“Atoms for Peace”?
Nuclear Energy and Peace
By: Mohamad Zakaria
Bachelor thesis (C-essay)
Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS)
Faculty of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER)
Malmö Högskola
Supervisor: Dr Ane Kirkegaard
Acronyms used in this C-essay
1. Ignalina NPP : Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant;
2. RBMK: Channelized Large Power Reactor, (Russian acronym); 3. EU: European Union;
4. IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency;
5. WENRA: Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association; 6. STUK: Finland Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority; 7. ICRP: International Commission on Radiological Protection; 8. BSR: Baltic Sea Region;
9. NPP: Nuclear Power Plant;
10. VVER: Water-cooled, water-moderated reactor (Russian acronym); 11. SSI: The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority;
12. SIS: The Danish Radiation Protection Authority; 13. PWR: Pressurized Water Reactors;
14. SKI: The Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate; 15. NPT: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; 16. MOX: Mixed-oxide Uranium fuel;
17. Minatom: Russian Ministry of Atomic Power;
18. EURATOM: The European Atomic Energy Community; 19. TENs: Trans-European Energy Network;
20. ECT: European Energy Charter Treaty; 21. CBSS: Council of the Baltic Sea States;
22. WGNRS: Nuclear and Radiation Safety Working Group within CBSS; 23. NKS: Nordic Nuclear Safety Research;
Abstract
In this thesis, nuclear power plants and their role in sustaining peace or threatening it are described and, to some extent, analysed. Nuclear energy contributes to the economic development of the country it is built in by providing electricity with inexpensive prices than that of other kinds of energy. However, the construction costs of nuclear power plants are very expensive and it is a potential threat for human health and the environment. Different arguments on how nuclear power plants might contribute to peace or threaten it are analysed. The analysis is done through Johan Galtung’s articles “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” and “Cultural Violence”, as well as by recalling the different known nuclear accidents and mainly the one in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Cooperation of different stakeholders at national, regional, and international level is among the important tools to minimise the possibility of nuclear threat to peace. Nuclear waste and the uncertainties in best practices for the safe management is most probably the most severe problem that future generations will have to face.
Acknowledgements
The first person who deserves to be acknowledged is my supervisor, Dr Ane Kirkegaard. Without her encouragement, advices, and patience in reading my thesis drafts and commenting on them, this thesis would have never been done the way it is. Dr Kirkegaard is very demanding from the thesis candidate, but this is always for the good for her student she is supervising. Thanks a lot, Ane, for all the time and energy you spent supervising my bachelor thesis!!!
My thanks to Dr Peter Hervik who was always on the student side and did his best to make the “Peace and Conflict Studies” accredited and who managed to convince the administration of Malmö Högskola to accept international students at this programme and to allow them study in English.
Many thanks to LL.M. Jelena Madzarevic for her support during the writing of this thesis. My thanks also go to Ph.D. candidate Barry Ness who went through the text of my thesis and edited my English and gave advices on some parts of the draft. I am thankful to my friends and corridor mates who supported me morally during the difficult times while I was writing this thesis.
The biggest thanks go to my parents, sisters and brother for their love, support, and for being the way they are.
Chapter 1
1.1. Introduction
The 1973-1974 Arab oil embargoes forced a serious reassessment of national energy policies. Some of the developed nations started searching for alternatives to imported oil. Their key goal was to arrive at a mix that was economically feasible, socially and environmentally acceptable and that reduced dependency on imported oil. However, all energy production has an impact on the environment. One obvious example of this type of impact from nuclear power plants is the release of radioactive substances. The energy use in the long-term perspective should be sustainable and not degrade the environment. However, the “sustainability” of energy use is an elusive and ambiguous concept, involving environmental, economic, and social dimensions. There are some questions that are still not answered clearly regarding the nuclear energy. One of these questions is whether the nuclear power is an economically and environmentally sustainable energy source or not. Another question concerns the threat to peace and security in the region it is built in. Some of the essential components of any answer to these questions must involve: the input of nuclear fuel, potential environmental effects from the whole fuel cycle (including plant operation and decommissioning), overall power production economics, security measures taken to ensure the safety of the nuclear power plants (NPP), how to manage with the nuclear waste, and that the nuclear waste is not used for nuclear weapons or used to threaten peace (World Nuclear Association Report, 2000).
Nuclear power is characterised by very high initial costs, complex nuclear waste management procedures, as well as high plant decommissioning costs. But once built, nuclear power production is characterised by low running costs, which is a strong economic incentive for power companies and electricity-intensive industries to keep the reactors running as long as possible. The industry argues that the economic useful life of reactors, i.e. the time from commissioning up to the time when the costs of repairs and replacements become too high, is much longer than 25 years (World Nuclear Association Report, 2000).
Nuclear power is a major energy source today, generating approximately 15 percent of the world’s electricity (OECD report, 2002). However, the use of nuclear power is not evenly distributed across the globe. Over 80 percent of all operating generating capacity (and three quarters of the reactors) is found within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (OECD, 2002). Very few developing countries are either operating or constructing nuclear power plants. Iran, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan are among these few. The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) has over 40 nuclear reactors contributing to stable energy production, but it also poses potential threats to human, environmental and political security in the region.
A number of different factors have been linked to pro and con position with respect to nuclear power. Pro-nuclear advocates stress benefits to human welfare through improving the standards of living, promoting economic growth, and solving the energy crisis. These factors are coupled with strong faith in science and technology. Opponents, on the other hand, stress harm to future generations, stress to civil liberties and democratic processes and the threat of nuclear proliferation, while expressing doubt about the ability of science and technology to solve major problems. The major reasons for opposing nuclear power include safety and health concern, waste disposal problem, the lack of perceived need for additional energy, pollution and economic disadvantages. The main reasons given for supporting nuclear power centred on economic arguments such as providing cheap electricity, more jobs, and economic growth. The belief that nuclear power is less polluting than other energy sources and provides additional energy are also considered.
