Science in Christian Perspective
Nuclear Waste: Beyond Faust
and Fate
Margaret N. Maxey
Assistant Director of the South Carolina Energy Research
Institute,
Suite
670, First National Bank Budding, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
From: JASA 32 (June1980): 97-101.
Ever since Alvin Weinberg's celebrated lament over the "Faustian
bargain"'
made by "we nuclear people," it has become increasingly fashionable
to dwell on the hazards of radioactive wastes as the epitome of that
reprehensible
trafficking with the devil. Otherwise intelligent people simply take it as an
unquestioned "given" that the production of nuclear wastes
is a unique,
unprecedented problem for which there is as yet no technical solution-much less
a politically expedient and publicly acceptable solution. Having accepted this
"given," the major architects of our current rancorous public dispute
over nuclear technology have begun to make an appeal to moral values
and ethical
principles as if they were substitutes for scientific evidence. Moreover, it is
widely believed that in matters of morality and ethical judgment,
"everyone
is an expert," or to say the same thing, "no one is an expert."
The political advantage gained by those who nourish this belief is that neither
ethics nor policymaking can escape from a morass of opinion. Unless we reject
this belief, ethics will he held hostage by the struggle for political power to
mobilize "public opinion" and "popular sentiment." Unless
it is based on sound principles and substantiating evidence, a public
policy stands
only for the prevailing fashion of the times.
Social Justice and Hazard Management
As a fundamental bioethical principle for organizing evidence and dealing with
conflicting opinions, I propose this formulation: Social justice
requires an equitable
management of potential hazards which might have harmful health
effects and unjustifiable
social consequences.
By "equitable management" I mean that policy makers should first be
comprehensively informed about the broad spectrum of both natural and ordinary
hazards that may have health effects for large segments of the population; then
make comparisons of actual costs per capita to reduce these effects; and only
then make policies and set standards that will get the most public
health protection
for the many out of a finite amount of money. Potential hazards management is
ethically equitable only if it is proportional in relation to actual basic harm
that can be identified and reduced by expenditures of human effort,
time and money.
Establishing Public Policy
Translating this principle into public policy is by no means
straightforward and
easy. The fallout generated by the media coverage of Three Mile
Island and ensuing
public hysteria over radiation foreshadow a period of serious reckoning for a
nation which purports to make public policy through democratic processes.2 Those
engaged in writing obituaries and epitaphs for nuclear technology,
whether applied
in medicine or electricity generation, are well aware that
"nuclear wastes"
are the kingpin that can bring down an industry.3 It is
understandable that recognizing
scientific and technical disagreements is not sufficient. Policy
makers must recognize
that opponents of nuclear technology in general, and of current waste disposal
options in particular, have developed several arguments which appeal
to nonscientific
moral and ethical premises. Briefly, these can be summed up in two
statements.
First, indefinite delay of high-level waste disposal facilities is regarded as
morally preferable to a policy of implementing one of
several
currently available
options.
Second, it is claimed that involuntary risks of radiation exposure imposed on
present and unconsnlted future generations violate ethical principles of social
justice and equity.
The Call for an Indefinite Delay
With regard to the first premise, calls for indefinite delay and for more and
more thorough geological, seismic, and environmental pathways analyses derive
from the perception that the volume and radioactive properties of
fission wastes
are utterly foreign to human experience. Despite the fact that the volumes and
hazardous toxic properties of municipal, industrial, and commercial wastes are
far more excessive and accessible to people through multiple
environmental pathways,
radioactive wastes are being singled out for special treatment because people
have been induced to believe there is something menacing and sinister about radiation sources. When ordinary people are
asked why they have such a nameless fear of radiation and radioactive wastes,
the response is that they are "the most toxic substance known to
man;"
they are not found in nature but are "man-made;" and "they have
hazardous lifetimes of a quarter of a million years." The
longevity of their
hazardous lifetimes makes people leap to the conclusion that the
risks to unconsulted
future generations will last until the wastes are reduced to
"harmless levels"
by natural radioactive decay processes. From that imaginative leap
comes the line
of argument that the production of radiowastes, and proposed criteria
for designing
a waste repository, are unethical. The present generation reaps the
benefits but
exports the hazards into the future-a violation of distributive justice, equity
and participation.
Besides the risk/benefit argument, there is also the legacy/longevity argument.
