This is an HTML-ized copy of the original which exists at
http://www.nonukes.org/metatoc.htm .
This document is part of the The Nuclear Guardianship Library at
www.nonukes.org/ngl.htm, and is reproduced here with the permission granted
at the bottom of www.nonukes.org/metatoc.htm.
A Background Briefing on Radioactive Pollution
by Wendy Oser and Molly Young Brown, M.Div.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: This article explores technical, biomedical, political,
psychological, and moral dimensions of the radioactive pollution
problem. It critiques some of the arguments and proposals offered
by the nuclear industry. It proposes a comprehensive approach
toward creating appropriate global policy, based on principles of
nuclear guardianship, and reports on movement in promising
directions. Wendy Oser and Molly Young Brown, M.Div., edit and
write for the Nuclear Guardianship Forum and other publications.
They can be reached at Plutonium Free Future, P.O. Box 2589,
Berkeley CA 94702.
------------------------------------------------------------------
* Introduction
* Radiation and Contamination
* Biomedical Effects
* Political and Economic Complexities
* Waste Storage and Dumping
* Acceptance of Risk
* Enormous Costs
* Psychological Damage
* Problematic "Solutions"
* Why Continue Production?
* Moral Perspective
* Paradigm Shift Needed
* Guardianship
* The Nuclear Guardianship Ethic
* A Psychoanalyst's Response
* Facing the Challenge 50 Years At A Time
* Overcoming Denial
* Education
* Promising Proposals
* Energy Efficiency and Renewables
* Citizen Participation
* Conclusion
* References
INTRODUCTION
You can't see it. You can't feel it. You can't smell it. It's
effects may not show up now, this decade, this generation, this
century. There is no marker on any disease or damaged cell saying
"I was caused by that particular exposure to radiation." Yet the
radiation of our nuclear legacy will endure for millennia. Our
descendants will have one question to ask of us: What did you do
with the stuff?
The scientific, technological, political, and moral challenges
presented by radioactive pollution are huge. In the press of war,
we learned how to create and use a nuclear chain reaction.
Tragically, we have not learned how to control its horrific
results. We do not know the extent of radioactive contamination
nor the extremity of its damage. We do not know how to recall it
once radioactivity is let loose. We do not know how to contain
forever that which we still possess. We do not know how finally to
say "enough is enough" and stop making it, selling it, and
poisoning the planet. These challenges are explored in this
article.
Helplessness may overwhelm us in the face of the enormity of the
problem and its endurance through time. We may be broken-hearted
in our grief, rageful at what has been perpetrated in our names,
or in denial because our pain is so great. Yet, for the sake of
unborn generations, growing numbers of people are mustering the
courage to overcome the fear and are facing the monstrosity we
have created.
At this time the only known protection of life on Earth from an
increasing burden of radioactivity is to immediately abolish the
nuclear industry and to monitor constantly the poison we have
created (Makhijani 1994; Nuclear Guardianship Forum 1992). Nuclear
guardianship provides a model for how we may responsibly protect
the biosphere from further toxic contamination into the future.
RADIATION AND CONTAMINATION
An element is radioactive when it has an unstable nucleus that
spontaneously releases energy (or decays). The particles emitted
in the process, in the form of alpha or beta particles, neutrons,
and gamma rays, affect other atoms, causing them to become
unstable emitters of radioactivity themselves, with the potential
to contaminate whatever they are near.
The nuclear chain consists of human activities that begin with
disturbing natural radioactive uranium deep in the earth, and
includes every stage of mining, milling, transporting, enriching,
fabricating, processing, and so-called disposal. Every link in
this chain results in contamination of the biosphere. As wind and
water, microbes, insects, seeds, birds, and other life forms move
through all ecosystems (including those identified as too
contaminated to be inhabitable by humans), unconfined
radioactivity eventually disperses through the biosphere
worldwide.
Radioactive particles move through the air in the form of dust
from both the mining of uranium and the wind moving over the
tailings-mountains of uranium-laced earth left on the ground after
three to 4% of uranium is removed for processing. Extracting the
usable uranium contaminates the equipment used, the liquid that
washes it, the vehicles that transport it, the clothing of the
workers, the water they wash with, and the air with the
radioactive gases that are routinely vented. Contamination
continues at every step along the way without end; in the
reactors, the submarines, the weapons manufacturing, stockpiling,
storage, testing, use, and dismantling.
Accidents can happen at any reactor or in transport of radioactive
materials. Nuclear reactors have been described as "accidents
waiting to happen" (Roy 1993; Thomas, Greensfelder, and Akino
1996). Of course, some accidents have already happened.
Released radioactive gases and materials and structures left
without effective on-going containment have let loose into the
biosphere unknown amounts of radioactivity. Regions where the
concentration of such abandoned radioactivity has been greatest
from mining, accidents, spills, explosions, weapons fabrication,
testing, dumping of wastes, etc., have been designated as
"sacrifice zones": Chernobyl and Chelyabinsk in Russia, Hanford,
Washington, Bikini Island in the Pacific, to name a few.
Whether through naivete or misplaced priorities, by plan or by
accident, the development of nuclear technology has been
accompanied by gross as well as minute releases of radioactivity
into the atmosphere, the soil, the oceans, seas, and water table,
showing up worldwide in animal, vegetable, and inert matter.