If a country wants to sustain its economic development and be able to compete with the other economic powers in the world, it has to have a stable source of energy to supply the demand of its industry. Many of the countries around the world import oil for their energy supply especially during cold winters. There are many sources for energy supply and the trend is to promote the renewable energy because of environmental concern and to be able to meet the requirements of the Kyoto protocol. However, the renewable energy is still an expensive kind of energy especially for economically poor countries as well as for low-income people. However, the public opinion in many countries is not much in favour of nuclear power because of the potential accidents. Concerns regarding security issues related to nuclear powers plants, the concern about the nuclear waste management make it even scarier for societies to accept building new nuclear power plants.
The aim of this thesis is to describe and an attempt to analyse how nuclear energy promotes sustainable peace but at the same time might be a threat to peace. Moreover, it aims at describing and analysing the BSR cooperation in the field of nuclear installations safety at regional, national and international levels and how this may contribute to international peace and the prevention of conflicts.
The main question that this thesis attempts to answer is: What impacts does nuclear energy have on international peace and human security?
1.2. Outline of the essay
The first chapter consists of introduction, methodology and limitations. The information justifying the necessity to do this research is mentioned in the introduction. In the methodology part, the method I used to write this essay is clarified and limitations specified. In the second chapter, the theories through which the topic is analysed are mentioned.
In the third chapter, the reasons for why nuclear power plants might contribute to violence and threatens sustainable peace are discussed. The case study of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident is used to show how nuclear energy production might contribute to violence and threatens peace.
In the fourth chapter, the ways of how nuclear energy in allegedly promoting national and regional sustainable economic growth and arguably, through this, peace are analysed. The positive role of the nuclear energy in the Baltic Sea Region is given as example.
In the conclusion, the main points and arguments in the essay are summarised and my opinion about the findings are commented.
1.3. Methodology
This essay is based on a survey of articles and papers written in the field of nuclear technology and nuclear energy. The research regarding the impacts nuclear power has been divided between those who are in favour of nuclear energy and those who oppose it. Few research articles were written up to a certain level in a balanced way that provides objective and none biased opinions in the field. Moreover, there are few articles relating nuclear energy to peace. One of the problems I faced was identifying the biased articles but still be able to make use of them for my thesis analysis. The nuclear industry and pro nuclear organisations are writing only for atomic energy and neglecting its negative impacts whether intentionally
or intentionally. Some anti nuclear energy researchers were doing their best just to show how bad the nuclear power plants are and avoid mentioning some of the positive aspects of nuclear energy. Both sides are extreme. I try to be balanced in my analysis using sources from sides, but critically and cautiously analysing them through the prism of Johan Galtung theories of peace, structural and cultural violence. I use the Chernobyl nuclear accident as an example of how a major nuclear accident might have disastrous effects, not only in the country it is built, but on human health, economies and the environment of a whole region as well. At the same time, I try to use the role of nuclear energy in the Baltic Sea Region in promoting sustainable economic growth and, by so, might play a positive role in sustainable development in the region.
During the search for information for this essay, it was difficult not to use the sources from industry. I am aware that these sources might give the nuclear energy the favour to other energy alternatives. Moreover, I could not find books available on this topic from the aspect I want to analyse this issues and that’s why I am depending in my analysis mainly on scientific research articles, INGO’s reports, semi-official organisations, and internet sources.
My analysis of this topic is mainly done through analysing how nuclear energy can be used to threaten peace or to promote it. I use the articles of those against and pro nuclear energy to see how they argue and then I criticise their arguments if I do not agree with what they write. I try not to be pro or against nuclear energy, but to analyse the issue objectively and not to take sides.
Chapter 2
Theoretical Background
2.1. Nuclear power plants and violence
Galtung defines violence as avoidable insults to the basic human needs and more generally to life, lowering the real level of needs of satisfaction below what is potentially possible (Galtung, 1990). Moreover, he adds that a threat of violence is also violence and that violent structure leaves marks not only on the human body but also on the mind and the spirit (Galtung, 1990, p.294). Additional to that, Galtung mentions that violence also exists against the nature in the form of direct violence like the violence of slashing, burning, as it happens during war. Furthermore, he adds that structural violence would be more insidious, not intended to destroy the nature but nevertheless doing so like the pollution and the depletion associated with the modern industry that leads to such phenomena like global warming, deforestation, etc. This happens by transformation of nature through industrial activity, leaving non-degradable residues and depleting non-renewable resources, combined with world-encompassing commercialisation that makes the consequences non-visible to the perpetrators (Galtung, 1990).
According to Galtung (1990), sanctions are to some “non-violence” since direct and immediate killing is avoided, but o the victim, however, it may mean slow but intentional killing through malnutrition and the lack of medical attention, hitting the weakest first (children, elderly, etc.). He adds that sanctions even give the victim a chance usually to submit meaning loss of freedom and identity instead of life and limbs, trading the last two for the first two. Moreover, he mentions that there is no law, legal or empirical, to the effect that countries can not do something to improve their production profile. However, he adds, this is not easy when there are immediate gains to be made by not changing the status quo for those who own the raw material/commodities, and when the “law” of comparative advantage legitimises a structurally intolerable status quo. This law is a piece of cultural violence buried in the every core of economies (Galtung, 1990). Starting from this, there arise a question whether the existence and building of new power plants is a violence by itself since no matter
how safe the nuclear power plant is, there is still a risk of either technical/human error that might lead to a disaster threatening the lives of those working inside the power plant as well as the surrounding environment. Aside from technical/human errors, the threat of a terrorist attacks against the nuclear installations is also a possibility that can not be excluded. There were many media reports after September 11, 2001 and its consequences on international peace that terrorists were planning to attack nuclear installations to cause many causalities. Since then, the security around nuclear facilities all over the world has been tightened and the emergency preparedness exercises were further intensified to be ready to act fast in case of such disasters.
The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Terrorism is an international phenomenon that has eluded effective governmental control (Blair&Brewer, 1977). In case of international terrorism, the definition is modified; such acts must fall “outside the accepted norms of international norms of international diplomacy and the rules of war” (Blair&Brewer, 1977). Nuclear terrorism is a form of terrorism potentially so devastating that it must be considered meticulously. Security problems posed by a burgeoning nuclear power industry are cause for genuine societal concern.
