Nuclear power - why we should listen to real experts

First appeared in the Evening Star, Ipswich, January 18, 2008

JOURNALISTS and politicians have much in common.

On the whole we try not to tell lies, and mostly we believe – or try to believe – what we say or do. But we're not experts, not in most things. Nobody can be an expert in most things.

Journalists are supposed to be good at finding things out, and some write well.

Politicians are paid to be good at taking important decisions – or, more precisely, at persuading people their decisions are good. Even decisions on matters they know little or nothing about.

A journalist who reports a murder one day, the financial affairs of a football club the next, and then on a global warming conference, is unlikely to be expert in all those areas.

He might know a bit about them, but mostly he'll try to find and quote the people who do know.

A politician might move rapidly from a junior post in transport to a higher one in education, then via the Foreign Office and the Treasury to become home secretary.

It doesn't mean she's an expert in transport, education, foreign affairs, the economy or the law. It mean she's an expert politician.

Gordon Brown is a rare one. For a decade as chancellor he ran the economy – something he apparently is actually expert at.

As prime minister he is ultimately responsible for a lot of decisions about all sorts of things. He can't possibly know much about all of them.

So like any politician, or any journalist, he must rely on the opinions of those who do know – or appear to know – what they are talking about.

Enter Andrew Brown, brother of Gordon. He is UK head of media relations for EDF Energy, one of the companies at the forefront of the coming new age of nuclear power in Britain.

He will have been delighted at last week's government approval for that new age to begin.

I'm not suggesting anything improper here. If you're a journalist or politician seeking expert advice, what could be more natural than seeking it first in your own family?

I'm no expert on nuclear physics, but it so happens someone very close to me is.

In 1967 my brother Clive was one of just two students chosen by the UK Atomic Energy Authority for a scholarship to study at what was then the only university nuclear engineering department in the country.

During his three years at Queen Mary College , London , he spent a total of six months at various atomic research sites. And he came gradually to the conclusion that nuclear wasn't – or shouldn't be - the future.

He is dismayed at the government's green light for nuclear development at Sizewell, Bradwell and elsewhere.

Clive explains: “ As a well-informed opponent of nuclear power, I've kept myself informed.

“The Chernobyl accident in 1986 brought some of the dangers of nuclear power home to a wider public, but many of us were aware of dangers long before that.

“ Chernobyl was a reactor accident. Reactors are dangerous, but in the long run the worst parts of the industry are reprocessing and waste disposal.

“We already have so much nuclear waste that we are putting the health and welfare of future generations at risk. If we increase the contribution nuclear power makes to our energy supply from its present six per cent to something that really makes a difference to global warming, then the rate at which this risk increases goes up by a large factor.

“It's not just an ever-increasing risk, but a risk that increases faster and faster the more nuclear power stations we build.

“With very careful engineering and a reliable supply of dedicated, careful staff to run them, reactors could probably be made pretty safe.

“Even if we had careful, dedicated staff today, could we be sure we'd have them for the life of the reactor - and throughout its long after-life? For every one of an increased number of reactors?

“And pretty safe isn't really good enough anyway when we're talking about thousands of the things.

“Reprocessing plants are technically far, far more difficult to keep safe, and waste depositories have to last for thousands of years.

“Whole civilizations rise and fall on timescales like that. Ice ages come and go.

“And we think we can design something to be reliable on such timescales? It would be a good joke if it wasn't so serious.”

Scary? Yes. The considered opinion of a real expert? Yes – because of his training and experience, not because he's my brother.

I doubt if any journalist, politician or media relations expert knows as much about real nuclear physics as Clive does.

I just wish the government would listen to my brother, not Gordon's.