Thursday, June 11, 2009

Understanding nuclear parlance

One could say that the advance of technology has lead to the progress of language. Language has had to evolve, learn new forms of contortions to accommodate what science is discovering and technology is developing. Language has happily explained the origins of the universe with just two words ‘Big Bang’, while technologies like email, SMS are now used as verbs.

Every industry generates words, terms and phrases that identifies it. The Nuclear Industry is no different, terms like ‘going critical’, ‘heavy water’, ‘light water’, ‘fission’ paint a picture of a monster straining to break free.

Besides these terms there are some phrases that are used on specific occasions – like a nuclear accident. These expressions are used by nuclear experts and people in power when there are demands for information and a call for clarification, not that the phrases provide information or clarify the situation. They obfuscate, are patently constructed to ensure that no information can be sourced though it all with the hope that by not enlightening the public things will settle down to blissful ignorance.

Usually when a nuclear accident occurs there is deathly silence from the nuclear power plant operators and the government. This is because they not only are grappling with the situation but also are trying to put together words that will ‘make everything seem all right’. However even though no two nuclear accidents are the same the phrases and quotes that are given during this period have remained constant over time and place.

The first peep that comes out from an official is that ‘everything is under control’. This could be an obvious attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone; it could also be an expression of shock and incredulity of those unwilling to accept the situation. The nuclear operator would have also informed the local authorities and the Emergency Control Room operated by the Department of Atomic Energy (in India). The operator and government get into the act now. When they begin to realize the gravity of the situation the next statement is bandied out which is ‘radiation is minimal’ which in fact acknowledges the gravity of the situation but attempts to play it down. The second day of the incident would have got the press a little more interested and there would be reporters snooping around the area. The PR department of the nuclear facility or agency hired would now be working overtime in damage control - the next statement would be something to indicate that there is actually no risk and that everyone knows the drill, so the press statement would have the term ‘exposure was within safety limits’ . The value of this statement lies in that there are no radiation figures, the information actually gives out nothing except an acknowledgement that there has been a leak and some people have been exposed. There would be reports by now about risks to workers, environment and people unfortunate enough to be living in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant which would result in statements like ‘risk is slight’ and ‘no immediate cause for concern’. This is as near a confession as one is going to get from the government and nuclear operator. The next step after this would be evacuation.

Fission is not an easy thing to control, research has found that more complex the technology more is the chances of accidents. There have been innumerable articles and books that correlate complexity of technology to accidents. Charles Perrow in his book Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies has argued that normal engineering approach to safety fails because the complexity of a system makes failures inevitable.

In almost every country the nuclear industry is the spoilt brat that has grown into an indolent uncaring adult living off others. If society asks the parents about the adult everything is done to protect the brat lest their method of parenting is questioned. With such incidents the government stands exposed of endangering the lives of its people and wasting tax payers money; therefore does everything it can to hush things up.

However, there are times when such incidents reach the Parliament and a question is asked about the safety standards in nuclear power plants. Agence France Presse in November 21, 2002 quoted Vasundhra Raje, the Junior Foreign Minister’s as saying in the Parliament ‘There is absolutely near total compliance by all these plants... There is no question of compromising (the) safety of workers at nuclear plants." There couldn’t have been a greater attempt at obfuscation than this, that too in the hallowed halls of the Indian parliament. What does ‘near total compliance mean? And why is there ‘near total compliance’ and not full compliance?

Today there is a search for new symbols words and phrases that would warn people 5000 years hence not to approach entombed nuclear waste and facilities. This is because language would have changed to a great degree. This search is an obvious recognition of the longevity of the problems that nuclear energy creates. With the current numbers of nuclear reactors and the promise for more it is certain that one will get the opportunity to hear these phrases at regular intervals. The symbols that will be placed for future generations will not tell the story of generation that used a dirty technology as vividly as the piles of highly dangerous radioactive waste it leaves behind.

(I sent this for publication and got silence - thats why i have a blog)