Bernard Dixon
Future problem
Science
There is a continually depressing contrast between book reviews in a publication such as The Spectator and those carried by most scientific periodicals. Any reviewer, of course, is in danger of flaunting his erudition or pedantry, rather than making genuine critical contributions. But compared with the reviewer of novels, biography, historical or political tomes (or even the memoirs of famous men), reviewers of scientific books usually succeed in being plain boring. Here we see the worst excesses of pedantry, the most tiresome in-fighting disguised as academically cogrect prose, and the most irrelevant displays of recondite knowledge. Above all, book reviews in scientific journals rarely provide the sort of 'good read' found ,regularly in those published in newspapers and the weeklies.
One of the consequences of this state of affairs is that some splendid writing and pertinent social comment is lost amidst the tedium of the scientific review columns.
Last week, for example, the journal Nature (vol. 240, p. 168) carried, tucked away among accounts of books on lymphoid cells and Siphonaptera (fleas), some extremely important remarks by Dr Alvin Weinberg, head of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, who was reviewing a new book on the Economic and Social Consequences of Nuclear Energy (edited by Lord Sherfield and published by Oxford University Press). While praising much in the book, Weinberg also drew attention to a point that had been surprisingly neglected but which is crucial for the many Western societies which are planning to derive their energy to an increasing extent in the future from nuclear reactors. The potential hazards of nuclear power generation have been much discussed recently, and are amply covered in this book — but even here one major consideration is totally ignored.
The problem is this. Until now, the disposal of radioactive effluent from nuclear power stations has posed a problem, but a manageable one. In the years ahead, the difficulties will be multiplied many-fold and transformed in kind. The types of reactor now being developed, which will be the basis of future nuclear power generation, not only consume fuel and generate energy; they also create highly dangerous radioactive waste materials which cannot be rendered safe by any known means. These poisonous products decay, to be sure, but unimaginably slowly. Meanwhile — for centuries in some cases — the only possible way of dealing with them is to store them away where we hope they can do no harm. Salt mines and specially constructed vaults have been suggested for this purpose.
The reliability of such stratagems is hotly debated, particularly between nuclear energy authorities and environ mental activists. Certainly, it is disturbing that America at least is going ahead with the construction of reactors which will soon be churning out hazardous radioeffluent for which there is as yet no satisfactory, foolproof method of disposal.
Doubtless, however, these technical problems will be surmounted,. Weinberg certainly believes so. His disquiet is much more fundamental. He is concerned that, having started along this road, we have imposed on society a massive social commitment for the indefinite future, " an assurance that from now to perpetuity our social institutions retain sufficient stability to guarantee the continued existence of a cadre that will take care of the wastes. This is one of the heaviest social consequences of nuclear technology."
This is, indeed, the first time in history that Man has made this type of commitment on behalf of generations yet unborn. Within a few years, we shall be locking away vast quantities of some of the most poisonous substances ever known. For as far as we can see into the future, men will have to monitor the safety of these deadly stockpiles and secure them against leakage. It is a unique and enormous commitment, of which most people today are not even dimly aware.
Previous page
