The greening of nuclear power

February 21, 2005

Could nuclear power, the long-time scourge of the green movement, save the world from global warming? Until recently, the question would have seemed unthinkable. The terrible human cost of nuclear error is not merely textbook theory. The Chernobyl nuclear power station disaster unfolded in 1986 in graphic, chilling detail. But, as global greenhouse gas emissions soar, and scientific consensus firms around the perils of inaction, the pall over nuclear power is lifting. Nuclear energy is virtually emission free. Some influential environmentalists already have realigned themselves with the global nuclear industry in arguing that it is the only viable means of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, heading off catastrophic climate change.

Nuclear power is not on the agenda for Australia. Nor is Australia a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force last week. The protocol commits most industrial nations to the world's first legally binding emissions reductions. Australia is, however, the world's richest source of high-grade uranium and an important yellowcake exporter. It is also a major fossil fuel-dependant polluter. Australia cannot simply eschew a rigorous new nuclear debate.

Over the past year, world uranium prices have doubled, anticipating sharp growth in the nuclear power sector pushed by soaring energy demands in China and India and the new Kyoto emissions targets. This raises two immediate questions of great public interest. Is Australia willing to sell uranium to China and other potential new customers, such as Indonesia? To do so, the Federal Government must be satisfied with safety standards and certain the uranium is for peaceful purposes. And is Australia willing to boost uranium production to cash in on the boom? That would mean going beyond the existing three mines and considering expanding uranium mining within Kakadu National Park.

Nuclear power should not be mistaken for a silver bullet. Uranium, like fossil fuels, is a finite resource. At best, it is a short-term solution; or, as environmentalists prefer, a nuclear bridge to promising new technologies such as hydrogen. Nuclear power continues to pose serious potential dangers. Nuclear reactors produce the components for nuclear weapons and there is no fail-safe means of disposing of nuclear waste, despite industry assurances. Misplaced faith in nuclear power could also divert attention from the development of renewable energy sources.

However, global warming is real. It is counterproductive to continue to spat over whether it is a natural phenomenon or the consequence of industrialisation and deforestation. It is far too risky to do nothing, just in case the enviro-sceptics are right. And air pollution creates other well-documented risks worth tackling urgently, especially to respiratory health. Billions of people in Asia alone live under a smog cloud kilometres high. Australia's energy policy, and its position outside the Kyoto Protocol, contains few long-term reassurances. Australia remains committed to a coal-fired future, and is counting on new, unproven technology to pump carbon emissions deep underground. Yet there is no single solution; just a complicated array of possibilities. Australia must broaden its climate-change debate to recognise these opportunities. That includes taking a very long, hard and careful look at nuclear power.

Keeping pace with young doctors

A Harvard Medical School review examined dozens of studies over the past 40 years to conclude, as a general rule, that the older the doctor, the less knowledgeable and skilled he or she is with the latest medical techniques. The most surprising aspect of this research, however, is that its findings would be considered surprising. Of course, this does not diminish its importance. When evidence points so clearly to a "wake-up call to the medical profession", the rest of us need to take careful note too. We need reminders that medicine, like all professions, is fallible and that the sheer volume of innovation and re-examination is beyond the capacity of any individual to keep pace. Rather than being cause for mass alarm, however, emphasising the knowledge drift is a clarion call for perpetual review of the efforts of Australia's ageing medical workforce to upgrade its skills.

Consider some of the Harvard findings. Half of the 62 evaluations since 1966 reported an inverse relationship between performance and experience for all outcomes. A fifth found the same in relation to some outcomes, but no association for others; two reported performance initially increased with experience, then decreased; a fifth reported no association between performance and experience, and three reported that performance improved with experience.

By any measure, the research team is unambiguous. The strong suggestion is that "physicians who have been in practice for more years and older physicians possess less factual knowledge, are less likely to adhere to appropriate standards of care and may also have poorer patient outcomes". But why should that surprise? Scientists are like fighter pilots and boxers in that they peak early in life. The main ideas in Einstein's more important theories date from his 20s, and nearly all of Newton's mathematical research was done by the age of 44.

Youth enhances the human capability to absorb and comprehend complex ideas; inflexibility grows with age. The older the practitioners, the more closed are their minds to ideas that challenge their predisposition. That's a reality of all human pursuits. The consequences of falling behind in medicine, however, can be dire.