The concept of sustainable development was described in the Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland Report (1987) as "...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainable development incorporates equity within and across countries as well as across generations, and integrates economic growth, environmental protection and social welfare. One of the challenges for sustainable development policies is to address those three dimensions in a balanced way, taking advantage of their interactions and making relevant trade-offs whenever it is necessary (Brundtland Report, 1987).
According to Robert Keohane (1984), cooperation does not imply on absence of conflict. On the contrary, it is basically mixed with conflict and reflects partially successful efforts to overcome conflict, real or potential. According to Keohane, cooperation takes place only in situations in which actors perceive that their policies are actually or potentially in conflict, not where there is harmony. Cooperation should not be viewed as the absence of conflict, but rather as a reaction to conflict or potential conflict. Without the spectre of conflict, there is no need to cooperate.
Chapter 3
Role of Nuclear Energy in accelerating conflicts
The risk of catastrophic accidents cause significant public concern especially with the fear of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants and the possibility of having access to nuclear waste that can be used for nuclear weapons. The by-products of nuclear power generation also lead to a great concern for the environmental sustainability of nuclear energy. Another important question related to nuclear installations is about the nuclear waste and whether fission by-products and long-lived wastes can be handled safely, not endanger the environment, and not get into the hands of the “wrong” people or the “wrong” states. There is a possibility that attaining publicly acceptable safety level in plant operation and spent fuel management could render nuclear power uneconomic in comparison to other options.
3.1. Nuclear power plants and the threat to peace
There are many nuclear power plants in the BSR, some of them are so called Channelized Large Power Reactors (RMBK). However, there are also other nuclear reactors of this type that are located outside of the BSR. This is an issue because they are located close enough to cause contamination risk for the BSR either via a serious nuclear accident occurs in any of them or if they are subjected to terrorist attacks. According to the Western nuclear energy industry, the nuclear power plants designed in the former USSR lack certain safety systems (WENRA Report, 2000). The Soviet made RBMK and the so called cooled, water-moderated reactors (VVER) are considered as a potential risk to the Baltic Sea Region due to lack of containment that is a vital requirement for the safety of any nuclear power plants. Many scientists in the nuclear safety field presume that especially the oldest Soviet facilities are the most dangerous ones. Consequently, they believe that the facilities equipped with the safety systems of Western type are less risky. In general, the most important factors in the safety of the nuclear power plants are the basic structure of the facility, quality of equipment and operational personnel.
An accident can occur in any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of deadly fission products into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Moreover, one of the biggest problems facing the nuclear industry is what to do with the radioactive waste generated in a nuclear reactor. Large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes in liquid or solid form require a disposal route, and the highly radioactive spent fuel rods have to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of years. One of the challages for the nuclear industry has been to find a solution to the nuclear waste problem.
There is a reason for the separation of nuclear power as a subject of ‘special concern’ compared, for example, the problems associated with the use of fossil fuels. This special concern arises from two sources. The first is that the civil and military aspects of civilian nuclear power cannot be separated, at least with the foreseeable technology. The manufacture of weapons from civilian grade fuels remains a social cost of nuclear power which is perceived as a serious drawback to the development of nuclear power programmes worldwide. Second, the social costs attached to nuclear power exist in a manner which does not characterize other sources of energy. There are distinctive problems, not only of proliferation, but also of health effects, nuclear accidents, nuclear waste management, and the infringement of civil liberties.
3.1.1 Proliferation
Proliferation means the spread of ability to build nuclear weapons in countries that do not now have them; non-proliferation involves a variety of measures designed to block that spread (Goheen, 1983). Some proliferation risks inhere in every nuclear fuel cycle, and these risks vary with the kinds of nuclear materials used but there are more direct ways to acquire weapons-grade material than through developing a commercial fuel cycle. The final determinants in the spread of nuclear weapons are acts of political will.
According to Bickerstaffe and Pearce (1980), there are many motivations that lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons: aggressive intention, concern about security, and the pursuit of status or prestige.
Except as a threat, the acquisition of nuclear weapons for aggressive purposes is a least likely objective because of the counteractions that might be drawn not only from an immediate adversary but also from the major nuclear weapons powers.
A state may feel threatened either by the superiority of a neighbour’s conventional arms or by an adversary’s demonstration of an actual or imminent nuclear weapons capability. Argentina’s determination to keep a nuclear weapon option open, by not subscribing to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and by insisting that a right to conduct peaceful nuclear explosions is embodied in the 1967 Treaty of Tlateloco, appears to reflect the former concern with regard to the greater size and military and economic potential of Brazil (Goheen, 1983). India’s nuclear explosion of 1974 was intended, at least in part, to warn China that India has the ability to develop a nuclear response should China again threaten India militarily. Former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, following Israel’s air attack on his country’s TAMUZ-1 reactor (June 7, 1981), appealed to Arab states to help him “acquire atomic bombs to confront the actual Israeli atomic bombs, not to champion the Arabs and not to fuel war, but to safeguard and achieve peace” (Bickerstaffe&Pearce, 1980).
There are various ways in which a reach for status and prestige may lead a state to acquire and demonstrate nuclear explosives capability. For example, some of India’s defence analysts maintain that an arsenal of nuclear weapons provides a country with enhanced influence in world’s affairs; that only by demonstrating substantial weapons capability can a Third World country expect to gain attention of a superpower like the United States (Bickerstaffe&Pearce, 1980) . The North Korea is using the same tactic to attract attention and gain some economic benefits by claiming they have nuclear weapons or at least the ability to produce them. The “status” or “prestige” in this case is more like a badly covered threat rather than a status. Nuclear proliferation is a critical problem in international security and it will be in the foreseeable future. Things that are needed for developing nuclear weapons are the combination of money, material, and know-how. Proliferation would put nuclear weapons into the hands of “less responsible” rulers whether in the “developed” or in the “less developed” countries who might initiate a nuclear war. Proliferation would also increase the possibilities of an “accidental” nuclear war as a result of miscalculations, or a breakdown in communication between countries. No states, even the ones possessing their own nuclear force, can be assured of deterring other states from striking it with nuclear weapons.