Radiation crosses species and concentrates through the food chain,
subjecting other animals and humans to its damaging effects.
BIOMEDICAL EFFECTS
The greatest threat of radioactivity to life as we know it is
damage to the gene pool, the genetic make-up of all living
species. Genetic damage from radiation exposure is cumulative over
lifetimes and generations.
Some biomedical effects of radiation are well known. If the
exposure is great enough, as it was for 200,000 people in Japan in
1945 and for the clean-up crew in Chernobyl, death can occur
immediately or within days.
Even low-dose exposures are carcinogenic after extended exposure
(Gofman 1990). The current generation, the one in utero, and all
that follow may suffer cancers, immune system damage, leukemias,
miscarriages, stillbirths, deformities, and fertility problems.
While many of these health problems are on the rise, individuals
cannot prove either increase in "background" radiation or specific
exposure as the cause. Only epidemiological evidence is
scientifically acceptable to impute cause. Perhaps the most
extreme outcome over time would be simply the wholesale cessation
of the ability to reproduce. Radiation is a known cause of
sterility (Gofman 1981).
The quality of life of vast numbers of us may be affected by the
increased burden of radioactivity we all bear. Many victims of
radiation sickness do not show up in the statistics because the
kind of symptoms experienced, while disabling, are not as
significant as childhood leukemia, or stillbirths, or cancer, or
birth defects. Nevertheless, lives of countless people have been
affected by radiation exposure.
Beyond the physiological effects, the mental and emotional
consequences of the trauma of exposure to invisible environmental
contaminants in general, and radioactivity in particular, has been
documented (Vyner 1988). One can only speculate about the
spiritual consequences (Schell 1982; Lynch 1995).
"Background radiation" is a measurement of the accumulated
radioactivity in the atmosphere from all sources combined: the
sun, the earth, and all man-made explosions, leaks, accidents,
purposeful ventings, and dumpings. The term, however, implies
naturally occurring radiation is of no real concern. But before
the Atomic Age there were no comprehensive measurements of
naturally occurring radiation, so the use of this term obscures
the reality that we already live in a contaminated world, and that
radiation's effects are cumulative and irreversible.
With respect to nuclear pollution (and every other type of
persistent pollutant which lacks a safe dose), it cannot be
overemphasized: What counts biologically is the sum of all the
injuries over time from all the combined sources and events which
release persistent poisons (radioactive or other) into the
biosphere. If the sum matters biologically, then each contribution
to the sum matters (Gofman and O'Connor 1994).
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC COMPLEXITIES
Complicating our knowledge of and response to the problems of
radioactive contamination and its consequences are political and
economic complexities. Nuclear technology was initially developed
for its destructive capacity and its terrifying threat. The
discoveries were also fueled by the excited curiosity of the
scientists themselves. Following the first use of atomic energy as
weapons on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a worldwide
movement arose in horror or hope to limit its use to peaceful
purposes. (As a child in the late 1940s, one of the authors joined
in gathering signatures for "Atoms for Peace.")
The nuclear industry has since spent vast amounts of money to make
nuclear power acceptable to citizens; propaganda campaigns
advertise nuclear power as a source of electricity "too cheap to
meter," "green and clean," and a necessity in the face of the
increasing demand for power (Hilgartner 1982). At the same time
the industry has kept secret the intricate and inexorable
labyrinth of problems that unfold at every stage of its
operations.
While the promoters of nuclear power itself would argue otherwise,
the authors, along with many other observers, assert that there is
only one nuclear industry, that commercial nuclear power would not
exist if it were not needed to justify military use (Taylor 1996;
Thomas, Greensfelder, and Akino 1996).
All of the more than 400 nuclear power plants now operating in 32
countries produce large quantities of plutonium that, when
chemically separated from spent (used) fuel rods, can be used to
make reliable, efficient nuclear weapons of all types. Irradiated
fuel rods, when not regarded as waste, are seen as a resource for
use in breeder reactors (to produce more plutonium), or for direct
conversion into weapons. Until we phase out all nuclear power
world-wide, we continue to support "latent proliferation" of
nuclear weapons, since any government acquiring nuclear reactors
for energy production may change its mind about nuclear weapons
(or be replaced by one that does), or may secretly prepare nuclear
explosives ready for assembly and use (Feiverson 1977). Moreover,
alarmingly large quantities of uranium and plutonium can no longer
be legally accounted for, either through record-keeping errors,
careless handling, or theft. Only when we stop regarding
radioactive material as a resource and more accurately categorize
it as the dangerously toxic substance it is, can we hope to limit
the escalating contamination.
A legacy of the military roots of nuclear technology is the
secrecy that has continued to shroud the nuclear industry. Even
non-weapons nuclear research tends to remain classified in the
U.S. National Laboratories at Los Alamos and Livermore, in part,
because any discoveries may have weapons applications, and, in
part, because a cultural norm of secrecy has developed over the
years. (One of the authors grew up in Los Alamos; when recently
touring Livermore Lab, she discovered how conditioned she was
against raising challenging issues.) In the press of war, hot and
cold, politics overruled and suppressed what scientists knew then
of the dangers of radiation (May 1990). Although, since the end of
the Cold War, policy shifts in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
and the former Soviet Union have allowed some increase in access
to information, most citizens know little about the extent or the
effects of radioactive pollution, and the issue is largely avoided
by the press. In much of the nuclear world, governmental
censorship continues to keep citizens ignorant of the threat from
both military and commercial operations.
