Abstract
This article looks at the ethical quandaries, and their social and political context, which emerge as a result of international nuclear waste substitution. In particular it addresses the dilemmas inherent within the proposed return of nuclear waste owned by Japanese nuclear companies and currently stored in the United Kingdom. The UK company responsible for this waste, British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), wish to substitute this high volume intermediate-level Japanese-owned radioactive waste for a much lower volume of much more highly radioactive waste. Special focus is given to ethical problems that they, and the UK government, have not wished to address as they move forward with waste substitution. The conclusion is that waste substitution can only be considered an ethical practice if a set of moderating conditions are observed by all parties. These conditions are listed and, as of yet, they are not being observed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BNFL execs bid to drum up trust and new deals (Sept. 2000) Japan Times Online: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/.
Barnaby, F. (2003). FMCT handbook – a guide to a fissile material cut-off treaty. Oxford Research Group.
Becker, S. (Ed.) (2004). Mad cow disease: Are we safe? USA: Nova Science Publishers.
Byrnes, M. E. et al. (2003). Nuclear, chemical and biological terrorism: emergency response and public protection. USA: Lewis Publishers.
Dept. of Trade & Industry (DTI). (2004). Consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste.
Dierkes, M., & van Grote, C. (2000). Understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. UK: Routledge.
Dolley, S. (2003) Enormous ‘Plutonium Gap’ at Japan’s Tokai plant highlights proliferation risks of reprocessing. Washington, DC: Nuclear Control Institute.
Eurobarometer. (2002). Europeans and radioactive waste. Eurobarometer 56.2. Brussels: The European Commission.
Frankel, M., & Ecclestone, A. (1993). The environmental information regulations and THORP, The Campaign for Freedom of Information.
Glasser, S. B. (2001). Russia passes nuclear waste Plan. Washington Post, Wednesday, June 6, 2001.
Green, J. (1999a). “Survey reveals strong anti-nuclear sentiment”, Nuclear and Environmental Research website. http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/opposition.html.
Green, J. (1999b). Pacific islanders Protest Plutonium Shipments. Green Left Weekly, August 11th, 1999.
Green, J. (2002). Proliferation, profits and plutonium ships. Green Left Weekly, Issue 502, July 31st 2002.
Greenpeace. (2001). Nuclear reprocessing, plutonium and nuclear weapons, greenpeace media briefing, November 2001.
Greenpeace. (2003). Greenpeace calls for closure of THORP nuclear plant to be brought forward,Tue 26 August 2003, Greenpeace Press Release London, UNITED KINGDOM.
Hall, T. (1986) Nuclear politics: The history of nuclear power in Britain. UK: Pelican, Harmondsworth.
LKO Local Competence Strengthening in Oskarshamn, Project Nuclear Waste Site Investigation Stage – Municipal Council Decision, 2002.
McCombie, C., & Stoll, R. (2000). The Pangea proposal for international or regional disposal facilities. Proceedings of the Nuclear Co-operation Meeting on Spent Fuel and High Level Waste, Las Vegas, NV, 7–9 March, 2000.
Merrell, C. (2003). Sellafield reprocessing plant to close by 2010, The Scientific Alliance, Latest News, Times Online.
Monbiot, G. (2002). Dangerous waters. The Guardian, June 11th, 2002.
Morgan, O. (2000). BNFL’s nuclear fallout. Observer, Sunday April 23, 2000.
Morgan, O. (2003). Plutonium proves an explosive problem. The Observer, Sunday March 30th, 2003.
Mullins, J. (2004). Tokyo’s nuclear crisis. New Scientist, 28 August 2004, issue 2462.
Munto, D. (1996). Hazardous waste and the democratic choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). (2002). Forum for Stakeholder Confidence: 2nd FSC Workshop—Executive Summary and International Perspective, Stakeholder Involvement and Confidence in the Process of Decision-Making for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 15–16 November, 2001, Turku, Finland.
Rodger, N. (2002). Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Awareness and attitudes of the Scottish Public, SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CENTRAL RESEARCH UNIT, Environment Group Research Findings No.21.
Rossin, A. David (2004). U.S. policy on spent fuel reprocessing: the issues. Frontline: Nuclear reaction: Policy on Reprocessing. Available on PBS website: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline .
See (2005) for instance the public consultation web pages of CORwM (http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-260), Nirex (http://www.nirex.co.uk/index/iinvolv.htm) and Defra (http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/default.asp).
The Scientific Alliance (2003). Come clean on your nuclear policy. Financial Times, 28th August 2003.
WISE NC (2000). Russia: 2.6 Million Sign Petition Against Import of Nuclear Waste, WISE, News Communique on November 10th, 2000.
Walker, W. (1999). Nuclear entrapment: THORP and the politics of commitment, IPPR, London, p. 131.
Weale, A. (Ed.) (2003). Risk, democratic citizenship and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.