Embracing the Precautionary Principle

On a recent vacation in Germany with my husband, we spent a day at the Deutsches Museum, a huge science and technology museum. Two exhibits, one on nanotechnology and the other on nuclear power, presented strikingly different messages about acceptable risks to society from any I’ve encountered from a major institution in the U.S.

On a recent vacation in Germany with my husband, we spent a day at the Deutsches Museum, a huge science and technology museum, so big that we had time for only a fraction of the exhibits. My favorites were the history of glass making, how road and train tunnels are built, and a hands-on exhibit of how carbon-fiber products are made to have different properties. We also visited two exhibits, one on nanotechnology and the other on nuclear power, that presented strikingly different messages about acceptable risks to society than any I’ve encountered from a major institution in the U.S.

The special exhibit on nanotechnology covered nanomaterials, biotechnology and genetic engineering, from the basic concept into details more complicated than my vacationing brain wanted to bother with.

While I recognize that new technologies offer great possibilities—for example, sunscreen with zinc and titanium oxide nanoparticles offers better sun protection and some genetically engineered foods have the potential to address nutrient deficiencies—I’m also leery of their unintended consequences. We don’t really know what happens when nanoparticles make their way into waterways: some research says they might have less of an impact than other potential ingredients used in sunscreen, but other research indicates they might degrade drinking water quality. Similarly, while genetic modification might help nutrition, the GMOs also have serious downsides, including increased pesticide use and the spread of modified organisms into the wild.

The exhibit at the Deutsches Museum acknowledged both the upsides and the downsides. It explained the benefits of nanotechnologies, but also noted that we don’t know the full consequences of tinkering with substances at this level. The English audio guide to the exhibit concluded that this uncertainty compels us to proceed with caution, limiting our use of these technologies until we fully understand the consequences. That’s the idea of the precautionary principle, which has a much bigger influence on European toxics policies than in the U.S. Here, the approach is more to assume new chemicals and technologies are safe until they are proven unsafe. I don’t remember a discussion of the precautionary principle popping up in news coverage or in a government-supported exhibit.

The other exhibit with a surprising message was on nuclear power. Germany has long had an uncomfortable relationship with nuclear energy, and after Japan’s Fukushima disaster decided to close its nuclear reactors by 2022. The exhibit in the Deutsches Museum pre-dated that decision, meaning it was written when nuclear power was still part of Germany’s future. In fact, parts of it appeared to have been from the late 1990s, judging from the discussion of upcoming deadlines in the search for a permanent nuclear waste repository. A permanent dump would need to be dry, stable and secure for thousands of years, the exhibit explained, much as an exhibit in the U.S. would describe. But then it continued with a grim presentation of what could happen if that storage failed. I photographed a poster from that part of the exhibit.

The image isn’t great, so let me explain a bit. “Radioaktiver abfall” is radioactive waste. The first panel, labeled “2014,” shows a large front loader dumping a barrel into a waste pit. The next panel, “2514,” shows a barrel that has failed and released its radioactive contents into the underground storage cavern and mushrooms aboveground becoming contaminated. The rest of the images are easier to see and understand.

Never in the U.S. have I seen such a visual presentation of the long-term hazards of nuclear waste, and certainly not in a publicly funded institution. I’ve read official documents that discuss the difficulty of storing waste safely and of designing signs that could warn future generations who speak a different language that there is dangerous material nearby. I’ve not seen anything like this. This poster is simultaneously vivid and bleak, from its coloring to the story it tells of how decisions today may affect families half a millennium in the future.

The science and physical realities behind nanotechnology and nuclear energy are the same in Germany as in the U.S., but based on what I saw at the Deutsches Museum the public discussions about their place in society are quite different. The two nations have also established very different policies. I can’t help but wonder if Germany’s willingness to have a more open conversation has helped it to adopt policies that are more protective of health and the environment.

Topics
Authors

Elizabeth Ridlington

Associate Director and Senior Policy Analyst, Frontier Group

Elizabeth Ridlington is associate director and senior policy analyst with Frontier Group. She focuses primarily on global warming, toxics, health care and clean vehicles, and has written dozens of reports on these and other subjects. Elizabeth graduated with honors from Harvard with a degree in government. She joined Frontier Group in 2002. She lives in Northern California with her son.

Find Out More