One of the biggest concerns about nuclear energy has been a widespread fear that it poses significant health risks to the population at large, but Associate Professor Tony Hooker thinks otherwise.
Mr. Hooker is the Director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and Innovation at the University of Adelaide, and he believes radioactive energy is safer than wind and on par with solar.
The expert in his field believes many are quick to dismiss nuclear as a reliable and safe source to potentially power millions of homes in the years ahead.
“I think radiation has always been one of those topics which polarises people. We have not done a very good job, and I say ‘we’ including myself, in explaining radiation risk,” Mr. Hooker told The Epoch Times.
“We have all grown up with cartoon characters showing how radiation can mutate people either into superheroes or monsters.
“And as we get older, we see things like Chernobyl, Fukushima [nuclear disasters], and atomic bombs. So, we have a really warped sense of radiation risk.
“We need to do much better at our risk communication. If you look at the safety of nuclear, it’s certainly comparable with wind and solar.
“It’s safer than wind and it’s about the same as solar.”
The World Nuclear Association says on its website that radiation exposure among workers is minimised by the use of remote handling equipment for many operations in the core of a working reactor.
Mr. Hooker also poured cold water on concerns regarding natural-disaster events, and the impact they could have in mass radioactive leaks from one of Australia’s seven proposed nuclear energy sites.
“Australia is not known for its huge tsunamis. It is geologically stable, in most respects,” he said.
“We might have some really small earthquakes, but we don’t have anything significant.
“And nuclear is proven to be safe. We have hundreds of reactors around the world.”
Associate Professor Hooker’s thoughts were in response to opposition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy proposal announcement last week.
Politicians, Academics Fiercely Divided Over Energy Future
The announcement was greeted with some fierce opposition, with some Coalition leaders also expressing their reservations.Queensland opposition leader David Crisafulli said his party was not considering nuclear power at present.
“It’s not on our agenda, because quite frankly, that’s a matter for Canberra,” he said in response to Mr. Dutton’s proposal.
Meanwhile, Victorian Liberal leader John Pesutto reaffirmed his party had no plans for nuclear. He is backed by the leader of the Victorian Nationals, Peter Walsh.
Mr. Walsh said his party’s focus at state level was on boosting its supply of gas.
A snap rally at Gippsland federal MP Darren Chester’s office saw a group of people voice their strong concerns to nuclear energy being produced at the Loy Yang precinct in southern Victoria.
The Nationals’ Morwell MP Martin Cameron said “it’s a hard one to actually say … It’s nothing to be scared about,” adding he wanted to educate himself on nuclear before committing to supporting it or not.
Victoria’s Labor Premier Jacinta Allan is a staunch opponent, saying “nuclear energy is toxic and risky.”
Mr. Hooker has also faced strong opposition to a nuclear energy-powered future from fellow academics.
Adam Simpson, a senior lecturer of International Studies from the school of Justice & Society at the University of South Australia, has lambasted Mr. Dutton’s proposal.
“Dutton has just announced a nuclear power plant for SA, a state which in three years will be running off 100 percent renewable energy,” he said.
“This is a fantasy policy. It’s based on disinformation regarding cost, timeline, waste storage, political pathways, and security impediments.
“Over the next 12 months before the next election Labor, the Greens, and the teals will have a field day exposing the folly of this policy.
Expert Says Nuclear Waste Management ‘Very Safe’
Associate Professor Hooker believes our lawmakers who stand against nuclear energy may have been too quick to express their collective trepidation.“The biggest accident at Chernobyl was man made. Poorly maintained [facility] and poorly trained personnel,” he said.
“Fukushima was a major earthquake-tsunami. But at the end of the day, there was only one recorded fatality from Fukushima from the radiation.
“It’s very safe. And waste is handled safely.
“We handle radioactive waste every single day in businesses and government organisations around Australia now.
“It’s not high-level waste, but that just means it’s contained in a more controlled way.
One Nation Senator: Coal Is Still the Cheapest
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts stood by Australia’s workers in the natural resources sector, asking why our elected politicians would want to transform the Tarong site from coal to nuclear in Queensland’s rural and conservative-majority South Burnett region.“That’s one step away from the madness of Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese wrecking the joint with solar and wind power at exorbitant prices,” Mr. Roberts said.
“There’s no energy infrastructure for nuclear. The costs are unknown. We do know that nuclear will be far cheaper than wind and solar, but that’s not difficult.
“But what’s wrong with this power station right on the mouth of a coal mine? Why don’t we just build a second coal-fired power station here, double its capacity, use the same coal and generate clean, cheap, reliable [energy with] known costs?”
Mr. Roberts argued the coal power station, which has been in operation for 40 years, is cheaper than all the renewable options on the table—solar, wind, and nuclear.
South Burnett regional council mayor Kathy Duff went on the record saying she welcomed Mr. Dutton’s nuclear energy proposal because of the jobs it would provide.
She added many people in her region were very disappointed and divided over the rollout of renewables, and the way landscapes and farming properties would be impacted by wind and solar projects.
Should There Be a Referendum?
While the debate rages on whether or not Australia should add nuclear energy to its power grid, Associate Professor Hooker said a referendum should be looked at.“We need to have that debate, and I commend the opposition for at least raising it,” he said.
“Maybe there’s a need for a referendum. This is a significant change to the way the country is posturing itself.”
Mr. Hooker said there needed to be a much bigger emphasis on properly teaching how nuclear energy functioned to school students across the nation.
“That is the challenge we do have. We really need to put more focus on the nuclear education areas,” he said.
“There is a shortage of radiation professionals around the world, and it’s only going to get worse with the ramping up of nuclear and radiation activities.
“So, it’s something we are mindful of. We also need to make sure that our primary and secondary school students are getting a good background in some of those STEM subjects.”
The anti-nuclear movement in Australia solidified itself following the Chernobyl disaster. Residents also opposed the nuclear waste that generators produced due to environmental and health concerns.
A referendum is not required to overturn the nuclear ban, however, it will generate increased debate within the populace.
