GLOBAL warming continues to force the mercury up the glass, and there鈥檚 no doubt that if we are ever to control it, we must move over to cleaner ways of generating our energy. Nuclear power stations don鈥檛 produce the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, so it is clear we should consider building more of them. I鈥檓 not alone in thinking that the government should authorise three new nuclear power stations at Sizewell in Suffolk, Hunterston in Ayrshire and Hinckley Point in Somerset. But as became clear in the recent House of Commons debate 鈥淓nergy 鈥� towards 2050鈥�, the problem of storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel leaves this plan with something of an Achilles heel.
However, the Finns have made great progress in tackling the problem. For example, 15 years ago they built a surface storage depot at their Olkiluoto nuclear power plant on the country鈥檚 west coast that can hold spent fuel safely for 50 years. And 10 years ago they built a deep underground repository at Olkiluoto big enough to hold all the low and medium-level nuclear waste produced over the lifetime of a power station.
The Finnish government has now selected Olkiluoto as an ultimate disposal site for all the country鈥檚 spent nuclear fuel, and has the support of parliament and the local community at the site. And having reviewed their future energy needs, they have also decided to build a new nuclear power station there 鈥� again with parliamentary and public support.
Advertisement
In Britain, though, when it comes to storing spent nuclear fuel, the attitude is invariably 鈥渘ot in my backyard, buddy鈥�. Yet I have it on good authority that Britain could feasibly build a major repository in the Dounreay area of Caithness, so the government would do well to take note of the Finns鈥� remarkable achievements. I suggest energy minister Brian Wilson takes a look at what鈥檚 been achieved at Olkiluoto.
A FEW months ago, New 杏吧原创 reported that a task force of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 鈥� a UN panel that makes rulings on issues about the international food trade 鈥� rejected calls from the European Union that consumers be allowed to know the genetic origins of their food, especially for genetically modified food (16 March, p 12). I decided to see what else I could find out about this strange task force and its decision. It became clear that it was a matter for the Department of Health.
Hazel Blears, the junior health minister, told me that the 鈥淎d Hoc Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology鈥�, was established by the 23rd Codex Alimentarius Commission and began its work in March 2000. Its aim is to produce two key documents before its mandate expires in 2003, namely a set of draft principles for the risk-analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology, and accompanying draft guidelines for assessing the safety of foods derived from recombinant DNA. The task force subsequently agreed to develop draft guidelines on foods derived from GM microorganisms.
Blears went on to say that genetic 鈥渢raceability鈥� was a matter in hand and the main issue to be resolved by the task force. The atmosphere at the task force鈥檚 meeting in Yokohama was highly constructive, with all countries present recognising the importance of agreeing international standards for risk-analysis of GM foods. The final text, supported by the EU, put traceability into context as one of the tools for implementing and enforcing risk-management measures. The draft principles also specifically state that other aspects of traceability are being considered, and that the Codex committee on food labelling is looking at draft recommendations for labelling GM foods.
From what I now hear, the draft texts are likely to be adopted in July 2003.