With the development of solar, wind, and other clean energy
sources, nuclear energy cannot compete in terms of efficiency or
economics. According to a British Parliamentary study, nuclear
power produces a volume of greenhouse gases second only to coal
(Eichelberg 1994) when mining, transportation and fuel
reprocessing are included, even before waste contamination and
monitoring are factored in. Nevertheless, nuclear technology is
being aggressively sold to developing nations without revealing
known environmental, economic and political consequences (or
viable alternatives).
Because of their huge financial investments, multinational
corporations and governments continue efforts to expand the
nuclear chain (read: add to the burden of radioactivity). Although
no new nuclear power reactors have been ordered in the U.S. since
1973, the same technology that is no longer seen as safe or
profitable enough in the U.S. continues to be globalized and
promoted by U.S., Canadian, European, and now Asian nuclear
industries (Thomas, Greensfelder, and Akino 1996). Countries with
small or modest energy output, particularly in Asia, are under
tremendous pressure to accept the pitch of the multinational
corporations marketing nuclear power. Threats have reportedly been
made regarding favored trade status and economic failure in the
capitalist marketplace to nations reluctant to take the nuclear
option (Eichelberg 1994).
WASTE STORAGE AND DUMPING
Millions of tons of lethal radioactive waste have accumulated
(D'Arrigo 1986). A number of possibilities have been considered
for dealing with what is not already loose in the environment.
These possibilities are not necessarily based on a commitment to
keep the material from mixing with the biosphere over the time
period necessary to render it benign. Ten to 20 half-lives may be
required for most radioactive material to reach levels that are
indistinguishable from original background, "half-life" referring
to the time it takes for a particular radioactive element to give
off half its radiation. Twenty half-lives or more generally will
apply to highly concentrated wastes such a those from nuclear
power plants (Nuclear Information and Research Service 1996). For
comparison with historic and geologic time, uranium-239 will
remain radioactive into the future for as long as our solar system
has been here; technetium-99 and uranium-234 for as long homo
erectus has been around; and plutonium-239 for longer than our
species has had burial rituals or musical instruments (Nuclear
Guardianship Project 1994a).
Referring to the nuclear materials as "waste" products to be
"disposed of," when they will remain radioactivity toxic for up
into the millions of years, is oxymoronic. These are concepts we
deal with every day: we flush our bodily wastes down the toilet
and dispose of our garbage in bags and cans that are trucked off
to be dumped somewhere out of sight. We can forget about it. Or so
we, in the industrialized world, have been lead to believe. No
doubt the pernicious, pervasive "out-of-sight, out-of-mind"
premise is discussed elsewhere in this issue of International
Issues. The "waste" and "disposal" vocabulary create the
impression that, being no longer useful, they can be dumped and
abandoned. And, in fact, that is precisely what has happened to
much of the nuclear industry's leftovers (Caufield 1989).
The weapons branch of the worldwide industry has repeatedly
disregarded the environmental consequences of dumping. Radioactive
liquids have been dumped into the ground and waters at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, contaminating the ground water and the
Columbia River. Lake Karachi, in Russia, by the Chelyabinsk
complex is so toxic with abandoned radiation that to stand next to
it only a few minutes would provide a lethal human dose of
radiation, and the water level is dropping, reaching toward the
ground water. Sellafield, in England, now and in its former life
as Windsacale, pipes radioactive waste a mile into the Irish Sea.
This is the state of radioactive waste disposal in the 20th
century.
Regarding the stuff not yet abandoned, official policies vary
around the world in part because the materials have been
classified more in the interest of those who bear liability than
in the interest of future generations. In the U.S. this has
resulted in categories primarily determined by one regulating
commission for so-called commercial waste, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), and another, the DOE, for that of the military
(Young 1994).
"High level" wastes, which include the euphemistically named spent
fuel from commercial reactors, "need to be set aside not because
their vigor is drained or their fever cooled but because these
poisonous materials have become too irradiated for further use"
(Erikson 1994). Deep underground burial is the disposal method
currently proposed. The problems with putting the waste
underground include that changing water tables, earthquakes, and
other geological factors will eventually disturb the buried waste
and lead to contamination of soil, water, and air (Thomas,
Greensfelder, and Akino 1996). No scientist or engineer can give
an absolute guarantee that radioactive waste will not someday leak
in dangerous quantities from even the best repositories. Nor can
we be confident that our descendants will not dig into the burial
sites hundreds or thousands of years from now, out of curiosity
(Peaslee 1993) or lack of information.
Military reprocessing wastes are also called high level. They are
currently destined for deep geological burial inside Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. This is tantamount to abandonment. Material
which will continue to emit radioactivity for as long as 240,000
to half a million years will be sealed in underground caves that
have demonstrated salt water seepage in their first five years. We
simply do not know how to make containment materials that will
outlast the radioactivity (Hamilton 1996).
