HARNESSING the enormous power released when hydrogen isotopes are fused
together looks no closer now than when it was first attempted in the late 1950s.
Hopes of building the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) to
tap that energy were badly dented in 1998 when a parsimonious US refused to sign
the ITER agreement. But then politicians are rarely lured by promises of jam
tomorrow, as this magazine has said
(14 October 2000, p 3). So I asked Helen
Liddell, when she was still energy minister (she鈥檚 now Secretary of State for
Scotland), what Britain鈥檚 policy is towards ITER.
Liddell replied that the remaining ITER partners鈥攖he European Union,
Russia and Japan鈥攚ill decide whether or not to proceed with its
construction. In the meantime, ever-optimistic, the partners are setting up a
body to oversee the eventual construction and operation of a new version of the
reactor, called ITER Fusion Energy Advanced Tokamak (ITER-FEAT). Work on the new
design is due to be finalised this year.
Liddell went on to add that Britain has to be convinced that ITER is based on
the right technology鈥攖he one offering the best chance of making fusion a
technical and commercial reality. Various technologies are being developed
throughout the world, including the Spherical Tokamak at Britain鈥檚 Culham
Laboratory. 鈥淚鈥檓 sure you will appreciate it is important that all options are
considered,鈥� said the minister.
Advertisement
The options certainly ought to be carefully considered. It would be a waste
simply to go through the motions without really taking on board the potential
pluses of ITER. After the fiasco of the climate change meeting at The Hague last
November, at which governments failed to agree how to reduce the atmospheric
burden of carbon dioxide, the ITER project should be considered a serious player
in the hydrogen economy.
I MEET farmers who say they are becoming increasingly anxious about the
purity of the seeds they buy. Accusations abound that sloppy seed companies
sometimes selling seeds contaminated with fungi or including genetically
modified varieties. Joan Ruddock raised the matter in the House of Commons late
last year. She asked the agriculture minister Joyce Quin how many spot checks
officers made to ensure seed purity.
Quin replied that between 1 May and 31 October last year, the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took and tested 611 samples to ensure they met
the standards set down by the European Union鈥檚 seeds directives. She said that
two of the samples failed to reach the minimum standard of purity 鈥渄ue to
excessive contamination by ergot and the presence of other seeds鈥�.
Quin added that the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) has powers under the
1990 Environmental Protection Act to inspect for the deliberate release of
genetically modified organisms. The CSL inspected 11 major seed importers to
ensure that appropriate checks and tests were being carried out to prevent
unapproved GM seed varieties being released.
I know that the seed companies are highly sensitive to claims of
contamination, and where a risk assessment deems it appropriate they test
samples for any GM material. That鈥檚 a good start, but the farmers鈥� concerns must
also be addressed, and the role of the inspectors is crucial.