Complaint
The programme included a consideration of the options for disposal of nuclear waste, with a contribution from Professor Claire Corkhill of Sheffield University, an expert on the safe disposal of radioactive materials.聽 A listener complained that she had been incorrect in saying there were 鈥渢wo ways of dealing with nuclear fuel when it comes from the reactor鈥 when there were in fact three.聽 The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 editorial standards of accuracy.
Outcome
The third option put forward by the listener (in addition to reprocessing and underground storage in an immobilised condition) was the use of an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), which would both produce waste with a shorter radioactive lifetime and reduce its volume.聽 The ECU acknowledged that such claims could be made for IFRs, but noted the explanation offered in an earlier response to the complaint, that Professor Corkhill did not refer to IFRs because there are no such reactors in commercial use and they did not yet offer a viable option for managing the UK鈥檚 radioactive waste.聽 In the ECU鈥檚 judgement, in a programme aimed at a general audience it was both reasonable and consistent with the 大象传媒鈥檚 standards of accuracy for her to have confined herself to the currently available options for disposal.
Not upheld