Bioethical perspective on acceptable-risk criteria for nuclear-waste management

Abstract

Wisely managing the profound human and environmental risks of nuclear wastes requires complex moral and ethical judgments. Whereas traditional ethics is limited to interpersonal relations, a new system of ethics--bioethics--concerns man's relation with nature. Environmentalists claim that technology has upset the balance of nature, that nature is sacred and has inviolable rights, and that man must therefore regulate his behavior to conform to earth's limited carrying capacity. They also say that Judeo-Christian monotheism and anthropocentrism have sanctioned the exploitation of nature in the West, whereas Eastern religions teach adaptation to nature. Evidence suggests, however, that the balance of nature is neither absolute nor precarious, but is continually changing. Moreover, technology has brought more good than harm to man, and man's needs should supersede nature's. Other evidence indicates that the earth's resources may be neither limited nor nearly exhausted. Persuasive arguments also demonstrate that man's relation with nature is not traceable to religious assumptions. In assessing the risks/benefits of nuclear-waste management, we should avoid risks that jeopardize the rights of future generations without imposing excessive sacrifices on the present generation.