No responsible person would ever rely on the stability and longevity of social
institutions or human fallibility in the future. No matter what the
cost to present
generations, there must he an absolute guarantee provided by
engineering technology
that there will be permanent containment of the wastes in non-leachable receptacles
within a selected repository, as well as permanent isolation of the wastes from
the biosphere. Some even insist that our ethical responsibility to
future generations
is not fulfilled by sequestering the wastes permanently; we must also
assume that
there might be some leak or spewing forth from a repository, either as a result
of accidental disruptions or intentional intrusions, and therefore
set regulatory
standards to limit a potential radiological impact on whole populations.
In both arguments, the length of radioactive half-life dictates the problem and
undermines proposals for a solution. The common assumption shared by unending
arguments about radioactive wastes is that the mere existence of that source of
radiation is equivalent to an unacceptable risk. The risks perceived
are measured
according to the million-year rate of decay of isotopes and actinides, as well
as the number of lethal doses they contain-enough to wipe out a population many
times over.
To use this assumption as an ethical basis for formulating arguments about any
risk from a potential biohazard, especially radioactive wastes, is absurd. It
is totally inconsistent with established legal precedents, scientific evidence,
and intellectual integrity. If we actually measure unacceptable risks
to our environmental
quality by measuring the half-life or rate of decay of toxic elements in common
household and industrial use -or their potential for lethal doses to
a population then
we would not be talking about spending billions of dollars on burying
radiowastes.
We would demand our Congress to enact legislation for permanent
geological burial
of lead, mercury, chromium, arsenic, chlorine, cyanide, and many other elements
whose half-life is infinite. They are not radioactive. Hence they are
not easily
detected and monitored in our environment as are radioactive
elements. They will
never decay to harmless levels. They have been and will continue to remain in
our biosphere affecting our environmental qualitynot for a thousand
or a million
years, but forever. This
is fortunate, because they are valuable, highly useful, and
controllable resources
from which we derive countless benefits. If we are to be ethical and equitable,
the same yardstick must he applied to radioactive elements. Moreover,
"waste"
begins only where human ingenuity and inventiveness ends.
It is instructive that our federal government has spent over $i
billion over the
past thirty years to research the biological effects of nuclear
sources of radiation.
But it is only in the last decade that sophisticated instrumentation
arid refined
assay methods for measuring highly toxic chemical agents in common industrial
use has been developed-and with it an upsurge in public alarm as chemical waste
"dumps" (such as the Love Canal) have been discovered and
sensationalized
by the media. There is a fairly obvious correlation between the
massive information
flow to the public about radiation hazards, and the mounting public concern to
which competing regulatory agencies want to appear responsive, protective and
indispensable to the public.
From a bioethical perspective, any risks of adverse health effects
from radiation
sources, both to present and future generations, must be measured
only in relation
to environmental pathways which determine the degree of likelihood of harmful
exposure of and assimilation by the human body. All of the pathways analyses to
date have measured those potential risks and found them to be
vanishingly small.4
Moreover, a geotoxicity calculation has considered only eight toxic
elements naturally
occurring in the earth's crust and continuously leached into food and
water supplies
which we daily use. Those elements are mercury, lead, cadmium,
chromium, selenium,
barium, arsenic and uranium.5 If our entire electrical supply for 100
years came
from nuclear fissioning of uranium, and we buried the wastes, the
resulting increase
in the toxicity of the earth's crust would he one ten-millionth of one per cent
(0.0000001%). Those attempting to invalidate that comparison have argued that
the other toxic elements are distributed more uniformly, but that the
waste would
be concentrated in a few repositories. The fact of the matter is that
nature has
also concentrated toxic minerals in ore bodies. Cohen states:
It can be shown that in a few hundred years the repository contents become relatively
less toxic than typical mercury deposits and in about 1000 years it
becomes less
than the uranium ore body from which the nuclear fuel was originally
derived.
The ore body is at least as available to dissolution and transport as
is the waste
repository.
The general public scents unaware that the technology exists to meet the most
sensible of "performance criteria" for waste disposal
facilities. These
criteria require that ultimate waste disposal shall be conducted in such a way
that there is no net increase in risk of harm by comparison with the
typical ore
body of natural uranium which yields the energy from which the wastes
are derived.
In other words, the wastes can be disposed of in a way that returns them to the
same (if not better) level of risk than posed by natural uranium ore
in the earth's
crust. This criterion requires that the waste form have the same stability as
the original ore body; that the medium containing the wastes retains the same integrity as the medium containing the ore;
and that geological
media surrounding and isolating the wastes retain the same integrity
of isolation
from the biosphere as that isolating the original ore bodies. If
current technology
can meet these requirements, then the American public cannot logically demand
greater assurance.
The risk-perception and arguments advanced in favor of an indefinite delay and
ever more exhaustive study of waste disposal options are insubstantial at best.
