Over the past year, I have discovered that whenever the word “bitcoin” features in a column I write, it sparks attacks on social media. Cryptocurrency is a deeply divisive issue so it has not come as a great surprise that so many — on both sides of the argument — feel compelled to lash out.
Last week, I discovered another topic that sparks almost as much ire: nuclear power. During the COP26 summit, I conducted an onstage interview with Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It was a wide-ranging exchange. Grossi argued that if we want to cut carbon emissions we should (re)embrace nuclear — and pointed out that Glasgow, the city hosting the COP summit, gets three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power.
Similar arguments are often advanced by the nuclear lobby. But what sparked controversy was when I asked Grossi if the public could ever view nuclear power as “safe” after incidents such as the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan, when a tsunami overwhelmed a nuclear plant, causing a meltdown and radiation leaks.
Grossi was having none of it. “None died from radiation [at Fukushima],” he told the crowd, arguing that the events demonstrated how safe nuclear could be, not how dangerous. At this point, part of the audience guffawed to signal their disbelief.
On stage, my mind filled with memories of the alarming stories that I had read at the time of the disaster. “The facts are the facts,” Grossi insisted. He said that the thousands of deaths that occurred were due to the tsunami and the stress of evacuation.
Cue more scepticism from the audience but, as the conversation moved on, I assumed that would be that. Not so. After the event, I saw that pro-nuclear factions on social media were swift to condemn my “shameful” and “ignorant” behaviour.
Afterwards, I read a UN study published this year on the 10th anniversary of the disaster, which, in line with Grossi’s arguments, reported “no adverse health effects” on the local population from radiation sickness and projected none in the future. That does not mean that the debate is entirely resolved. In 2018, the Japanese government announced that one worker had died from radiation, and paid compensation for this.
To cite a core lesson in anthropology, it pays to occasionally soak yourself in someone else’s point of view
Anti-nuclear activists continue to make their voices heard, saying the UN study is a cover‑up. At COP26, they handed out chirpy yellow leaflets that insisted “nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima endanger whole countries and regions” and “nuclear power generates 4-5,000kg of radioactive waste for every kg of nuclear fuel, poisoning land, air and drinking water” making the fuel “too dirty, dangerous, expensive [and] slow” to fight climate change. In real life and online, emotions on the subject run high.
For me, the incident acted as a (somewhat uncomfortable) reminder of the need for all of us, journalists most certainly included, to periodically question our own assumptions. Because of the terrifying press coverage at the time, the word “Fukushima” had become so deeply associated in my mind with “radiation” that I had failed to probe how the death toll got so high.
In addition, we need to engage — not shun — a plurality of voices. That does not mean I endorse social media vitriol. But, to cite a core lesson in anthropology, it pays to occasionally soak yourself in someone else’s point of view, however much you might instinctively recoil. The amazing thing about cyberspace is that we have the opportunity to do this, if we so choose.
With my preconceptions about the radiation impact in Fukushima shifting, I am now doubly convinced it is time to have a wider debate about nuclear power, a subject Jonathan Ford also wrote thoughtfully about for this magazine in September.
I don’t want to downplay the safety risks; irrespective of radiation threats and what did (or did not) happen in Japan, there are big issues around how to handle nuclear waste, and the cost of plants.
But there are also massive costs and dangers from fossil fuels, and while I would love to live in a world powered by renewable energy, this does not seem viable anytime soon, given that renewable is not always reliable. We either need to hope for a miracle around battery storage or hedge our bets with back-up sources, such as nuclear.
It seems that other voices are coming around to this view. During the COP26 meeting, a host of EU leaders threw their weight behind nuclear, because it helps keep energy costs down for ordinary households. This is something that will be crucial if we are ever going to build broad-based support for an eventual phasing out of fossil fuels.
I daresay that pointing this out will infuriate the anti-nuclear lobby and provoke more social media attacks. But if we are to find solutions, we need to embrace the idea of trade-offs and challenge our prejudices. Going nuclear on social media is not really a solution at all.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2021
