Environmental ethics is not one of those areas of bioethics that gives a buzz as much as discussions on the status of the embryo or euthanasia. Yet when a catastrophe happens we suddenly start speaking about whether we should have these nuclear generators at all and whether the whole world should, in fact, abandon them

The discussion becomes moral because lives are involved. We cannot avoid tsunamis; but we can limit disasters. Now I am not the one to shy away from science but I have come to believe in the rhetoric of ‘playing God’. The statement, after all, is merely a reflection that we cannot know all the consequences of our actions and that we are not omnipotent – we cannot know all and see all. This logic applies even to those who may not believe in God, which is why such an expression does not fall on their ears. Perhaps we should modify it to ‘playing nature’.

But the point is that we should not stop to think about alternative energies – nuclear reactors perhaps included. Where we did go wrong is in allowing nuclear reactors built in the sixties not to be replaced by the more modern and safer ones. We already know that the same tsunami would not have caused the same damage – if any damage at all would have been caused – had Japan changed what is now obsolete. Suddenly we are reminded that we are full of such nuclear plants in the West. Japan used these reactors to supply a third of its power supply.

As usual the conflict here is about values – whether we should have nuclear reactors. As usual, the solution of conflict is not merely to resolve disputes but to agree on common principles and learn from the past. The fact is that we did not learn from Chernobyl. The nuclear reactor in Chernobyl was built at around the same time as the one we are now seeing in Japan. The common principles are not merely safe energy; it is about safety to human life. And if this means that countries contemplating nuclear energy should be forced to modify, update, or even change their reactors when better ones are made, then this should be imposed by the UN (if it still has any credibility left).

Now that we have seen this disaster, some countries have closed down their reactors. Will they re-start them again when the hype of the media stops its churning? Or will they make the responsible choice to build more modern reactors and see how much in fact safer they are. To say that we should simply not have nuclear energy may be stretching the imagination of possibility too far. Humans will be humans. To say that we should invest more in solar energy or other clean sources, is only a rhetorical alternative for probably we are already doing so and we cannot ask a nuclear engineer to suddenly turn his mind to solar energy.

The change is gradual and has to come with ‘thinking about ethics’ and thus create a generation of students who see more value in one field than another. Thinking about ethics means that governments should divert their attention. In Malta we have many students of IT because there was governmental affirmative action in this direction. But the science and study of nuclear power stations will probably remain. Lately we have witnessed the largest jet plane on our island. We now have bigger and more silent jets than before because humans did not shy away from plane crashes. The same will happen with nuclear energy and we may as well accept this fact.

What we need to work on are points where we have a chance. We need to pressure governments in thinking morally. When one buys new cars, the incentive is not only because we have nicer vehicles but because they are more environmental friendly. So why do we not use the same mentality on nuclear energy. The basic fault here is that man took risks beyond his capabilities.

Had Japan phased in new power stations, which are safer, and turned these that are now leaking off, no tsunami would have given us this scare – or so we are being told. But it seems in human nature to have to experience black before appreciating white. Grey has not been enough. Whilst countries pressure each other not to build nuclear weapons we are not realising that these reactors are also means of mass destruction. I think that if a reactor has given 50 years of service, then even if you do not have more modern technology, you should be thinking about the ethics of a newer reactor. The morality goes even deeper when you learn that there were alternatives – nuclear alternatives – all along.

Pierre Mallia is Associate Professor in Family Medicine, Patients’ Rights and Bioethics at the University of Malta; he is also Ethics Advisor to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College of

Family Doctors