nuclear-news

Downplaying of nuclear radiation is an ethical issue

When industry, government, academics and some journalists try to calm public emotions by downplaying radiation risks, they often cause greater offense by disregarding the issue of informed consent.

…. behind the technical argument is an ethical one: I am not willing to wash down tiny amounts of radiation with great volumes of reassurance because I did not give consent…

Nuclear Power, Radioactive Fallout And The Issue Of Informed Consent, Forbes, Jeff McMahon, Apr. 28 2011  Radioactive fallout from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear accident has awakened debate about nuclear power’s invisible emissions, and familiar camps have assembled along familiar lines: Critics of nuclear power are outraged by radioactive isotopes appearing an ocean away, defenders of nuclear power counter that there’s more radiation exposure during a transcontinental flight—to use the most popular example.

But there is a fundamental difference between ingesting radionuclides—no matter how tiny the exposure—and flying in an airplane—no matter how great—and that difference is informed consent.

The issue of informed consent has occasionally emerged in the debate on this page and others, but more often it fuels the anger invisibly, an unarticulated difference between those willing to accept hazards and those who are not.

When industry, government, academics and some journalists try to calm public emotions by downplaying radiation risks, they often cause greater offense by disregarding the issue of informed consent.

…. behind the technical argument is an ethical one: I am not willing to wash down tiny amounts of radiation with great volumes of reassurance because I did not give consent……http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/28/nuclear-power-radioactive-fallout-and-the-issue-of-informed-consent/

April 29, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, Religion and ethics