“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
Fall semester, 2006
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;
24. SIP: The Swedish International Project in Nuclear Safety;
2
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.
Key words: peace; threat; cooperation; energy; risk; nuclear waste; sustainability.
3
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.
4
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).
5
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.
6
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
7
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.
8
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
9
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.
10
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 byproducts 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 water-cooled, watermoderated 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.
11
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.
12
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
13
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
14
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 (AlJazeera, 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).
15
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.
16
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 byproduct 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
17
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 timescales.
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.
18
3.2.1. Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster
On 26 April 2006 the accident at Chernobyl nuclear power station occurred during a lowpower 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
19
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.
20
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
21
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 wellbeing 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.
22
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.
23
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
well-being at least in material wise, this means that energy growth is essential to societal wellbeing. 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
24
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, twothirds 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.
25
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
26
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
27
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.
28
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
29
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.
30
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 TransEuropean 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).
31
Despite that the two countries are not close in their international policies and furthermore do
not have high degree of trust, they are still cooperating in the nuclear safety and nuclear waste
management issues.
In practice, there have been many projects coordinated by the specialised institutions of
radiation and nuclear safety in Sweden. Initiated by the Swedish Government in 1996, the
Swedish International Project Nuclear Safety (SIP) is one of the most important Swedish
projects in the field of cooperation and (SKI, 2005). The SIP funds projects related to nuclear
safety and waste management issues in Russia Leningrad and Kola nuclear power plants.
Moreover, SIP contributes to nuclear waste management issues at the former nuclear military
submarine base at Andreeva Bay (SKI, 2006).
32
Conclusion
Nuclear energy provides cheap electricity due to the fact that it is highly subsidized. This
enables the national industry where nuclear energy is produced to successfully compete with
other international companies producing the same product for higher prices due to high
energy and electricity costs. At the same time, nuclear reactors pose a threat to human health,
security, international peace, and have negative impacts on the environment. The Chernobyl
accident has shown that the effect of any nuclear disaster is not only local, but regional. The
consequences of such a disaster may threaten the regional economy.
This paper has argued that nuclear installations in the BSR contribute to the energy security
and somehow to the economic stability in the region and the cooperation in the field of
nuclear safety and radiation protection in the BSR are fairly strong. However, the risk of a
nuclear accident or a terrorist attack on one or more of these nuclear installations, the
difficulties and high costs of management of nuclear waste generated by these reactors and
the fear that the nuclear waste might be used for making nuclear weapons are issues of
concern. Whether nuclear energy is among the best solutions for sustainable economic growth
and whether it bring peace to the countries or region where it is produced is highly disputable.
At the same time, there are many nuclear power plants worldwide and they generate high
amounts of nuclear waste. This nuclear waste is a problem by itself and its impacts might
threaten the peace of future generation. Thinking about future generation can not only done by
closing down the nuclear power plants, but also by thinking on best ways to manage the
current and future nuclear waste after closing down and decommissioning of the current
nuclear power plants. This is done through cooperation and research.
This paper has also argued that we have a great responsibility for the future generation and the
sustainable peace. That’s why we must think carefully before deciding whether to vote for or
against the building of new nuclear power plants. What we should, though, is to promote
energy production from renewable sources, to minimise the gap between the rich and the poor
through development projects, to analyse the reasons behind terrorism and try to eliminate
these reasons. Only then, peace for us and for the future generations can be achieved.
33
References
Research Articles
Barckenbus, Jack (1987). “Nuclear power safety and the role of international organizations”,
International Organizations, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.475-490.
Bickerstaff, Julia and David Pearce (1980). “Can there be consensus on nuclear power?”
Social Studies of Science (SAGE, London and Beverly Hills), Vol. 10, pp.309-344.
Blair, Bruce and Garry Brewer (1977). “The Terrorist Threat to World Nuclear Programs”,
Journal of Conflict Resolution: Vol. 21, No. 3, p379-384.
Brody, Charles (1984). “Differences by sex in support for nuclear power”, Social Forces,
Vol. 63, No. 1, September 1984, pp. 209-228.
Freeman, Alwyn (1960). “The Development of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Use
of Atomic Energy”, The American Journal of International Law, 1960.
Galtung, Johan (1990). “Cultural Violence”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, pp.291305.
Galtung, Johan (1969). “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research”, Journal of Peace Research,
Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.167-191.
Goheen, Robert (1983). “Problems of Proliferation: U.S. Policy and the Third World”, World
Politics: Vol.35, No.2, pp.194215.
Holm, Einar and Urban Lindgren (1997). “Socio-Economic Impacts Of Locating A Nuclear
Waste Repository In Sweden”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol.
47, No. 1, pp.27-40.