3.1.2. Nukes and NPP
One factor which tends to elevate the nuclear power above other civilian investment issues is the risk that spread of nuclear reactors will lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. This is because the material used in, or produced by, power reactors can also be used to make nuclear explosives. Awareness of nuclear power as an agent of destruction obviously dates from the
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Cold War, as well as the contemporary anxieties about weapons ending in unstable states hands. The main problem has been seen as that of ‘horizontal proliferation’, that is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ‘instable’ or ‘oversensitive’ governments (Schneider, 1994).
Given that existing non-nuclear states are motivated to acquire nuclear capacity, they only require a supply of fissionable material and personnel to make the weapons. Such concern about proliferation led to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons (NPT). NPT rests on an agreement between states with nukes and those having none in which the former undertake to supply nuclear materials and technical assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear power, whilst the later agree to renounce nuclear explosives and to accept the safeguards. The safeguards system is operated by the international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Not all nations are party to NPT, but most nuclear facilities in non NPT countries are subject to safeguards as a condition of obtaining fuel and equipments from suppliers.
3.1.3. Terrorism
There is a fear of potential nuclear terrorism. The former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, during his speech addressing the “International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security”, said:
“Perhaps the thing that it is most vital we deny to terrorists is access to nuclear materials. Nuclear terrorism is still often treated as science fiction. I wish it were. But unfortunately we live in a world of excess hazardous materials and abundant technological know-how, in which some terrorists clearly state their intention to inflict catastrophic casualties. Were such an attack to occur, it would not only cause widespread death and destruction, but would stagger the world economy and thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty.” (BBC news, 10 March 2005).
Terrorists might see nuclear power plants as potential targets for sabotage or occupation. They might also steal or acquire fissionable materials to make a bomb. An attack on a nuclear power plant might have particular appeal to terrorists since such a terrible action would receive maximum publicity and casualty. To nationalists or separatists, nuclear power plants are also strategic targets. Occupation of a NPP as well as the credible threat to use nuclear devices could be used to blackmail authorities to meet demands.
Nuclear power plants have been recognised as potential targets for terrorist attacks, and the adequacy of the measures required of nuclear plant operators to defend against such attacks
have been questioned. Protection of the nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashed, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001. Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, and other extreme events, but attacks by large airliners loaded with fuel, such as those that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not contemplated when design requirements were determined (Barckenbus,1987). A taped interview shown September 10, 2002, on the Arab television station Al-Jazeera, which contains a statement that AlQaeda initially planned to include a nuclear power plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified concerns about aircraft crashes (Al-Jazeera, 2002).
Nuclear materials and waste may also be targets for terrorists. As early as 1982, the Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. department of Energy laboratory managed by the University of Chicago, conducted a study detailing the likely damage that a jetliner could inflict on the concrete containment walls protecting nuclear reactors. The study described possible scenarios where an accidental jetliner crash could compromise the safety of a nuclear power plant’s primary containment wall and interior structure. The report estimated that (CRS, 2005):
“Even if just 1% of a jetliner's fuel ignited after impact, it would create an explosion equivalent to 1,000 pounds of dynamite inside a reactor building. An explosion of this magnitude impacting on a containment structure that has already been weakened by the crash of a high-speed jetliner crash could potentially compromise the integrity of the power plant.The primary concern is whether terrorists could breach the thick concrete walls of a spent fuel pool and drain the cooling water, which could cause the spent fuel’s zirconium cladding to overheat and catch fire”.
Another report released in April 2005 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that “successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible,” and that “if an attack leads to a propagating zirconium cladding fire, it could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material.” Terrorists also might view nuclear power plant facilities as desirable targets because of the large inventories of radionuclides they contain. Knowledgeable terrorists might choose to attack spent fuel pools because these pools are less well protected structurally than reactor cores. Moreover, these spent fuel pools contain inventories of medium and long-lived radionuclides that are several times greater than those contained in individual reactor cores (CRS, 2005).
3.1.4. Civil liberties
The implication for energy security of measures that might be considered necessary to deal with the threat of sub-national diversion of a very small fraction of the plutonium associated with large-scale breeder deployment is even more serious. The concern is that such measures would have an adverse impact on the liberties of citizens in democratic states and would cause significant societal stress (Lidsky&Miller, 2002). Before plans of large- scale separation and use of plutonium in the nuclear fuel cycle, the focus of civil liberties concerns were security measures designed to prevent sabotage of commercial nuclear reactors with the possible release of large amounts of radioactivity. However, it is the large-scale use of plutonium, with its associated transport of material, which offers the best opportunity for non-state adversaries, for example, terrorists or criminal organizations working with disaffected insiders, to obtain weapons-useable nuclear material, which forces the consideration and possible implementation of additional security measures with potentially much greater civil liberties impacts (Lidsky&Miller, 2002).
If nuclear power is to be developed without incurring the problems associated with the risk of sabotage, threats and nuclear blackmail, then the protection of nuclear installations must be very effective. The security risks are long-term and likely to become increasingly severe. Some critics argue that adequate safeguards would impinge unacceptably on civil liberties, not only those of people working in the nuclear industry, but also those of the general public. Many employees working in the nuclear industry are already subject to security screening before and during employment. In the future, if not at present, surveillance methods may include such activities as phone-tapping, mail reading and use of informers and infiltrators. This is a kind of structural violence since it affects psychologically, mentally, and may be physically the employees at the nuclear facility and make psychological inconveniences for their families as well.
3.1.5. Health risks of nuclear power plants
The knowledge about the harmful effects of radiation on the human body is widespread. At high doses, it can cause radiation sickness and death. Lower doses may damage the genetic material which in body cells may lead to cancer, and may cause birth defects in later generations. Hence, there are two foci of concern: the first centres on the effects of an accident at a nuclear power plant; the second, on the effects of the routine emission of radiation which occur during nuclear operation.
Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called "radioactive". These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. The effects of routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear plants depend somewhat on how the spent fuel is handled. A typical estimate is that they may reduce our life expectancy by 15 minutes (Cohen, 2005).