Commercial producers of nuclear materials in the U.S. were
initially held responsible for their unusable leftovers. Creation
and management of dumps were contracted out by the utilities and
military producers to waste management companies, who proceeded to
put the stuff in unlined shallow trenches from where it has leaked
into the soil and water. Suits for damages followed because of
mismanagement and leakage. Five of the six commercial nuclear
waste landfills are currently leaking. Four of those leaking have
been managed by U.S. Ecology, the only company still being
considered to manage the dump planned in the California desert at
Ward Valley. All other firms have withdrawn their bidding due to
insoluble liability issues. No other low-level dumps are proposed
at this time. The NRC's unilateral emergency-access power to
direct waste from any state to the Ward Valley site would make
this site a national repository. The Ward Valley plan includes
shifting financial liability from the producers to the tax payers
(Goitein, Klasky, and Young 1996).
The siting of new waste dumps, long opposed by local public
interest groups, has been identified by the American Nuclear
Society as a necessary precondition for any new construction of
nuclear power plants (Eichelberg 1994).
The "low-level" waste stream from nuclear utilities, (including
the extremely long-lived plutonium leached from the irradiated
fuel rods) accounts for 99% of the radioactivity, measured in
curies, shipped to burial grounds (Hamilton 1994). An argument put
forth to justify the need for these shallow dumps is the
disposition of radioactive isotopes used in medical diagnosis and
treatment. The short half-lives of most medical radionuclides
(hours, days, weeks) enable them to be stored on site until the
material has decayed to undetectable levels (and, in fact, most
are) (Hamilton 1994). Only 1% of the "low-level" radioactive waste
stream is generated by research and medical wastes.
Also perplexing is the argument of military, or security,
necessity for geological burial of radioactive wastes. To those
who conclude that serviceable storage sites could be targeted in
war, there is less "risk" involved in choosing deep burial. "The
objection that accessible storage sites would be vulnerable to
terrorist attack is one I frequently encounter, especially among
advocates of nuclear power," comments Joanna Macy (1994a). "I
suspect that it is a 'red herring,' because if this concern were
sincere, it would be seen to apply right now to every nuclear
establishment, from fuel assembly plants to operating reactors,
since any one of them would cause widespread disaster if bombed."
Every nation that has nuclear power is a potential nuclear weapons
state (Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1995). Any nuclear
materials, including those unaccounted for, could be the basis of
terroristic threat or activity. The nuclear industry is silent
about this.
Along with generating waste, nuclear industry seems also to
generate large amounts of muddled thinking. Japan, the nation that
suffered 200,000 killed immediately by the use of atomic weapons,
has begun a "breeder" (of plutonium) reactor program which, if
fully carried out, will result in the largest stockpiling of
plutonium in the world. And the U. S., the only nation to have
used nuclear power as weapons, has told the world that it is the
most trustworthy nation to protect the world's stockpile of
plutonium (Tanahashi 1996).
ACCEPTANCE OF RISK
The nuclear industry is researching peoples' willingness to accept
risk. It is known that people feel safer driving a car than riding
in an airplane, even though driving is more risky. The industry is
attempting to offer that same illusion of control with regard to
nuclear power. They bank on the hope that the public can be
convinced that the benefits of electrical production outweigh
concerns about safety and waste (Eichelberg 1994).
In the first five decades of the nuclear age, international
recommendations for acceptable levels of worker exposure to
radiation have been revised downward a number of times (from 30
centisievert per year to the whole body in 1934 to 15 in 1950,
five in 1956, and two in 1990) (International Commission on
Radiological Protection 1991). The dangers of exposure to
low-level radiation have been historically underestimated. A 1989
NRC committee concluded that a given dose of radiation is four
times likelier to cause leukemia than was thought ten years ago
(Lenssen 1991). Existing human studies show that every dose of
ionizing radiation confers a risk of carcinogenic injury (Bertell
1986; Gofman 1981). A growing number of specialists in the field
today assert that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
"Safe" means free from risk of injury, and existing human studies
show that every dose of ionizing radiation confers a risk of
carcinogenic injury, the size of a radiation risk being tied to
the amount of the accumulated dose (Gofman 1994).
Addressing the issue of how harm from toxins has managed to
escalate, Gofman and O'Connor have put forth the Law of
Concentrated Benefit Over Diffuse Injury: "A small, determined
group, working energetically for its own narrow interests, can
almost always impose an injustice upon a vastly larger group,
provided that the larger group believes that the injury is
'hypothetical' or trivial or distant-in-the-future, or
real-but-small relative to the real-and-large cost of preventing
it" (1994). The essence of the axiom is triviality. Triumph for
each injustice is virtually assured if the advocates succeed in
presenting it as trivial. Even when new injuries or injustices
truly are small, the aggregate abuse can accumulate to tragic
proportions after the axiom of Concentrated Benefit has operated
again and again and again.
Since the refusal of the American public to expand nuclear power,
there has been a shift in government sponsored research away from
learning more about the damaging effects of radioactivity. Instead
grants are being given to proposals aimed at demonstrating that
some radioactivity is beneficial to life. The DOE has been
described as wishing to sell the public the following beliefs:
a. a little radiation is good for you (hormesis);
b. there a threshold dose of radiation below which no harm at
all occurs;
c. a dose of radiation is far less harmful if it is received
slowly over time, than if the same dose is received all at
once.