Under the guise of moral preferability, the pursuit of technical perfection may
he either a political instrument of obstructionists who are publicly committed
to using any strategy to eliminate nuclear electricity in the United States, or
a self-serving strategy of underemployed professionals in geology, seismology,
hydrology, etc. In either case, the best has become the enemy of the good. The
risks emoted and litigated about are minor when compared with much
greater risks
of doing nothing about a problem that is not going to go away. The disposition
made of radiowastes calls attention to the fact that other wastes are
becoming even
more problematic. Positive, constructive policies of action rather
than negative
policies of inaction are clearly an ethical imperative.
Involuntary Exposure
Turning to the second premise, it is claimed that involuntary risks
of radiation
exposure imposed on unconsulted present and future generations violate ethical
principles of social justice and equity.
A self-styled public interest group has recently disseminated a
critique of criteria
for radioactive waste management proposed by the Environmental
Protection Agency.6
The authors of the critique assume that longevity of hazardous
lifetimes of radioactive
wastes constitutes an unfair imposition of hazards and risks upon unconsulted
future generations. Hence, they are of the opinion that the ethical principles
of equity and participation require criteria to be neutral to future
generations.
They preface their own proposed criteria by stating that:
The least unfair way of managing intertensporal relationships is for
each generation
to try to leave the earth as it was when they arrived. As a goal, the
only acceptable
distribution of hazards and benefits is the neutral allocation, where
no pattern
of benefits and hazards is imposed. (p. 28)
By espousing as a fundamental philosophical principle, "non-degradation of
the environment," the Natural Resources Defense Council joins
with the Sierra
Club in defining a "degraded environment" as any place that
human actions
have affected or changed. Although chastising the EPA for evading
what they choose
to call "the fundamental mandate of EPA" and "an uncompromisable
standard"-namely "non-degradation of the environment"-the NRDC
authors commend the EPA at one point for comparing hazards from human activity
to hazards from the "pre-existing natural state of the area."' Their
stated reason for feeling that this is an appropriate standard is that "it
emphasizes the role of a trustee as one who maintains the
nonrenewable environmental
as it was originally, to pass on to the next trustee." This
fundamental goal
is a key consideration, "because if any degradation is allowed (in the name of "allowable radiation
exposure") there
is no clear bound at which degradation becomes, by anyone's standard,
too much."3,4
Formulas such as these conceal two questionable presuppositions:
(1) that an untouched "natural environment" by definition manifests
a superior, if not sacred order which human interventions violate to
some degree:
(2) that a trustee of a so-called natural environment can do nothing more not
less than pass it along in its original pristine state: to do otherwise is to
be guilty of a moral wrong.
The philosophy of non-degradation has a long history, as is clear to anyone who
has read Book I of Ceurgius Agricola's De Re Metallica published in
1556.7 This
sixteenth century inventory of objections to disturbing the environment makes
it abundantly clear that those who are ignorant of history are
condemned to repeat
it.
Furthermore, a philosophy of non-degradation uncritically assumes the idea that
a benign environment is rapidly being ruined by human beings.
However, the historical
record attests that an untamed environment has repeatedly wrought massive human
degradation through catastrophic effects of famines, plagues, floods,
earthquakes,
tornadoes, etc. The fundamental problem about man's interaction with
the environment
is not to maintain some simplistic ideal of "non-degradation." Rather
the problem is a highly complex one of devising appropriate means to
protect both
life-sustaining and aesthetic qualities of the biosphere, and at the same time
develop technologies which provide basic human goods as a necessary condition
for maintaining a preferred environmental quality. As a fundamental, meaningful
principle for securing that environmental protection,
"non-degradation"
is vacuous.
In their preoccupation with risks to future generations and a proposed ethical
principle of neutrality, the NRDC authors seem committed to
perpetuating the specious
assumption discussed above, namely, that the hazards of radioactive waste foist
unprecedented risks onto unconsulted future generations because the
index of their
hazard to the future is measured by and equivalent to the longevity
of their radioactive
half-life. Intellectual honesty should compel those who know better to state as
often as necessary that any risks of adverse health effects from
radiation sources
must be measured only in relation to the degree of likelihood of actual harmful
exposure.
Our concern for "risks bequeathed to future generations"
will he better
expressed if we reject two simpleminded notions: (1) that such risks
have an existence
in splendid isolation from the benefits which justify them and (2)
that such ethical
principles as equity and participation require a neutral allocation of risks
and
benefits to the future (even if that were attainable in actuality.)
The first notion merits rejection because the legacy of any
generation to an immediate
as well as remote future is not mere "risks" and "hazards."
