In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster in 1987 the Italian public voted, in a referendum, to halt the country’s nuclear program.

In the last 2-3 years various leading politicians, from both the left and right, have supported the overturning of this referendum as Italy faces spiralling energy costs.

Yesterday, for example, our favourite post-fascist Gianfranco Fini, alongside Pier Ferdinando Casini (the remarried ‘family values’ leader of catholic party UDC) gave convincing arguments for the return to the ‘energy of the future’. Fini remarked, “At the time of the referendum I voted from fear. Now it’s time to liberate ourselves from the hegemony of fear that blocks the road to development’^[1]

Did I say convincing? Well, listening on the news to a piece that could well have been written by ENEL’s press office, the arguments were made that Nuclear power is cleaner and safer than twenty years ago, and that Italy is in desparate need of its own energy sources as imported oil and gas prices soar. This monkey was thus convinced, for two seconds, that it’s well time to start bombarding neutrons up and down the Italian peninsula to produce energy ‘too cheap to meter’*

But then that conservative ‘anti-progress’ voice inside me started wondering about the arguments against nuclear energy. While journalists involved in the preparation of the item seemed at a loss to any anti-nuclear arguments, I managed through minutes of painstaking research to drag up a couple:

1) Nuclear waste. Nuclear reactors produce waste, and while there have been, perhaps, improvements in this area over twenty years there still remains the question of what we do with waste materials that are highly radioactive and which will remain a danger to human health for hundreds/thousands of years.
2) Nuclear proliferation. We’re all worried about the risks posed by the Iranians developing a Nuclear energy programme, which might also facilitate a weapons development programme – so why should an Italian development programme be safe?
3) Risk of serious accident. Have the risks of serious accidents decreased over the twenty years since Chernobyl? Perhaps structurally, but given Italy’s abysmal record in enforcing safety-practices in the workplace (More than 1,200 people died in the workplace last year alone in Italy – there’s a specific term given for such deaths – Morti Bianche or White Deaths) one should have serious doubts about safety practices in any structure. On top of problems related to human error, lack of stringent safety procedures, there is also the risk of terrorism. We’re constantly told (in particular by Fini and Casini’s parties) that we live under the constant threat of terrorist attacks.
4) Not least of the arguments against Nuclear power is the cost. Nuclear power stations cost huge amounts to build and maintain, and many critics argue could not exist without huge Government subventions. Given one of Italy’s chief problems remains corruption, the channeling of public funds for private profit, any re-commencement of the nuclear power program would need to be cost-efficient and transparent to be justifiable in the face of rising oil and gas prices.

Fini and Casini are to be congratulated for re-opening the debate on nuclear fuels, if – and only if – it is a debate.

[1] NUCLEARE: ASSE FINI-CASINI, BANCO PROVA NUOVO CENTRODESTRA ANSA (20-12-2007)