"Since 1980, the false claim that radiation received over time is
two to ten times less harmful than in a single dose is invoked to
reduce the cancers attributed to the atomic bomb by a factor of up
to ten and is applied to predictions about the slow doses from
Chernobyl" (Gofman 1990, 1994).
ENORMOUS COSTS
A definitive study of the accumulated costs of the U.S. nuclear
power, Fiscal Fission: The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power
(Komanoff and Roelofs 1992) revealed half-a-trillion dollars as a
conservative figure for resources spent through 1990. Excluded
costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate
insurance, could well total another $375 billion. These figures do
not include the almost certain escalation in future waste and
decommissioning costs.
The U.S. has just passed legislation, S 1936, that will result in
transporting radioactive materials to centralized repositories,
putting more than 50 million people in the U.S. at risk of
high-level nuclear waste transport accidents. Taxpayers will pay
for any accident damages, not the nuclear industry which generated
the waste, nor the carrier transporting it. Few realize the extent
of taxpayer liability. DOE intends to privatize the transport,
while also indemnifying the carriers (Nuclear Information and
Research Service 1996).
A move to increase DOE's budget for the radioactive waste program
will only make sense when the commitment is also made to an
orderly and economic phase-out of waste.
"Nobody at the time thought it would become such a disaster.
Nobody here could even envisage that it could develop into such a
tragedy. The truth was hidden because officials did not want to
spend the billions of rubles it will take to cure this wound"
(Drach 1991).
PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE
An aspect of nuclear pollution that has not been widely discussed
is the psychological damage to the world's population,
collectively and individually. Knowing that, because of the
presence of nuclear materials, our planet, our home, our selves
could be irreparably destroyed at any moment, impairs our ability
to engage in meaningful, successful, protective strategies (Lifton
1979; Erikson 1994).
This psychological terrorism has been abated only superficially by
the end of the Cold War. While some weapons are being dismantled,
their plutonium pits are being stockpiled. We do not know how to
make them harmless. How to make nuclear bombs is information that
is publicly available. While reprocessed plutonium is the
ingredient of choice in "high-tech designer" bombs, modest amounts
of either plutonium or enriched uranium are sufficient to create
"crude" nuclear weapons. In addition, every presence of nuclear
materials, whether in civilian reactors, mine tailings,
reprocessed plutonium, or so-called waste and dumped materials has
the potential to be used in terrorist threats or acts of
destruction (military or otherwise). This potential, whether or
not carried out, constitutes an ongoing psychological assault upon
the human family.
PROBLEMATIC "SOLUTIONS"
Humanity's vast body of scientific knowledge pales before the
challenge of isolating nuclear waste until it is harmless eons
hence. For less than a century scientists have been exploring the
nature of the atom and radioactivity, and during only a fraction
of that time have they begun to consider how to protect life from
its harm.
Many ideas for "final disposal" have been put forward in addition
to geologic abandonment but none have proven even remotely
adequate. Each technical fix explored, including some already
enacted, contains major flaws. Vitrification, radioactive wastes
solidified in molten glass to reduce its movement, generates
explosive and flammable gases and very hot radioactive sludge
(Makhijani 1994). The process is vulnerable to accidents and was
found to be 30 times more expensive than the option of storing
materials on site (Roy 1993), and it renders the radioactive
materials permanently inaccessible for application of future
knowledge. Encasement in, or combining with, cement is being
researched (Roy 1993), although no encasing material will outlast
the radioactivity, which itself causes the cement to become
embrittled, to crack and crumble. Proposals for transmuting the
so-called waste materials would produce additional radioactivity
materials, which are looked upon as further resources for economic
reasons, thus continuing the nuclear chain and its enduring
pollution (Fuller 1992; Thomas, Greensfelder, and Akino 1996). In
addition transmutation requires great amounts of energy and
chemical processing, creates new, massive quantities of waste, and
radioactive waste problems will remain in any case (Makhijani
1994). Breeder reactors have been rejected by most nations that
explored them because of their danger and the necessity for
repeatedly transporting highly poisonous plutonium and producing
more of that substance which, as previously noted, is uniquely
valuable for weapons manufacture. Japan alone is continuing to
develop its breeder program, against the rising voice of protest
from its citizens. "By industry estimates, reprocessing multiplies
the quantities of wastes requiring long-term isolation nearly
ten-fold" (Lenssen 1991).
There are seminal ideas that capture the imagination as
possibilities for the near or far future. Just this summer a
primitive microbe was identified as a new form of life, offering
possible new sources of renewable, nonpolluting natural gas and
for cleaning toxic heavy metal waste. It belongs to the class of
one-celled organisms, archaea, which can withstand radiation in
doses rated at two million rads - where 450 rads would be fatal to
any human (San Francisco Chronicle 1996).
Thought has been given to blasting radioactivity materials under
the ocean floor or into the sun. The seabed idea is stopped by the
same issues that prohibit deep burial in the earth: we cannot
predict with certainty a stable geologic future for the required
time spans. On the contrary, Earth changes geologically and
biologically, and sooner or later the radiation will disperse.
Erikson (1994) suggests that, instead of saying "any methodology
that claims precision in the anticipation of repository
consequences must be viewed with appropriate caution," the DOE
should flatly declare "any methodology that claims precision in
that regard must be regarded as ridiculous."
