Abstract
Ethical frameworks are often used in professional fields as a means of providing explicit ethical guidance for individuals and institutions when confronted with ethically important decisions. The notion of an ethical framework has received little critical attention, however, and the concept subsequently lends itself easily to misuse and ambiguous application. This is the case with the ‘ethical framework’ offered by Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the crown-corporation which owns and is responsible for the long-term management of Canada’s high-level nuclear fuel waste. It makes a very specific claim, namely that it is managing Canada’s long-lived radioactive nuclear fuel waste in an ethically responsible manner. According to this organization, what it means to behave in an ethically responsible manner is to act and develop policy in accordance with its ethical framework. What, then, is its ethical framework, and can it be satisfied? In this paper I will show that the NWMO’s ethical and social framework is deeply flawed in two respects: (a) it fails to meet the minimum requirements of a code of ethic or ethical framework by offering only questions, and no principles or rules of conduct; and (b) if posed as principles or rules of conduct, some of its questions are unsatisfiable. In particular, I will show that one of its claims, namely that it seek informed consent from individuals exposed to risk of harm from nuclear waste, cannot be satisfied as formulated. The result is that the NWMO’s ethical framework is not, at present, ethically acceptable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The full content of the framework can be found at: http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/624_2-7EthicalandSocialFramework.pdf.
Roundtable on Ethics meeting minutes, 8 June 2005. http://www.nwmo.ca.
This particular item, Q10.d, is present in the online version of the document, but not the final report.
This line of reasoning is also found in the OECD’s discussion of nuclear waste. It claims that it “takes intergenerational equity issues into account, notably by applying the same standards of risk in the far future as it does to the present” (OECD and Agency 1995). This supposedly justifies its recent 2008 claim that: “Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way that predicted impacts on the health of future generations will not be greater than relevant levels of impact that are acceptable today” (Fleming 2008, 115).
See Shrader-Frechette (2002b) for a good discussion of this issue, especially Chap. 5: “Equity and Duties to Future Generations: The Case of Yucca Mountain.”
See the NWMO Advisory council meeting: 18 October 2004.
References
BEIR-VII (2006). Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Fleming, P. (2008). Expectations from ethics. In Regulating the long-term safety of geological disposal of radioactive waste: Practical issues and challenges (pp. 115–122). Washington, DC: OECD Publications.
IAEA. (1995). Safety series: The principles of radioactive waste management. Techreport for RADWASS programme. No. 111-F, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA. (2002). Ethical considerations in protecting the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation. Technical report IAEA-TECDOC-1270, International Atomic Energy Association.
Nash, K. & Dowdeswell, E. (2005). Choosing a way forward: The future management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel (final study). Report, Nuclear Waste Management Organization, 49 Jackes Avenue, Toronto, ON M4T 1E2, Canada.
OECD & Agency, O. N. E. (1995). The environmental and ethical basis of geological disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes. Technical report, OECD and Nuclear Energy Agency (L’Agence pour l’énergie nucléaire.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2000). Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra- and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 771–778.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2002a). Environmental justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2002b). Risky business: Nuclear workers, ethics, and the market efficiency argument. Ethics & the Environment, 7(1), 1–23.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2005). Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 518–520.
Timmerman, P. (2003). Ethics of high-level nuclear fuel waste disposal in Canada. Report, Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Organization.
Wilson, L. M. (2000). Nuclear waste: Exploring the ethical dilemmas. Toronto: United Church Publishing House.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilding, E.T. Framing Ethical Acceptability: A Problem with Nuclear Waste in Canada. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 301–313 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9262-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9262-6