The Coalition’s proposed nuclear energy policy has sparked heated debate, mostly over the viability of launching a currently banned nuclear energy industry in Australia by 2035.
Government MPs and progressives alike have lined up to take shots at the Opposition’s signature energy plan, whether it be on the basis of cost, viability or the apparent ideological shift from the party of small government on the issue of state-owned power. But a number of government-aligned actors have also come together to attack the safety of nuclear power via pop culture references, cartoons and scare graphics.
Australian Unions took to social media with a picture of a tardigrade (a microscopic organism otherwise known as a water bear), saying “under Dutton, this will be your family dog” — ostensibly because tardigrades are known to be extremely resistant to radiation. Perhaps a niche attack line aimed at swing-voting biologists?
Meanwhile, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan posted an image of “Peter Dutton’s Gippsland”, with deformed three-eyed fish from The Simpsons pictured (The Simpsons is set in the fictional town of Springfield, where the only source of power is the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant).
Federal Labor MP Andrew Leigh stuck with the deformed animals theme, superimposing Simpsons-style triple-eyes over beloved animated koala Blinky Bill and asking whether Peter Dutton wanted Blinky to “look like this in 50 years”.
Nationals MP Darren Chester slammed the attack lines on social media, saying it was “juvenile and demeaning” to have to engage with pop culture references on the nuclear debate. Chester’s electorate of Gippsland will, under the Coalition’s plan, host one of the nuclear reactors, with Loy Yang power station in Traralgon one of the proposed sites.
Associate Professor Tony Hooker, director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and Innovation at the University of Adelaide, called the proliferation of memes and pop culture references in attacking the Coalition’s plan “not helpful for true scientific debate”.
“There’s a lot of misinformation in those memes,” he told Crikey, calling nuclear as safe as wind and solar per terawatt of electricity produced per hour.
“Saying that it’s risky is actually untrue — and that’s taking into consideration Chernobyl and Fukushima,” he said, referencing the two most significant accidents in the history of nuclear power.
Hooker is in favour of the inclusion of nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix, and said that memes such as those circulating following the Opposition’s announcement were “unfortunately effective” in swaying an electorate.
“I think we’ve done a pretty poor job over the decades of providing radiation risk education,” he said.
It’s not just nuclear advocates who think the memes are out of place.
Ian Lowe is an emeritus professor in the School of Environment and Science at Griffith University, and has described nuclear power as “legally impossible, economically unachievable and environmentally irresponsible”.
Nevertheless, Lowe told Crikey he was “not in favour of misinformation or oversimplification”.
“The case against nuclear power can be based on solid evidence, and I don’t think you need to exaggerate it or dress it up with cartoons,” he said.
