Sod's law denial comes in many forms, perhaps reflecting the widely varying formulations of this great principle of existence. Some versions are plainly overstatements, such as "bread never falls but on the buttered side": alliterative, perhaps, but easily disproved by experiment. Again, "if something can go wrong, it will", leaves out an essential factor. Sod was a subtle fellow, and craftily built time into the equation, so we have to reformulate his law as something like: "In any set of circumstances, the worst case will happen - eventually". Of course that makes Sod difficult to refute - all he has to do is grin knowingly and say, "Hang on ...!"
If you think this irritatingly imprecise, or just plain pessimistic, consider the converse: "In some sets of circumstances the worst case will not happen". Who would you put your money on, Sod or the Sod denier? Well if you are a British taxpayer for years you have been putting it on a group of inveterate deniers called the government. We saw one example earlier this year, when renewal of the UK's Trident submarine-launched nuclear missile system was rammed through parliament following a public debate that was next to non-existent (see our blog "Taking the Bomb out of Politics", 26th February). According to Tony Blair, fully supported by Gordon Brown and most of their colleagues in the House of Commons, if you roam the seas with nuclear missiles loosely pointed at people we don't like, there is no chance that even if they do the same there will be an accident of any sort. Sod of course was doubled up with laughter, but never having made a contribution to the funds of any party there was no invitation to be wined and dined in Whitehall and asked for his opinion.
As if the hazards of nuclear weapons weren't enough, it's happened again with nuclear power. This time a government bent on constructing a new generation of nuclear power stations engaged in a consultation exercise so transparently meaningless that the high court threw it out. Whitehall was forced to "think" again, but they still weren't giving Sod a look in. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth walked out, and a second legal battle will no doubt take place.
Enter the Royal Society. Nine years ago it raised with the government its concerns about the storage of large quantities of plutonium at Sellafield, and then waited in vain for action as the stockpile increased. Now it declares that "the status quo of continuing to stockpile separated plutonium without any long-term strategy for its use or disposal is not an acceptable option", and points out that while 6kg of plutonium was enough to make the Hiroshima bomb, we are storing over 100 tonnes in Cumberland. It adds that "the consequences of a security breach or accidental dispersal of the material are so severe that changes must be made". And the government wants you to trust it with a new train set of reactors!
Naturally Sod has the last laugh. Yesterday's Washington Post reports that the US Air Force has just inadvertently flown six nuclear-armed cruise missiles across America from North Dakota to Louisiana. Each warhead had ten times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
Click here for Greenpeace's thoughts on the nuclear power consultation
Comments