3.1.6. Radioactive waste and decommissioning
The use of nuclear power results in several types of radioactive waste during the progression from mining uranium to the closing down of reactors. Radioactive waste is an inevitable by-product of nuclear power. Storage of waste raises management problems. There have been several cases of leaks of radioactive material from storage tanks, which indicates that development of a system of permanent disposal is essential. Many methods have been proposed to handle the nuclear waste storage problems. The most likely of those methods are solidification and burial on lands or in sub-sealed formations. In Sweden, as an example, the total cost for a waste repository is estimated at US$ 2 billion (Holm and Lindgren, 1997). Critics of nuclear power believe that until a safe, permanent method of disposal has been devised, it is irresponsible to continue producing nuclear wastes. The problem here is not only the practical one of finding some method of permanently segregating wastes from the human environment. There is also the broader social issue of intergenerational fairness, that is, of whether any generation has the right to leave such a potential hazardous legacy to its descendants (SKN, 1988). The problem of nuclear waste might be considered as structural violence since it imposes threat, directly and indirectly, to human health, security, and will have its impacts on future generation unless an acceptable social and technological will be developed.
Decommissioning is the final phase in the lifecycle of a nuclear installation, covering all activities from shutdown and removal of fissile material to environmental restoration of the site. At present, for example, there are over 110 nuclear facilities within the European Union at various stages of the decommissioning process and it is forecast that at least a further 160 facilities will need to be decommissioned over the next 20 years (European Commission Publication, 2006). The decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the management of their waste involves environmental, technical, social and financial responsibilities. It is not always
clear who will bear these different responsibilities for the decommissioning of the existing nuclear installations up to the final stage. Decommissioning costs might represent up to 50% of the discounted investment made for the nuclear part of a power plant (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2005). They must be fully taken into account in generation costs. Sound financial provisions for decommissioning should reduce the potential burden on future generations. An environmental threat could exist if adequate financial provisions have not been built up in good time.
The final decommissioning of a nuclear installation as part of a global environment restoration strategy is of great concern to the public. Public concerns may include aspects such as what will happen to the waste and the potential lengthening of decommissioning time-scales.
3.2. Nuclear accidents and their consequences
The most catastrophic nuclear power plant accident was at the Chernobyl NPP in Ukraine. However, there were other accidents in other parts of the world but with less catastrophic consequences. Some of these accidents were: Chalk River accident in Canada, the Three Miles Island accident in the U.S., The Mihama and Tokaimura accidents in Japan, and the latest was the Forsmark NPP minor accident in Sweden.
The accident at Chernobyl nuclear power plant was the most severe in the history of the nuclear power industry, releasing radionuclides over large areas of the Belarus, Ukraine, the Russian Federations, Scandinavia, and the northern parts of Finland. The highest radiation doses were received by the emergency workers and on-site personnel, in total, of about 1000 people during the first days of the accident, and radiation doses were fatal for some of the workers ((IAEA, 2006). The accident was a human tragedy and had significant environmental, public health and socio-economic impacts.
In the following discussion, I discuss the consequences of the Chernobyl NPP accident in some details to show how a nuclear accident in one nuclear reactor might affect many aspect of the country or even the region where the reactor is located for several years and generations to come. It affects negatively the human peace, economic stability and sustainable development of that region.
3.2.1. Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster
On 26 April 2006 the accident at Chernobyl nuclear power station occurred during a low-power engineering test of the Unit 4 reactor. Safety systems had been switched off, and improper, unstable operation of the reactor allowed an uncontrollable power surge to occur resulting in successive steam explosions that severely damaged the nuclear building and completely destroyed the reactor (IAEA, 2006). So, the main reason for the accident was a human mistake. The Chernobyl accident caused long-term changes in the lives of people living in the contaminated areas, since measures intended to limit radiation dose included resettlement, changes in food supplies, and restrictions on the activities of individuals and families. These changes were accompanied by important economic, social, and political changes in the affected countries, brought about by the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. The fear and emotional stress among parents most likely influenced the children, and unfavourable psychological factors probably explain the differences between the exposed and the non-exposed groups.
3.2.1.1. Chernobyl and health effects
The approximately 600 emergency workers who were on the site of the Chernobyl power plant during the night of the accident received the highest doses of radiation (IAEA, 2006). The most important exposures were due to external irradiation as the intake of radionuclides through inhalation was relatively small. Acute radiation sickness was confirmed in 134 of those emergency workers (UNSCEAR Report, 2000).
According to IAEA (2006), childhood thyroid cancer caused by radioactive iodine fallout is one of the main health impacts of the accident. Doses of radiation to the thyroid received in the first few months after the accident were particularly high in those who were children at the time and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2002, more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intakes (UNSCEAR Report, 2000). Ingestion of food contaminated with radioactive iodine did result in significant doses to the thyroid of inhabitants of the contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.
The mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed to an accident to a date. Psychological distress arising from the accident and its aftermath has had a profound impact on individual and community behaviour. Anxiety over the effects of
radiation on health shows no sign of diminishing. Indeed, it may even be spreading beyond the affected areas into wide sections of the population. Parents may be transferring their anxiety to their children through example and excessively protective care. Yet while attributing a wide variety of medical complaints to Chernobyl, many residents of the affected areas neglect the role of personal behaviour in maintaining health. This applies not only to radiation risks such as the consumption of mushrooms and berries from contaminated forests, but also to areas where individual behaviour is decisive, such as misuse of alcohol and tobacco. The Chernobyl accident resulted in many people being traumatised by the rapid relocation, the breakdown in social contacts, fear and anxiety about what health effects might result. Any traumatic accident or event can cause stress symptoms, depression, anxiety (including post-traumatic stress symptoms) and medically unexplained physical symptoms (UNSCEAR Report, 2000). Such effects have also been reported in Chernobyl-exposed populations. The psychological consequences found in Chernobyl exposed populations are similar to those found in atomic bombing survivors, and residents near the Three Miles Island nuclear power plant.
No doubt that the Chernobyl accident will have a longer term effects on the physical, psychological health of the people in the affected areas. This imposes a direct structural violence against generations of people in both Ukraine and Belarus for decades to come.