While the sun could easily absorb the addition of our manufactured
radioactivity, we lack the precision to ensure accident-free
transport of the materials to Cape Canaveral, let alone an
accident-proof launch. Writer Anne Herbert put it this way:
"Nuclear accidents are made by fools like me, but only God could
make a nuclear reactor that's 93 million miles from the nearest
elementary school" (1994).
WHY CONTINUE PRODUCTION?
There is no solution. It is not known how to detoxify a
radioactive particle, except by letting it spend itself through
time, during which it will continue to contaminate and damage all
life forms with which it comes in contact. How, then, shall we
proceed?
The Chernobyl catastrophe was the final argument, according to
Gorbachev. At that point "all of us understood the kind of monster
we had created" (1994). The Ukrainian poet and playwright Ivan
Drach said, "For the first time we understand what sovereignty
means, what democracy means, what freedom means. The Ukraine has
been sacrificed. This nation, which possesses thousands of years
of history, is now on its knees, its radioactive knees. This is
not drama; this is tragedy. But the most important thing is the
children. Without healthy children, we have no future" (1991).
Why have we not simply ceased production? How is it we have
accepted the continued production of radioactive toxins and the
stockpiling and dumping of their wastes?
To begin with, world power is still measured in terms of
plutonium, the "deadly gold of the Nuclear Age" (International
Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War and the Institute for
Energy and Environmental Research 1993). Holding veto power on the
United Nations Security Council are the five nations who have
atomic bomb capability. "The question is: Which would be preferred
by most human beings-a world in which possession and threatened
use of nuclear weapons is allowed for some but forbidden for
others, or one in which they are completely outlawed, with no
exceptions?" (Taylor 1996) Non-nuclear states are afraid of being
left out of the "nuclear Mafia."
Moreover, the centralized nature of an energy industry based on
nuclear power plants makes it very attractive to multinational
investment. If a country can be convinced to commit to nuclear
power as its major energy source, the controlling corporation is
almost guaranteed years of profit. Moreover, the nuclear industry
has managed to convince governments to underwrite much of the
developmental costs, plus the costs of "disposing" of wastes,
freeing the corporations from this daunting concern. As more and
more millions are invested in the industry, it becomes more and
more difficult to reverse the commitment.
MORAL PERSPECTIVE
Perhaps our pain and horror at the destructive power of the split
atom, our failure to see the effect of greed brought on by a
materialistic value of life, and our fear and sense of
helplessness living under the power of the military/industrial
complex have all resulted in mass denial. "It should have been
clear that our ignoring, or denial, of the devastating
accumulation of the nuclear arsenal and nuclear waste was
pathology and deeply connected therefore to the ways we lead our
lives" (Haas 1992).
Thus we have tolerated the practice of human sacrifice, one of the
unacknowledged costs of having a nuclear industry. Representatives
of indigenous peoples from around the world have reported on the
suffering and devastation inflicted on them by our nuclear
activities (World Uranium Hearings 1992). Their testimony is an
appalling indictment of nuclear colonialism.
For it is their homelands, their bodies and their ancient cultures
that are most immediately victimized by nuclear power and nuclear
weapons. On their land 70% of the world's uranium is mined (Native
American lands, [former] Soviet minorities, recently independent
Namibians), most of the testing takes place (Nevada, Bikini and
Eniwetok, Tahiti, Maralinga, Central Asia), and radioactive waste
is dumped (Prairie Islands Sioux in Minnesota, Tibet). These
crimes are compounded, in virtually every case by secrecy and
deception and intimidation on the part of industry and government
(Macy 1993).
PARADIGM SHIFT NEEDED
Is there, perhaps, some shift happening, allowing us the courage
to face this heretofore overwhelming challenge? If this is so, it
must come from, among other routes, a willingness to take on the
moral and ethical aspects of the challenge, and to develop new
ways of thinking from far broader and longer perspectives.
"The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking
we have done thus far creates problems that we cannot solve at the
same level at which we created them." (Albert Einstein)
"One must care about a world one will never see." (Bertrand
Russell)
"The greatest revolution in our generation is the discovery that
human beings by changing the inner attitudes of their minds can
change the outer aspects of their lives." (William James)
"Because our nuclear legacy impacts the well-being of future
generations, we must consider their rights when we plan for the
disposition of radioactive materials. Because of the endurance of
long-lived radiation and its cumulative damage, we must come to
understand our place in "deep time" ." (Macy 1991b).
Citizen groups and a few government organizations around the world
have begun to address these issues, including Cousteau Society,
Greenpeace, Nuclear Free Zone movement, Nuclear Guardianship
Project, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Don't Waste
America, Women's Nuclear Free Network, World Information Service
on Energy, and local groups everywhere there are nuclear
materials.
GUARDIANSHIP
Of these groups we give particular emphasis in this article to the
work of Nuclear Guardianship Project (NGP), as that has been a
focus of the authors' own citizen-involvement since its inception
in 1988, and because of the importance of its focus on the
integration of ethical issues with political and technical
decisions.
NGP developed out of a citizens' study group addressing the issue
of responsible care of nuclear waste. The group was initially
drawn together by Dr. Joanna Macy, a scholar of general systems
theory, Buddhism, and environmental ethics, and included a
cosmological physicist, a poet, a cultural anthropologist, a
nuclear engineer, a citizen-diplomat, educators, artists, and
psychologists, a number of whom suffered from damaged immune
system diseases possibly attributable to radiation exposure.