Keohane, Robert (1984). “After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy”, Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.53-54.
Lewis, Julian (2006). “Nuclear Disarmament Versus Peace in the Twenty-First Century”,
International Affairs 82:4, pp.667-673.
Lidsky, Lawrence, Maevin Miller (2002). “Nuclear Power and Energy Security: A Revised
Strategy for Japan”, Science and Global Security, Vol.10, pp. 127-150.
Poneman, Daniel (1981). “Nuclear Policies in Developing Countries”, International Affairs:
Vol. 57, pp.568-584.
Rosa, Eugene, Gary Machlis, Kenneth Keating (1988). “Energy and Society”, Annual
Review of Sociology: Vol. 14, pp.149-151.
Schneider, Barry (1994). “Nuclear Proliferation and Counter Proliferation: Policy issues and
Debates”, Mershon International Studies Review 38, pp.209-234.
34
Walker, William (2006). “Destination Unknown: Rokkasho and the International Future of
Nuclear Reprocessing”, International Affairs 82, 4 (2006), pp. 743-761.
Yost, David (2006). “France’s New Nuclear Doctrine”, International Affairs 82, 4 (2006),
pp. 701-721.
Reports by INGO’s
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power:
Nuclear
Power
Facts”,
from
the
website:
www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/deveight.html, accessed 2006-08-20.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Department of Nuclear Safety and Security. From the
website: http://www-ns.iaea.org/, accessed 2006-05-13.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Report, (2000). “Safety of RMBK reactors:
“Setting the technical framework”, IAEA publications.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2006). “Chernobyl Legacy: Health, Environmental and
Socio-Economic Impacts”, The Chernobyl Forum: 2003-2005, second revived edition.
Retrieved
on
15
May
2006
from
the
website:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Report: “The Chernobyl Forum: 2003-2005,
Chernobyl Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and
Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine”,
second
revised
edition.
From
the
website:
www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf, accessed 2006-08-19.
OECD report, 2002. Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol, Nuclear Energy Agency,
France.
UNSCEAR report, (2000). “UNSCEAR Assessments of the Chernobyl Accident: Annex JExposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident”, from the website:
www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf, accessed 2006-08-20.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2006
report. “Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident”, from the website.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf retrieved 2006-05-20.
Wikipedia. “Nuclear power”, from the website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power,
accessed 2006-04-05.
Reports by Official bodies
Brundtland, Gro Marlem, (1987). “Our Common Future”, Report of the World Commission
on Environment and Development A/42/427, United Nations General Assembly, 4 August
1987.
35
Cohen, Bernard. “Risk Of Nuclear Power” , Health Physics Society, The University of
Michigan, the USA. From the website: www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/np-risk.hm
accessed 2006-12-03.
Euratom
Supply
Agency
(ESA).
From
the
http://europa.eu.int/comm/euratom/index_en.html, accessed 2006-05-03.
website:
European
Commission
Publication.
“Nuclear
Issues”,
from
the
website:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/decommissioning/index_en.htm, accessed 2006-08-20.
Council of the Baltic Sea States. “Working Group on Nuclear and Radiation Safety
‘WGNRS’”, from the website: http://www.cbss.st/structure/wgnrs/, accessed 2006-02-12.
Council of the Baltic Sea States. “Annual Report (2000-2001) of the Working Group on
Nuclear and Radiation Safety”, Hamburg, 7 June, 2001. From the website:
http://www.cbss.st/documents/cbsspresidencies/9german/reportcso/dbaFile376.html, accessed
2006-05-02.
Nuclear Energy Agency, (2005). “Sustainable Development”, from the website:
http://www.nea.fr/html/sd/welcome.html, accessed 2006-04-14.
The European Commission. “Nuclear Safety in Central Europe and the New Independent
States-the
role
of
the
EU”,
from
the
website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/nuclear_safety/intro/role_eu.htm, accessed 200604-08.
Nuclear Industry Reports
Congressional Research Service (CRS) (2005). “CRS Report for Congress: Nuclear Power
Plants-Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack”, The Library of Congress, Energy Policy Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
National Board for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SKN) Report 29, April 1988. Ethical Aspects On
Nuclear Waste”, Stockholm, Sweden.
Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA) Report, (2000). “Nuclear
safety in EU candidate countries”, from the website: www.ski.se/wenratotal2000.pdf,
accessed on 2006-04-14.
World Nuclear Association Report, (2000). “Energy for sustainable development, Worldwide
advances
in
radioactive
waste
management”,
from
the
website:
www.worldnuclear.org/waste/report99/chapter7.htm, accessed 2005-05-11.
Media Reports
Kofi
Anan
speech,
Madrid,
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4336713.stm
News,
10th
March
2005,
36
37