3.2.1.2. Chernobyl accident and its environmental consequences
According to IAEA report (2006), contamination was most intense around the reactor where lumps of reactor core expelled by the explosion and large particles fell. However, the bulk of the radioactive material significant for the current environmental situation was initially released to the atmosphere. This material was carried by the wind and gradually fell over large areas of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and beyond. Reliable data regarding the composition and distribution of radioactive contamination is still lacking. However, the releases certainly contained a wide variety of radioactive substances with various physical, chemical and biological properties. Radioactive particles were deposited on soil, vegetation, buildings, machinery and other objects. The radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident primarily affected rural areas largely occupied by forests and wetlands as well as arable land and pastures. Prior to the accident, rural communities in the area traditionally relied on agriculture (mainly grain, potato, flax production, and livestock farming) as well as on harvesting wild products such as mushrooms, berries, game and fish. The timber industry and peat extraction were also important components of the local economy.
Deposition of radionuclides also occurred on water surfaces. Deposition on the surfaces of seas and oceans resulted in low levels of dose because the radioactive materials were rapidly diluted into very large volumes of water. In rivers and small lakes, the radioactive contamination resulted mainly from erosion of the surface layers of soil in the watershed, followed by runoff in the water bodies. The contribution of aquatic pathways to dietary intake of some radionuclides was small. However, the intake of Caesium-137 concentration in the muscle of predator fish, like perch or pike, may be quite high in lakes with long water retention times, as found in Russia and Scandinavia due to the contamination from the Chernobyl accident. The relative importance of the aquatic pathways, in comparison to the terrestrial pathways, may be high in areas downstream of the reactor site where ground deposition was small.
Chernobyl accident still has structural violence against the environment since the land in the affected areas can not be used by the local people to improve their living conditions.
3.2.1.3. Chernobyl accident and its socio-economic consequences
The Chernobyl nuclear accident imposed huge costs on the Soviet Union in general and later on Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. Although these three countries have had the most impact, some other countries (in Scandinavia, for instance) also sustained economic losses. The cost over two decades is estimated to be hundreds of billions of US dollars. This is due to direct damage caused by the accident and the expenditures related to its consequences. For example, in Ukraine, 5-7% of government spending each year is still devoted to Chernobyl-related benefits and programmes (IAEA Report, 2006). Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl between 1991 and 2003 is estimated to be more than 13 billion US dollars (IAEA report, 2006).
There are reasons for such high expenses. The contamination of milk, meat and potatoes usually accounts for the bulk of the dietary intake of Caesium 137. However, for the residents of rural regions, mushrooms and berries from forests occupy an important place.
The locally affected territories from the accident are mostly rural. However, since the main source of income in the affected areas before the accident was agriculture, the agricultural sector was the area of the economy worst hit by the effects of the accident. A total of 784,320 hectares of agriculture lands was removed from service in the three countries, and timber production was halted for total of 694,200 hectares of forests (IAEA Report, 2006). Moreover, the stigma of Chernobyl has caused some consumers to reject products from affected areas. Food reprocessing has been particularly hard-hit because of that. Wages tend
to be lower and unemployment higher in the affected areas than they are elsewhere. The costs of Chernobyl nuclear accident can only be calculated with high degree of estimation, given the non-market conditions prevailing at the time of the disaster and the high inflation and the volatile exchange rates of the transition period that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, the magnitude of the impact is clear from a variety of government estimates from the 1990s, which put the cost of the accident, over two decades, at hundreds of billions of dollars. Belarus, for instance, has estimated the losses over at US $235 billion (UNSCEAR Report, 2006). These expenses were paid for sealing off the reactor to mitigate the consequences in the exclusion zone, radiation monitoring of the environment, resettlement of people, construction of new houses, etc…
This massive expenditure has created an unsustainable fiscal burden, particularly for Belarus and Ukraine. Although capital-intensive spending on resettlement programmes has been curtailed or concluded, large sums continue to be paid out in the form of social benefits as for many as 7 million recipients in the three countries (IAEA Report, 2006). Taking into account the bad economies of both Belarus and Ukraine, this amount would have spent for the well-being of their citizens had Chernobyl accident not occur. Nowadays, all these expenses weaken further the economy and pose a threat for investing less in the infrastructures of both countries, which they desperately need. This is a structural violence since the governments there nowadays can not use this amount for improving the lives of their citizens.
3.2.1.4. Impact of Chernobyl accident on the local communities
Since the Chernobyl accident, more than 330,000 people have been relocated away from the more affected areas. Around 116,000 of them were evacuated immediately after the accident (IAEA report, 2006). Although resettlement reduced the population radiation doses, it was for many a deeply traumatic experience. Even when resettlers were compensated for their losses, offered free houses and given a chance of resettlement locations, many retained a deep sense of injustice about the process. Many are unemployed and believe they are without a place in the society and have little control over their lives. Communities in the affected areas suffer from a highly distorted demographical structure. A large proportion of skilled, educated and entrepreneurial people have also left the region hampering the chances for economic recovery and raising the risk of poverty.
The feeling of being treated unjust affects the psychological and mental health of these people resettled and might affect the lives of their offspring due to the stress of the parents. This is a form of structural violence that affects many generations from the resettlers.
Chapter 4
Positive aspects of nuclear energy in promoting sustainable
economic growth
Energy, though fundamentally a physical variable, penetrates significantly into almost all facets of the societal aspects of the developed world (Rosa, 1988). Life-styles, broad patterns of communication and interaction, collective activities, and key features of social structure and change are conditioned by the availability of energy, the technical means for converting energy into usable forms, and the way energy is ultimately used. Energy is the means for accomplishing work (Lidsky, 2002). If some societies achieved greater material outputs than others, it would seem that energy is largely responsible for the material differences between societies (Poneman, 1981). The process of societal advance in industrial development and the differences in stages of advancement among societies could be accounted for the energy i.e. the more energy consumed, the greater the advancement (Lidsky, 2002). Since energy is essential to economic growth, and since economic growth represents improvements in societal being at least in material wise, this means that energy growth is essential to societal well-being. However, Galtung warns that the “buzzword” ‘sustainable economic growth’ might prove to be yet another form of cultural violence (Galtung, 1990).