The group members educated themselves through teaching and
reading, contact with experts and organizations, visits to sites
and with the people living near and working at them, and through
acts of imagination projecting themselves into past and future
time. Ideas evolved through these experiences, and the following
statement of principles emerged:
Nuclear Guardianship is a citizen commitment to present and future
generations to keep radioactive materials out of the biosphere.
Recognizing the extreme damage these materials inflict on all
life-forms and their genetic codes, Nuclear Guardianship requires
a. interim containment of radioactive materials in accessible,
monitored storage, so that leaks can be repaired, and future
technologies for reducing and containing their radioactivity
can be applied;
b. stringent limits on transport of radioactive materials, to
avoid contaminating new sites, and to minimize spills and
accidents;
c. cessation of the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear
energy; and
d. transmission to future generations of the knowledge necessary
for their self-protection and the ongoing guardianship
through time (Nuclear Guardianship Project 1992).
The group tried to identify with its descendants, to intuit what
they will want from us 50 years, 500 years, a 1000 years from now.
We imagined their interest in our politics, our inventions, and
our art will pale before their questions: "What did you do with
the stuff? Where is the radioactivity and how can we protect
ourselves from it?"
NGP has propose the following ethic as an evolving expression of
values to guide decision-making on the management of radioactive
material (Nuclear Guardianship Project 1994b):
THE NUCLEAR GUARDIANSHIP ETHIC
1. Each generation shall endeavor to preserve the foundations of
life and well-being for those who come after. To produce and
abandon substances that damage following generations is
morally unacceptable.
2. Given the extreme toxicity and longevity of radioactive
materials, their production must cease. The development of
safe, renewable energy sources, and nonviolent means of
conflict resolution is essential to the health and survival
of life on Earth. Radioactive materials are not to be
regarded as an economic or military resource.
3. We accept responsibility for the nuclear materials produced
in our lifetimes and those left in our safekeeping.
4. Future generations have the right to know about the nuclear
legacy bequeathed to them and to protect themselves from it.
5. Future generations have the right to monitor and repair
containers, and to apply such technologies as may be
developed to protect the biosphere more effectively. Deep
burial of radioactive materials precludes these possibilities
and risks uncontrollable contamination to life support
systems.
6. Transport of radioactive materials, with its inevitable risks
of accidents and spills, should be undertaken only when
conditions at the current site pose a greater ecological
hazard than transportation.
7. Research and development of technologies for the least
hazardous long-term treatment and placement of nuclear
materials should receive high priority in funding and public
attention.
8. Education of the public about the character, source, and
containment of radioactive materials is essential for the
health of present and future generations. This education
should promote understanding of our relationship to the Earth
and to time.
9. The formation of policies governing the management of
radioactive materials requires full participation of the
public. Free circulation of information and open
communication are indispensable for the self-protection of
present and future generations.
10. The vigilance necessary for ongoing containment of
radioactive materials requires a moral commitment. This
commitment is within our capacity, and can be developed and
sustained by drawing on the cultural and spiritual resources
of our human heritage. The Nuclear Guardianship Ethic is
proposed as an evolving expression of values to guide
decision-making on the management of radioactive materials.
A PSYCHOANALYST'S RESPONSE
Psychoanalyst Thea Bauriedl (1992) concluded that the idea of
nuclear guardianship incorporates thinking that could lead to
solving some of today's most difficult problems. By not attempting
the "final solution" of burying life-threatening waste, we afford
future generations a better opportunity to deal with the poisonous
material. By storing the waste where we can keep an eye on it, we
keep the danger, and the guilt it generates, from being
suppressed. "The real peril lies in ignoring these dangers."
Bauriedl points to the implication of guardianship that to protect
the next generations we must explicitly bequeath them the
unresolved dangers of our nuclear waste production. As we simply
are unable to free them from the consequences of our mistakes, we
are at least not ignoring them, and they will have a chance to
create viable strategies for their safety.
Guardianship recognizes the dangers of human arrogance, and allows
us to become aware of the responsibility each parent generation
holds for its children. Storage sites for toxic materials are to
be places of contemplation to which everyone has access, where the
intention is to remain aware of the necessity to protect the
surrounding environment.
Places with the greatest potential for destruction the world has
ever known acquire, in this way, a certain spiritual significance.
All the great religions remind us that besides recognizing and
accepting our mistakes, the path of freedom lies in owning our own
failings, rather than projecting them onto others. This re-owning
is not an excuse for past [or future] mistakes, but is humanizing
and leads to compassion for ourselves and others.
Many scientists and technicians believe their work has nothing to
do with mythology. They are mistaken: they, especially, live in
the delusion that they can control nature. Through the
guardianship concept, this myth can be called into question. We
need new myths and new symbols to help us protect our lives and
those of future generations (Bauriedl 1992).
She concludes that the basic acts of nuclear guardianship-ceasing
production of the radioactive toxins and collectively maintaining
them-are psychologically healing by bringing us together to bear
the responsibility for what we have created.
Researchers may find uniquely valuable data to use by "listening"
in a new way and to new subjects. "Our very lives might depend on
this listening. After the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the wind
told the story that was being suppressed by the [leaders]. It gave
away the truth. It carried the story of danger to other countries.
