(although this is more of a problem in some countries than others), stop talking in technological riddles and come forward and communicate plainly and clearly with all stakeholders – the public, politicians, other scientists and engineers – and, more importantly, listen to their concerns. Only with open dialogue – a two-way process – can the ethically correct solution be achieved, namely to establish facilities for the safe disposal of radioactive waste in our lifetime – and not that of our children or children’s children.

Chapter 10 notes that, despite the fact that the principles underlying the deep geological disposal of radwaste are relatively simple, actually constructing a repository is, in fact, a remarkably complex task. Potentially, the most arduous is the necessary integration of socio-political factors with the technical areas, a strand which runs throughout the book, even though the vast majority of the authors have a technical background (engineers, chemists, physicists, geologists, etc.).

Despite this, however, the main focus of the book remains technical and thus Chapter 10 attempts to put all the technical information presented in the book in context by examining trends in progress with implementation of repository programmes and highlighting areas where priorities for future efforts could lie. It considers the possible significance of technological developments and implications for environmental protection – and ends by asking why there remains any doubt that deep geological disposal of radwaste is the only practicable solution.

1.3. Radioactive waste management in context

Finally, it is worth providing some comments on the polarisation of the radioactive waste disposal issue and its coupling to nuclear power generation. It was noted that renewed interest in this topic is associated with the debate on the role of nuclear in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As such, disposal projects have been violently opposed by those who are against nuclear power, rather than waste disposal per se. Indeed, some groups have offered to drop their opposition if this is coupled to a nuclear phase-out. Such a position is fundamentally dishonest – if there are no basic technical concerns associated with the waste disposal issue then this should be introduced as a highly favourable attribute of this option. Combining claims for the unacceptability of nuclear due to the unresolved waste disposal issue together with the assumption that everything can be solved as soon as a phase-out of nuclear is initiated involves true looking-glass logic.

Ethically, the generation benefiting from nuclear technology should implement projects to ensure its safe management. Higher activity radwastes suitable for geological disposal exist now and are stored at a wide variety of facilities around the world. Apart from a basic philosophical objection to the entire idea of geological disposal, arguments for delaying moving onwards are often based on the claim that new technology might bring better solutions. This may well be the case, but that is not a justification for doing nothing now. As will be seen in this book, geological disposal options already offer levels of safety far in advance of anything considered for any other industrial activity. It has to be assured that such projects are implemented properly, but this is completely feasible with existing technology. Indeed, the over-design of repositories, which is possible due to the large value of nuclear power relative to the small amount of waste produced, might be considered a rather profligate use of resources and further efforts to

reduce presently minimal risks goes against the general principle of sustainability. There are much better ways to improve total environmental safety – even if only the potential benefits of bringing treatment of chemotoxic wastes to a similar level is considered.

Ethical and technical arguments may cut little ice with those religiously opposed to ‘‘dumping’’ of radioactive waste but, recently, an emerging concern may help to improve the push towards implementing projects – concerns about the security of surface stores, particularly with regard to the potential consequences of terrorist attacks. It is true that the real hazard involved from this source is exaggerated and, in fact, radwaste stores are very hard targets compared to the wide range of soft options available to the determined terrorist. However, the very fact that this causes great concern indicates that such facilities could be targets, especially if the aims were more psychological than physical.

The authors of the chapters of this book may have very different opinions on the need for nuclear power and the timescales for repository implementation, but all would agree that any debate on these topics should be founded on sound science. We hope that the following chapters will help to build this foundation.

1.4. Reference

NRC (1957). The disposal of radioactive waste on land; National Research Council, National Academic Press, Washington DC, USA.