On February 14th, a nuclear waste repository detected a small amount of radioactive material leaking out of the underground tunnel. The repository known as The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has been running for over 15 years mostly without any dangerous incidents. The site is equipped with a sensitive ventilation machine that detects very little radioactive material, and immediately filters it to catch 99.9% of the contamination. Even with this seemingly flawless facility, researchers have discovered that some radioactive contamination reached the surface of the ground. However, a monitor of the radioactive leak stated that "there had been no health risk at all and that the radiation levels detected near the mine’s surface —far from town—were well below concern." An additional report stated that none of the workers at the repository had been detected with any contamination. The monitors are planning to brush off this leak as if nothing happened because the amount of released radioactive material was "too small." Even today, there has been no statement regarding the cause of the leak. Critics have stated that this lack of information can incite fear and distrust from the public.
This leak of radioactive material relates to the economics topic we just covered: externalities. This is a negative externality similar to air pollution and water contamination. Although the public does not pay the government to bury nuclear waste underneath New Mexico, they are being exposed to the dangerous contamination leaks. Clearly, the third party—the public—is receiving negative influence from the burying of nuclear waste.
My question is, although the not a large amount of radioactive material was leaked, should the government and the Energy Department ignore this leak? Do you think this was just a insignificant leak that should not incite any concern, or do you think any kind of unusual radioactive leak should call upon action? My main concern is, where do you draw the line between small and insignificant? Also, should Energy Department release the causes of the leak, or should it completely ignore the event because it was insignificant?
NYTimes article
ABCNews article
2 comments:
I think that in cases where any negative externalities are involved, no matter the magnitude, should be reported. The lack of sufficient information given to the public may be worrisome for everyone, especially the locals living around the WIPP. When people are properly informed, there is a lower likelihood of panic and confusion.
The line that should be drawn between small and insignificant depends on context. In this case, I think that though the degree of the radioactive waste leak is deemed "insignificant", it still is dangerous material that requires attention. This event calls for better information given to the public in the future and better caution by the WIPP.
I agree with Patricia that cases involving spillover should at least be reported and monitored, but to a certain extent it's better to allocate resources and time to more urgent matters. I like that Rick pointed out the line of insignificant and small - and most of the time officials just need to make an educated judgement call based on the information they have. Based on the NY Times article, though, it seemed to me that officials and researches had determined that the radiation would not bring about any urgent harm. However, regardless of the caliber of damage or the situation, there should always be a steady stream of reliable information to the public.
Post a Comment