To the contrary, our legacy to the future is an entire social order striving to
provide basic material well-being, institutional stahility, and creative freedom for its citizenry. Risks, promises,
harms, and benefits
are inseparably interdependent within any sustainable social order. If only we
could manage to balance our excessive concern and expenditure of public money
to reduce risks from but one potential hazard, radioactive wastes,
with a concern
to reduce the risks we are bequeathing to future generations from the unsolved
problems of starvation, poverty and racism-then our legacy would
indeed be a spiritually
gratifying benefit for our common humanity.
As for the second notion, the ethical principle of equity
requires a society to provide its citizens with reliable access to those basic
goods which sustain material well-being. The principle of participation requires
a society to provide institutionalized methods of consent for its citizens, who
in turn are obligated to contribute to and abide by outcomes of those methods.
To reduce the broader content of these ethical principles to a narrow
consideration
of but one potential biohazard having illdefined and misconceived risks is an
intellectual travesty. It is pretentious for anyone to arrogate to themselves
the wisdom either to decide for future generations what is in their
best interest
in securing basic goods and protection from basic harms, or to suppress-under
the guise of "neutrality" to the future"-any method of devising
conceptual tools which might enable the present generation to deal
constructively
with its uncertainties and responsibility toward the living in the
present generation.
Our primary ethical responsibility is for the living who happen to be the only
foundation we have to provide for the well-being of future generations.
Equitable Management
A proper understanding of the ethical principles of social justice and equity
should be expressed in the fundamental bioethical principle already
noted, namely,
the equitable management of hazards having a potential for adverse effects on
public health and safety.
The disputed question of adequate standards for radiation protection
in relation,
in this case, to waste disposal facilities has been compounded by a widespread
public misconception about "safety"-especially as it relates to risk
acceptability. The working assumption of policy makers and regulators has been
that safety is an intrinsic, measurable, absolute property that any
given system,
or product, or activity can and should possess. To the contrary,
however, safety
is not an intrinsic property measured by approaching zero-risk.
Safety is an evolving,
relational value-judgment derived from current personal or social priorities on
a scale of real possibility. Risks can be scientifically measured, quantified
to an extent, and predicted in probabilistic terms. Safety, however, cannot be
measured, much less pre-determined by the presence or absence of
risks. Judgments
of safety are judgments about the justifiability or unjustifiability
of harm.
I concur with my colleague in social ethics, George Pickering, in his
observation
that "we are going to have to do more than find some level of 'acceptable
risk;' we are going to have to come to terms with the question of 'justifiable
harm.' There are, after all, some kinds of harm which cannot be avoided; but there are other kinds of harm which any
society should
not allow and against which it should adopt protective or remedial measures to
the best of its ability."' Which is which becomes the problem.
The process of reasoning whereby safety policy decisions are made ought to he
dictated-not by risk avoidance, an impossible ideal-but by comprehensive risk/
risk assessments and cost/risk/benefit ratios. When these comparisons make it
clear that a point of diminishing returns on allocations of money,
time and effort
has been reached by comparison with other potential hazards in a society, then
the particular product or process or facility under scrutiny is
"safe enough."
If indeed unintended and unwanted harm should occur despite carefully wrought
safety-policy decisions, then such harm can be judged "justifiable"
because unavoidable and negligible by comparison with other greater harms and
essential benefits.
If policy makers were more circumspect about this process of reasoning, there
might also be greater clarity about a disputed "threshold concept" in
setting radiation protection standards.
Because of increasingly sophisticated measurements in radiobiology, specialists
are capable of identifying and extrapolating from even minute effects
of exposure
to radiation. But it is a qualitatively distinct cognitive leap to
make the value
judgment that a zero-threshold for so-called "safe" radiation exposure
ought to he written into regulatory standards. Certain
radiobiologists and biostatisticians
have sought scientific data that has then enabled them to make such a
value judgment.
Excessively conservative scientific judgments about putative effects
from radiation
exposure, however, cannot and ought not to be substituted for an
ethically responsible
value judgment about "safety." For the policy maker, a
practical threshold
concept cannot he evaded' There can and must be a practical threshold
below which
the possibility of comparatively insignificant unintended and
unwanted harm becomes
ethically justifiable. This justification derives from a reasoning
process which
concludes that such effects are unavoidable and negligible by comparison with
other greater radiation exposures both naturally occurring and applied by human
technology-and with other potential hazards against which citizens ought to be
protected first and foremost.
