and information lead to a ‘Perception Gap’ between different groups over the same issue. The perceived risks may not always match up to the risks and the opposite can be true as well. This is more apparent when we consider that research has shown that it is a reasonable statement that often sources with extremely high value of potential risk are only viewed with regards to the risk, those sources which are in the moderate risk range are more perceived in accordance to the benefits they bring (Renn). According to this result it is clear that for people who only perceive nuclear energy as high risk venture will be unwilling to consider the benefits it brings and can those who already view it as of moderate risk will always argue strongly in favor of the process For example many supporters hold the belief that along with the environmental benefits, nuclear energy is absolutely essential to the development of economy and a higher standard of living. This economic necessity was the original argument adopted by the supporters of the issue and despite the risk they lobbied their governments to pursue the venture. Expert opinion: Sjoberg L, Drottz-Sjoberg B. M did a study on the Swedish nuclear reactor workers to gauge their risk perception versus that of the average person. It was concluded that “the experience of job-related radiation risks was related to the level of knowledge about radiation and its risks: those who knew less experienced larger risks” (1991). It was also interesting to note that the temporary workers, who had not yet formed mutually trustful relationships with others, were more fearful of their work conditions. Experts know more and they are used to thinking in statistical terms, hence, their opinion on nuclear energy tends to be different than that of the public. The gap between experts’ risk assessment and that of the public has given rise to some very complex strategy problems. The scientific majority is in favor of the development of nuclear reactors as an efficient, environmentally friendly source of energy with an associated risk that can be controlled. This community sometimes finds itself pitted against a public view which simply does not accept its conclusions. “The difference in perceived risk between experts and the public does not necessarily demonstrate a causal influence on risk perception by a high level of knowledge” (Sjoberg, 1999). Another study carried out in Sweden (Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg 1994) compared the risk perception of experts and the public with regard to nuclear power and nuclear waste. Sjoberg, S., 1999. Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in Risk Management. Experts and the public, Page 3. There are a couple of reasons behind this difference in opinion. One of them is Trust. Experts mostly trust industry, agencies and other experts more than the public does because they themselves have dealt with those people, researched on their own and decided to accept the best possible results based on scientific facts. Unfortunately, communication tends to break down between experts and the public- people can be mistrustful of the experts as they may fear they are just talking what the controlling want them to say. It’s a simple case of not tending to believe people who are different than you or whom you suspect of knowing less than they claim to. General media content worsens this problem as it tends to report on the popular notions and once again self serving bias comes into play as people would tend to give greater consideration to opinions which are more in line with their own. Nuclear energy raises heated discussions and media plays up to the controversial factors. Public Opinion and Policy development: Public opinions matter a lot when a backlash over policies can lead to the loss of political power and authority. “A grounded theory study of interviewees associated with the recent decision by the U.K. government to reconsider nuclear power generation indicates a fundamental causal factor in stakeholder conflict.” (Ash, 2011). Governments are unwilling to invest in a venture which is opposed by any one body of stakeholders as a consensus among the major stakeholders is a key element in the successful implementation of these projects. A government which goes against the wishes of the public will have to face many problems ranging from a lack of public support, lack of funds or outright opposition. The influence of public perception can be seen in the fact that no country has yet been able to find a voluntary local community which will accept the building of a nuclear waste containment area in spite of assurances about its safety. But if handled correctly the public opinion can also be used to mold out new government policies which will not curtail the development of nuclear energy but instead make it much safer. One requirement is stricter regulation of plant operations by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission through transparent methods and an assurance that safety of the workers and nearby communities will be the utmost priority. ‘Whistleblowers’ or those to indicate potential problems within the facility should be given protection and their efforts commended. In 2001, a nuclear inspector reported serious safety problems at the Fukushima Daiichi plant to government regulators but instead of his concerns being worker upon he was black listed from the nuclear energy circles and demoted (Speth, 2011). There is a chance that his initial report could have helped prevent the 2011 disaster. Events like this just increase public mistrust in the whole nuclear energy sector and they become less inclined to even consider the benefits of any development programs. But if more people are aware of the actual risks-more related to the human errors- the public opinion can shape government regulations in a direction which will benefit both the nuclear energy development while safeguarding the interests of the communities supporting these projects. In order to achieve this there should be better means of communication between experts and the mass public and more efficient dissemination of facts about nuclear energy which will work towards reducing the exaggerated risk perception. Bibliography Ash, J. S., 2011. Radiation or Riots: Risk Perception in Nuclear Power Decision Making and Deliberative Approaches to Resolving Stakeholder Conflict. Politics & Policy Volume 39, Issue 3, pages 317–344, June 2011. Renn, O. Nuclear energy and the public: risk perception, attitudes and behavior [Online]. Available at: < http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2011/5927/pdf/ren109.pdf> [Accessed 7 August 2012].  Ropeik, D., 2010. How Risky Is It, Really? Nuclear Power and Risk; It’s Not about the Facts. It’s Our Feelings [Online]. Psychology Today. Available at: < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201003/nuclear-power-and-risk-it-s-not-about-the-facts-it-s-our-feelings> [Accessed 7 August 2012].  Sjoberg, S., 1999. Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in Risk Management1. Center for Risk Research Stockholm School of Economics. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 Sjoberg L, Drottz-Sjoberg B. M., 1991. Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Analysis. 1991 Dec;11(4):607-18. Smith, J. M., 2011. The Pro and Cons of Nuclear Power [Online]. The Daily Green . Available at: < http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/nuclear-power-pro-con> [Accessed 7 August 2012].  Speth, R., 2011. Nuclear energy: Benefits greatly outweigh risks [Online]. SunSentinel. Available at: < http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-29/news/fl-nuclear-oped0529-20110529_1_nuclear-power-japanese-nuclear-industry-water-nuclear-reactors > [Accessed 7 August 2012].  Read More