Specifying the Concept of Future Generations for Addressing Issues Related to High-Level Radioactive Waste

The nuclear community frequently refers to the concept of “future generations” when discussing the management of high-level radioactive waste. However, this notion is generally not defined. In this context, we have to assume a wide definition of the concept of future generations, conceived as people who will live after the contemporary people are dead. This definition embraces thus each generation following ours, without any restriction in time. The aim of this paper is to show that, in the debate about nuclear waste, this broad notion should be further specified and to clarify the related implications for nuclear waste management policies. Therefore, we provide an ethical analysis of different management strategies for high-level waste in the light of two principles, protection of future generations—based on safety and security—and respect for their choice. This analysis shows that high-level waste management options have different ethical impacts across future generations, depending on whether the memory of the waste and its location is lost, or not. We suggest taking this distinction into account by introducing the notions of “close future generations” and “remote future generations”, which has important implications on nuclear waste management policies insofar as it stresses that a retrievable disposal has fewer benefits than usually assumed.

[1]  Andrew C. Kadak,et al.  Intergenerational Considerations Affecting the Future of Nuclear Power: Equity as a Framework for Assessing Fuel Cycles , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  Donald A. Brown Comparative Ethical Issues Entailed in the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide in the Light of Climate Change , 2011 .

[3]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment , 2011 .

[4]  R. Hillerbrand The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: The role of nuclear energy in the future energy landscape: energy scenarios, nuclear energy, and sustainability , 2015 .

[5]  Yannick Barthe,et al.  Communication and information in France's underground laboratory siting process: clarity of procedure, ambivalence of effects , 2001 .

[6]  T Schneider,et al.  ICRP Publication 122: Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste , 2013, Annals of the ICRP.

[7]  Behnam Taebi,et al.  To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[8]  Katie Shilton,et al.  Anticipatory Ethics for a Future Internet: Analyzing Values During the Design of an Internet Infrastructure , 2014, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[9]  Avner de-Shalit,et al.  Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations , 1995 .

[10]  Niels Lind Discounting risks in the far future , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  Neil Chapman,et al.  Principles and standards for the disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes , 2003 .

[12]  Jian-Bo Yang,et al.  Application of an intelligent decision system to nuclear waste repository option analysis , 2008 .

[13]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Ethics and radiation protection , 2007, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[14]  Viktor Murogov,et al.  Reexamining the Ethics of Nuclear Technology , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[15]  D. Parfit Reasons and Persons , 1986 .

[16]  G. Reitz,et al.  ICRP Publication 123: Assessment of Radiation Exposure of Astronauts in Space , 2013 .

[17]  Behnam Taebi,et al.  The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production , 2011 .