John Bausor

Abstract: In their contribution to the ‘nuclear debate’ in the September issue of Physics Education (1981 16 274-81), H I Ellington and E Addinall seem to prefer the arguments that are now familiar to readers of the glossy publications of the CEGB and the nuclear industry. The main thrust of these is that energy consumption must increase to fuel our growthorientated society and that this energy must be mainly nuclear-produced electricity. Views which challenge these assumptions are represented in the bibliography to heir a ticle, but the authors’ discussion of the opposition views is limited. They thus dodge the central issue: if we can continue to expand our centralised high technology society whose built-in wastefulness demands such prodigious energy inputs, then who does this really benefit? The nuclear debate is more about political than technical choices. G Kneale (1981 16 284-6) discusses the apparently technical question of health hazards and concludes ‘Clearly at this stage we must leave the final decision to responsible politicians’. Unfortunately experience suggests that political responsibility is biased by external pressures. A prime example is the lead in petrol issue. Recently British politicians have been seen congratulating themselves for finally complying with EEC regulations and reducing the lead in petrol to 0.15 g l ” by 1985. This pathetic half-measure, in the face of well attested evidence of brain damage to children from airborne lead, avoids inconvenience to the UK motor and oil industries and has been bolstered by ‘the demonstrably false yet largely unchallenged claims by ministers that most cars on the road would not run on lead-free petrol’ (The Guardian 1 October 1981). The history of the use of nuclear energy in the UK suggests that similar pressure from industrial lobbies operates. I hope that participants in the ‘nuclear debate’ will explore this. Perhaps, as the reference quoted on p282 suggests, ‘nuclear power represents an unfortunate technological cul-de-sac’, which may prove to be as irrelevant to real human needs as the pyramids and the vast concrete bunkers proposed for the MX missiles. R WHowes Camberiey, Surrey