4.1. Nuclear energy and energy demand
The world needs more energy (Yost, 2006). World population is steadily increasing, having passed six billion in 1999 (ESA, 2006). Yet one-third of that number lack access to electricity (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2005). Industrial Development depends on energy. Such conditions create instability and the potential for widespread violence. National security therefore requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. For the sake of safety as well as security, that increased energy supply should come from diverse sources. Most of the world's energy today comes from petroleum, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric power, and nuclear power. France relies mostly on nuclear energy in electricity production with 79 percent of its electricity production originates from nuclear power, and so has the highest dependency on nuclear power for its electricity
production worldwide (Yost, 2006). It is followed by Belgium and Sweden, with 60 and 42 percent respectively in the dependency on nuclear energy for electricity production (Rhodes and Beller, 2000).
The International Energy Agency (IEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects 65 percent growth in world energy demand by 2020, two-thirds of that coming from developing countries (OECD Report, 2002). Many developing countries, and especially in the Muslim world are not allowed to acquire the knowledge in nuclear technology, neither given the possibility to build their own NPPs at their territories. Since the population in the Muslim world is instantly increasing and the economic development is needed to cope with this increase, there is a need for more energy sources than the oil. Moreover, the oil is not available in most of the Muslim countries and where it is available there is a risk that it will soon get depleted. That’s why there is a need for alternative energy sources to maintain a certain level of economic development for the stability in these countries. One of these energy sources that might be as substitute to oil is nuclear power. However, the Western World opposes that Muslim countries own nuclear technology for energy production and local energy supply. Iran is an example of this unjust since the influential countries are doing their best to prevent it from acquiring nuclear technology and some sanctions has already been imposed and there are fears that more sanctions will be added if Iran does not obey the rules of the super powers. The powerful countries claim that the reasons for their objection are purely of fear that NPPs could be used to produce nuclear weapons and threatens the world peace. However, these same countries overlook the fact that Israel has nuclear power plants and they might have already acquired nuclear weapons. This is an obvious structural violence on global scale and it might support those who say that we are living in the world where the clash of civilisations is present. The feeling of being unjust treated might have a counter effect on the people of the Muslim world and makes the hatred against the Western World intensify that might lead to reactions that could be avoided through understanding and less prejudices. The structural violence of not letting the people in these countries to have the enough knowledge regarding nuclear technology and preventing them from building their own NPPs for peaceful purposes might strengthen those extremists in that part of the world.
4.2. Nuclear Power and economic stability
To sustain a stable supply source of energy is vital for the economic development of any country in the long run. At the end of the year 2000, there were 438 nuclear reactors being operated in 31 countries, with total capacity of 351 GWe (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2005). About 80 percent of this capacity is located in member countries of the OECD (OECD Report, 2002). During the year 2000, nuclear power plants produced about 16% of the total electricity production world-wide, or almost 6% of global commercial primary energy consumption (OECD Report, 2002). The energy produced from nuclear energy is much less expensive than that produced by any other energy production alternatives. The reason why nuclear energy is less expensive than the other ones is that it is highly subsidised by the governments of the countries they are build in. This enables the industries in the countries where those NPPs are available to produce with lower costs than those depending on energy from other sources. This industry will manage well in competing with their products at international markets which will give benefits to its country (from taxes, low prices of products, etc.). Since the developing world does not have this possibility to compete due to lack of nuclear energy, among many other reasons, they find it difficult to improve their economies and the standard of living in their countries. Being deprived from fair competition is a clear structural violence on a global level. One of the ways to reduce the influence of extremist groups in the developing world is by improving the living standards of the populations in these countries. If energy supply is stable and secure, there is a high possibility for economic growth and prosperity in these countries which make them stable and secure states, and by so improves the possibility for peace.
4.3. Nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol
Atmospheric concentrations of all the main greenhouse gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons plus other industrial gases) are increasing as a direct result of human activities. A carbon dioxide level is estimated to have increased by less than 10 percent in total during the 10,000 years before industrialisation (UNFCCC, 2006). In the 200 years since 1800, however, levels have risen by over 30 percent (UNFCCC, 2006). Even with half of the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the oceans and land vegetation (which has decreased enormously since the year 1800), atmospheric levels continue to increase by over 10 percent every 20 years. The results of these gases make an “enhanced greenhouse effect”, leading to an overall warming of the earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere, which
in turn induces changes in the earth’s climate. Climate change caused by human activities threatens to adversely affect the habitat and economy of virtually all countries. Effects could include an increase in global precipitation and changes in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events (storms and flooding). Climate zones could shift, disrupting forests, deserts, range lands and other unmanaged ecosystems. As a result, many such systems could decline or fragment and individual species could become extinct. Water resources will be affected as precipitation and evaporation patterns change around the world. Physical infrastructures will be damaged by the sea-level rise and by extreme weather events. Economic activities, human resettlements and human health will experience many direct and indirect adverse effects. The poor and disadvantaged are the most vulnerable to the negative consequences of climate change. The global warming is causing stress to the environment and structurally violating it. This has negative impacts on the living species living on this earth. All these adverse effects might lead to conflicts and tensions, which is why greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) have to be reduced. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) adopted in 1997 calls for GHG emissions to be reduced by 2008-2012 (UNFCCC website).
Nuclear energy makes a significant contribution to the lowering of carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector. A comprehensive analysis of GHG emissions from different electricity generation chains shows that nuclear power is one of the less carbon intensive generation technologies, with no stack emission and emissions from the full energy chain amounting to only about 2.5-5.7 grams of GHG per kWh of electricity produced compared to some 105 to 366 grams for fossil fuel chains and 2.5-76 grams for renewable energy chains (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2006). Assuming that the nuclear units in operation have substituted for modern fossil-fuelled power plants, nuclear energy today is reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector by more than 8% world-wide (for the electricity sector, the reduction is about 17 percent) (OECD Report, 2006). In OECD countries, nuclear power plants have already played a major role in lowering the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the electricity sector over the past 40 years. Without nuclear power, OECD power plan emissions of carbon dioxide would be about one-third higher than they are at present (OECD Report, 2002). This is an annual saving of some 1200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or about 10 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions from energy use in the OECD (OECD report, 2002). From this, it is obvious that nuclear energy contributes to emissions reductions. If more nuclear power plants will be built for peaceful energy production, this will reduce the
use of oil and coal for energy production and so reduce the emissions and impacts of green house gases. By preventing more emissions to the environment through nuclear energy production, there is a possibility to prevent the drastic consequences of the climate change on the human and species on this planet and by so reduces the risk of conflicts.
