HE setting up of the Malaysian Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) in 2011 brings the government aspiration to introduce nuclear power in its energy mix closer to reality. As a side effect, the issue of public acceptance of nuclear power gets into the forefront. This issue needs to be handled tactfully as a half-baked acceptance may derail the programme altogether and for a long time.
Nuclear as a word or technology was largely unknown until the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in August 1945 — the events of seven decades ago this August. The mantra “first impression lasts the longest” has reigned ever since.
Nuclear opposition put environmental concerns as the battle cry against nuclear energy. Ironically, it is concern for the environment, too, that motivates the return of nuclear energy today.
Just at what level should public acceptance be before nuclear power plants can be started is a hard question to answer. It depends on many variables: the type of government, the society, the political scenario, etc. Public acceptance can turn the decision on nuclear power to be as much a political one as it is an energy supply consideration. The former may override the latter as political office may depend on it.
France has 80 per cent nuclear power in her energy mix and yet public acceptance hovers at around 60 per cent only. Public acceptance takes a beating every time there is a nuclear accident, unlike other industries such as aviation and shipping. Nuclear energy is living up to the maxim “an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere”.
The first commercial nuclear reactor was put online six decades ago. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report cites that today there are over 400 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries contributing about 11 per cent to global electricity production.
That record fails to change public perception. It appears that nuclear power countries have not done enough in that department. In addition there are also 56 nuclear research reactors operating in 30 countries and five used for powering nuclear ships and submarines.
Awareness and information campaigns fail to change the adverse image of nuclear energy. The campaigners are not able to deliver the message without using technical terms that are incomprehensible to the audience.
In the meantime, the public is also presented with different information by the nuclear opposition group. And this group is generally accepted to be more credible. Opposition to the Lynas rare earth processing plant in Kuantan is a case in point. Even the geographical meaning of backyard in the “not in my backyard” syndrome was extended by the group far beyond Kuantan.
Public fora and information sessions work, but only in a limited sense. The views of the authority or experts are usually suspected to be biased. Their closeness and knowledge on the issue work against them, as they are viewed to harbour self-serving interests, hence should not be believed. But then, if they are not that close how can they be experts? The view of “experts” of the opposing end are well-regarded even if they are not exactly the experts as they are seen as free of self-interest. The trust gap between the nuclear experts and the opposition experts seems to be in inverse proportion to their expertise level!
Training technocrats on public technical communication and enhancing public technological literacy could improve the message delivery and absorption process. Inculcating critical thinking in society at large could be a lasting and self-sustaining solution. This long-term effort will have a long lasting effect.
The tendency to filter information and classify them as credible and suspect is not so prevalent in society. Every so often information is taken at face value without due regard to authenticity and correctness. We see this happen in other sectors of life and we cannot preclude the same in technological area.
The educational sector is the best platform to inculcate this mode of thinking. Most of our students too are not critical thinkers. Many are more comfortable to accept the “truth” without questioning its source or the logic of the propositions. If critical thinking can be inculcated, then the public would be more adept at exercising judgment objectively; not only in nuclear technology, but also in other areas of life that affect us all.
The writer, the former deputy director- general for research and technology development at the Malaysian Nuclear Agency, is now an associate professor at the Mechatronics Engineering
Department of the International Islamic University