Those responsible in society for providing basic goods, methods of
informed consent,
and an equitable management of biohazards have an ethical obligation to derive
value judgments of safety, acceptable risk, and justifiable harm from
a philosophy
of congruence with a pattern of benefits and harms already
established by naturally
occurring radiation sources with which human beings have lived and
evolved throughout
recorded history. That is to say, the philosophy of congruence and
logical consistency
require a policy maker to form value judgments by first taking account of wide
variations in personal exposures and population exposure from
naturally occurring
background sources.
External sources of exposure include cosmic rays,
together with the radionuclides they produce, and, primordial radionuclides in
the earth. Variations in natural exposure to thorium in monazite
sands along the
southeastern coast of India range from 130 mrem to 2,800 mrem; while
on the coast
of Brazil, exposure ranges from 90 to 2,800 mrem with an average of 550 mrem
per year. There is no scientifically established evidence, despite
contrived attempts
to prove it, that there are basic harms to those so exposed.
Human tolerance for, indeed dependence upon, such wide variations in
natural radiation
sources for several millenia demonstrate that increments from
man-made applications
of those natural sources can be kept well within the range of those variations
without inflicting unjustifiable harm or deprivation of basic goods.
A Bioethical Principle
In view of these reflections, I suggest that the following bioethical principle
might better serve as guidance in the formulation of social policies
for protecting
the health and safety of present and future generations, and for choosing among
current options for waste disposal facilities:
Any involuntary risks imposed by social policies for radiation protection must
be congruent with, must not be in excess of, and may be reasonably less than,
those involuntary risks imposed by the wide variations in naturally occurring
toxic elements and harmful effects from our natural environment.
For more than a decade we have been bombarded with "the carcinogen of the
week." Because of the media exploitation of the major obstacle to nuclear
electricity, waste disposal, we now seem to be entering a protracted period in
which we can expect to be bombarded with the "low-level radiation source
of the week." We seem bent on becoming a nation of
hypochondriacs. We would
therefore do well to ponder Max Singer's remarks:
Safety is one of the reasons it is better to be wealthy than poor.
But as we get
wealthier and safer, we become more concerned about safety ... Like most social
problems, the death toll from hazards requires a complex, balanced, and limited
response. We cannot give ourselves up to eliminating or even reducing hazards.
As individuals and as a society we most not become cowardly, fearful
or hypochondriacal.
The weakening of our character can do us more harm than all the auto accidents
and all the fire.9
REFERENCES
1Alvin Weinberg, "Social Institutions and Nuclear Energy," Science,
177 (6/7/72)
2 P. L. Berger, "Ethics and the Present Class Struggle,"
Worldview (4/20/
78) 6'lt. L. King, "Nuclear Power in Crisis: The New Class Assault,"
Energy Daily, 6/135 (7/14/78); and C. W. Pickering, "Science and Society
in the 70's: The Making of a New Agenda, or If it's Not the
Technology, What the
Hell Is It?" Proceedings of the Sixth Life Sciences Symposium, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, 9/1978 (in press)
3
I. C. Bupp and J. C. Deriao, Light Water: How the Nuclear Dream Dissolved (New
York: Basic Books, 1978). A. B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward A
Durable Peace
(Cambridge, Mass: Ballioger, 1977)
4B. L. Cohen, "The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Fission
Reactors,"
Scientific American, 236 (June 1977) C. de Marsily et al., "Nuclear Waste
Disposal: Can the Geologist Guarantee Isolations?" Science, 197
(August 1977(
Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Fuel Cycles and
Waste Management, Review of Modern Physics, 50, Part II, (Jan. 1978) Handling
of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Final Storage of Vitrified High Level
Reprocessing Waste,
KBS Report, Kam-Bransle-Sakerhet, Stockholm, Sweden, (December, 1977)
5J. J. Cohen, "Statement to the Interagency Review Croup on Nuclear Waste
Management," San Francisco Public Hearings, (7/21/78)
6D. Rotow, and '1'. Cochrao, "Radioactive Waste Management
Criteria,"
Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Contract ER-78-C-0 1-6596,
5 January 1979. 0. Rotow, T. Cochran, A. Tamplio, "NRDC
Comoments on Criteria
for Radioactive Waste Proposed by the Environmental Protective
Agency," Federal
Register. Vol. 43, #221, (15 Nov. 1978) Issued 5 January 1979
7Ceorgius Agrieola, Dc Re Metallica, 1556, Trans by Herbert and Lou
Hoover. Reprinted
by Dover Publications, New York, 1950.
8C. W. Pickering, "Energy and Well-being: Whose?"
Proceedings of Energy:
The Ethical Issues, Springfield, Ohio. Ohio Institute for Appropriate
Technology
(12/9/78)