Dialogue: Nuclear ship protest just cynical political posture

A little flotilla of anti-nuclear protest ships has set off to intercept what is said to be a dangerous cargo passing through the Tasman Sea on its way to Japan.

In the eyes of some, perhaps many, they are engaged in an important and heroic mission. Certainly they seem to go with the blessing and approval of the Government.

This is an extraordinary situation, bearing in mind that the safety of the shipments has been certified by international regulatory authorities - the International Materials Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency - and that, in hundreds of voyages and millions of kilometres of such cargoes, there has never been an accident that resulted in nuclear material being released. The feared accident has had no exemplification.

There have also been a number of studies of possible, if unlikely, scenarios and these have all shown that even in the event of collision or fire, the nature of the material and its packaging is such that the environmental impact would be scarcely perceptible.

The protest action is rendered all the more extraordinary when you consider illustrations of the range of possible hazards. The sea transportation of oil and oil products is an obvious example.

Tankers carrying such material pass not hundreds of kilometres away but through our inshore waters and to our ports, and we know with some precision what happens when they come to grief.

For at least some of those involved in the action, much of this is irrelevant. They are against all things nuclear, and particularly they are against nuclear power. The shipment is to be opposed because it supports the Japanese (in this case) nuclear power industry.

But this doesn't make much sense, either. The Japanese nuclear power industry represents 60 million tonnes of oil a year that isn't burned. In the context of a growing global concern about climate change because of the burning of fossil fuels, surely we really wouldn't want Japan to close down its nuclear power industry.

Nuclear power has a lower impact on global warming than even solar or wind energy and it is economically competitive, which the so-called renewables are not.

And why, anyway, would we wish to shut down what has proved to be the safest and most reliable method of generating energy, bar none?

Consider the deaths in industrial accidents of the major energy technologies between 1970 and 1992 - a period that includes Chernobyl. For oil, there were 10,273 deaths in 295 accidents; for coal, 6418 in 133; for hydro-electric power 4015 in 13; for propane (LPG) 2292 in seven; for natural gas 1200 in 88; and for nuclear power 31 deaths in one accident - Chernobyl.

Those wishing to dismiss this data on the grounds that it fails to take into account the long-term health implications of a reactor accident of the kind that happened at Chernobyl should note the words of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation report last June: "There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers."

Much of this information has been available for some time. So why do we persist in what is clearly a disproportionate, if not an irrational, response?

The answer lies in a cynical calculation of political advantage on the part of most, if not all, of the leaders of our political parties.

Generations of them have created an anti-nuclear monster and now they have lost control of it. There is scientifically based advice available on many of these issues but it is ignored for fear of a backlash from a nation of seeming nuclear phobics.

Thus the scientific director of our radiological laboratory can tell us that there is higher radioactivity in downtown Auckland than Muroroa but we still send our ships to Muroroa.

Again, he can advise us that there is no evidence of any harmful effect from depleted uranium munitions on soldiers or local populations and cite theoretical studies from reputable institutions which explain why this is the case. This does not stop us from protesting and engaging in urgent studies.

Nowhere is the situation more absurd than in the matter of the use of nuclear materials in medicine.

Our political leaders know that the health of many New Zealanders depends on nuclear isotopes for tracer studies or cancer treatments. They know that these isotopes are made in nuclear reactors and that insofar as we can claim to be nuclear-free, despite the presence here of these isotopes, it is only because somebody else does the business for us. Despite this, the Government has the gall to complain (as we did recently to Australia) when those who make our essential medical isotopes send their spent fuel for reprocessing.

If the argument is that they should do this at home, doesn't the same argument apply to us? Shouldn't we have our own nuclear reactor to make our own medical materials (and, of course, all the ancillary industries that would be required)?

Of course, this would be absurd. It is a specialist business, best concentrated in the hands of specialist providers and this applies to those who reprocess as well.

We need to make some effort to understand these things and this must begin at the top. Otherwise, we shall continue to prejudice our interests and generally make fools of ourselves.

* Dr Ron Smith is director of defence and strategic studies at Waikato University.