4.4. The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) and the positive role of nuclear energy
The BSR contains over 40 nuclear reactors contributing to energy security (Fig.1.) (CBSS website, 2006). The consumption of electricity on the Nordic market is increasing due to economic growth in the new member states in the BSR (CBSS website, 2006). Regardless of energy source, little new capacity has been built in the last few years. At the same time, several energy production plants are reaching the end of their lifecycles. This means that new capacity will be required in coming years. The question that may arise here is which kind of energy sources should replace the existing energy production plants to meet the increasing energy demand in the BSR and whether nuclear energy is among those alternatives. In this part of the chapter, I present the role the stakeholders’ cooperation in nuclear energy to promote energy security and at the same time human security and by so promote peace. The aim is to show that BSR cooperation model in the safety and emergency preparedness might create regional stability in security matter. It also shows that cooperation at regional levels might be among the tools to minimise terrorist threats and at the same time coordinate the preparation for emergency had an accident happen at any of the NPPs.
Fig.1. Nuclear Power Plants in the BSR (STUK website,, 2006)
4.5. Baltic Sea Region Cooperation in Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety
BSR and International cooperation in nuclear safety after the Chernobyl accident
After the Chernobyl accident in April 1986, the international community has realized the importance of international cooperation in the area of nuclear safety and nuclear accident management. The accident increased the concern about the Soviet type nuclear power plants especially those like of the Chernobyl type (i.e. RMBK nuclear power plants). During the Soviet times, and even shortly after the accident, not much information was available to the international society about the safety and technical details of the RMBK reactors due to the secrecy surrounding the Soviet nuclear installations at that time. However, a few years after the Chernobyl and especially after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, more information has been acquired about the Soviet nuclear technology in general and the RMBK nuclear reactors in particular (The European Commission, 2006). The fact that Ignalina NPP has RMBK type reactors helped in improving that knowledge since Lithuania has been intensively cooperating with the international community in the field of nuclear safety. The
international community in general and the European specialists in particular have been involved in many studies at the site of the Ignalina nuclear power plant (WENRA Report, 2000). These studies are funded by many international organizations specialized in the field of nuclear safety, by the European Commission projects and from individual EU member states. The knowledge about the former Soviet reactors has been acquired through communication and cooperation between the former Soviet republics and the international community, mainly through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
4.5.1. BSR and the European cooperation in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection
If international cooperation in the utilization of the atom is progressing, it is because the interest in this matter is a universal one. For many governments, this cooperation is not optional, but imperative. The concern is universal not merely because atomic energy will permeate every facet of our human endeavour, but also because the nuclear genie presents problems and risks which cannot and will not be solved satisfactorily on a purely national or local level (IAEA website, 2006). Because of the risks and the resources required, the need for cooperative action, whether on regional or on a worldwide basis, is probably more insistent here than in other sectors of commerce and industry (Freeman, 1960).
The safety of nuclear power plants is a primary concern of the European Union (EU) and it’s Member States (European Commission, 2005). In the early 1990s, the European Union decided to take a prominent role in the international efforts to help the NIS and countries of central Europe to ensure the safety of their nuclear reactors (European Commission, 2005). The Member States charged the European Commission with this responsibility. Cooperation within Europe operates at several different levels. The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was established by one of the Treaties of Rome in 1958 to form a common market for the development of peaceful uses of atomic energy. It initially comprised Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands but now includes all European Union (EU) members (Euratom Supply Agency, 2005). The treaty covers all civil nuclear activities in the European Union and aims to provide a common market in nuclear materials, to ensure nuclear fuel supplies, and to guarantee that nuclear materials are not diverted from their intended purpose (Euratom Supply Agency, 2005). Euratom also operates a comprehensive regional system of safeguards designed to ensure that materials declared for peaceful use are not diverted to military use.
Energy co-operation and integration of energy networks is developing rapidly, both within the EU and between East and West Europe. Currently the main framework for such developments includes the European Energy Charter, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), and the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E). The Synergy program governs the Community's general energy relations with third countries (Uranium Information Centre, 2002).
The Working Group on Nuclear and Radiation Safety (WGNRS) within the Council of the Baltic Sea Sates (CBSS) is a forum for exchange of information and coordination of efforts to enhance nuclear and radiation safety in the region. The working group is looking for means to be initiated with the aim to strengthen practical co-operation in these fields (Council of the Baltic Sea Sates, 2005). The national nominated participants in the WGNRS mainly have their expertise in the field of radiation protection and radiological emergency planning. Nordic Nuclear Safety Research (NKS) is also a part of the cooperation in nuclear safety in the region and its activities includes emergency preparedness and radiation protection. Stakeholders in the nuclear safety and radiation protection take active part in the NKS organisation and in its activities (seminars, exercises, scientific articles, technical reports, etc.)
4.5.2. Swedish cooperation in the field of Nuclear Safety in BSR
Since Sweden has the biggest number of reactors in the BSR and has a wide experience in nuclear safety issues, it leads the cooperation in the BSR. Security and safety reasons are some of the reasons behind such cooperation. Moreover, Sweden is cooperating with the other EU countries and assisting the other non EU members of Central and East Europ in the field of nuclear safety and waste management. The awareness of the importance of nuclear safety cooperation is at all levels of the society and the governmental institutions in Sweden.
Since any nuclear accident happening in Russia might affect Sweden, there is a high interest for Sweden in assisting and cooperating with Russia in the field of nuclear safety. As an example of the importance of such cooperation, the former Minister for International Development Cooperation, Carin Jämtin, was quoted saying:
"Cooperation with Russia in the area of nuclear safety is a high priority issue for Sweden. We can contribute in areas such as our experience with security aspects in operating nuclear power plants and security and environmental considerations in managing spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste" (Government Offices of Sweden, 2005).