It was a poet, a prophet, a scientist" (Hogan 1991).
FACING THE CHALLENGE 50 YEARS AT A TIME
It is nearly inconceivable to consider being responsible into the
future for tens or hundreds of thousands years. So arbitrary
numbers have been chosen because of their economic, political,
technical, or psychological implications, e.g., 100 years for
monitoring shallow burial dumps, or 10,000 years to anticipate
needing to communicate deep burial to our descendants (Erikson
1994).
Communicating with the unknown distant future was the mission of
architects, anthropologists, materials scientists, and linguists
convened by the DOE to consider long-term warning markers for a
centralized disposal site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, New
Mexico (Peaslee 1993). The project was posited on the assumption
that human culture could suffer some rupture in the future, and,
therefore, knowledge might not be passed on culturally.
Our wish to decide now-once and for all--how to "dispose" of the
stuff reflects our lack of faith in the future. Yet, the rate of
technological innovation promises to be infinitely more rapid in
years to come than it has been in years past (Erikson 1994).
In her article "Fifty Years at a Time," Molly Young Brown (1994)
explores an approach that is more psychologically manageable and
would make it possible for future generation to apply their own
ingenuity to the problem.
If we understand ourselves to be conduits of life and culture
between the past and the future, we will find our responsibility
less overwhelming. We can address ourselves to keeping nuclear
materials out of the biosphere for the next 50 years or so,
storing it so that the material and our knowledge about it remain
accessible to our grandchildren. They in turn will carry this
responsibility forward, according to the wisdom and values of
their time.
"Fifty years at a time" reminds us of the "one day at a time"
slogan for recovering addicts. It keeps one focused on the present
task, within the context of a lifetime of recovery. And perhaps
that is what we must now do as a culture: recover from our
addiction to nuclear energy and its underlying dream of unlimited
power over nature and one another.
We in the industrialized world have pursued such a dream of
dominance for centuries, trying to assert control over the natural
processes of life, and over each other. Our enchantment with
nuclear energy-and the toxic mess we have wrought-reflects the
larger pattern of human alienation from nature and destruction of
the environment. Like protecting the rainforests, keeping air and
water clean, preserving biodiversity, and all the other ecological
concerns we have today, nuclear guardianship requires that we
radically change our relationship to the biosphere. Instead of
"power-over," we must learn "power-with," as we take our place in
the vast, complex, interdependent web of life on Earth.
Nuclear guardianship is not more or less important than any of the
other transformational tasks we humans face today. This and
everything else needs to happen. To work on one task is to work on
them all. Addressing the social injustices that lead to warfare
and terrorist attacks, for example, will help create a stable
social order within which guardianship can endure. We must learn
to act sustainably in all aspects of our collective life,
providing at least minimal food, clothing, shelter, and dignity
for everyone, or radioactive contamination will be only one of
many contributors to the collapse of our habitat.
Nuclear guardianship can be a training ground for this
transformation of human consciousness. Through guardianship, we
learn to sustain the gaze, to keep our attention on the reality
before us, overcoming the temptation to deny or escape the
responsibility. We affirm our commitment to the future, doing what
we can now to assure the continuity of human life and evolution,
and then faithfully passing the task along to our descendants.
Because of the vast eons of time involved in the radioactive decay
of plutonium, nuclear guardianship keeps us humble. We realize
that haste is our greatest enemy, for precipitous decisions made
now may prove irrevocably disastrous, even within the next few
years. Guardianship trains us to think in terms of the whole: the
whole of humanity, the whole of the ecosphere, the whole of time.
OVERCOMING DENIAL
A number of activities around the world are moving toward
overcoming the denial that has surrounded the nuclear legacy and
our responsibility for it. Some that include education and
organizing for specific changes are the Nuclear Free Zone
movement, Abolition 2000, the Campaign for a Plutonium Free World,
and the successful World Court Project.
Some projects directed to remembering the past and connecting with
the future have combined contemplation, aesthetics, location, and
information. Participants on the Atomic Mirror Pilgrimage traced
the geographic links of the nuclear chain, journeying from uranium
mines to test sites to Hiroshima. For 17 years the Nevada Desert
Experience, organized by an ecumenical community, has held annual
vigils at the Nevada Test Site. Artists, such as Barbara Donachy,
Mayumi Oda, and Kazuaki Tanahashi, are influencing awareness
through their works, rituals, and installations, while others do
so with photographic documentation (Goin 1991; Del Tredici 1987).
Several films have given vivid imagery to what is at stake
(Testimony 1983; The Day After 1983), as well as numerous
documentaries and media reports (Video Project 1995). "Wake-up"
books have been published addressing psychological spiritual,
ethical questions raised for the present and future (Ruggiero and
Sahulka 1996; Macy 1983, 1991b; Glendenning 1989; Posner 1990;
Schell 1982) and giving relevant personal testimony (Griffin 1992;
Williams 1991; Glendenning 1994). Some universities have
established environmental ethics departments. Individuals (Seed,
Macy, et al. 1988; Macy 1983, 1991a, 1991b; Cole 1992) and
organizations (Institute for Deep Ecology Education; Center for
Ecoliteracy; Interhelp) are exploring deep ecology and
ecopsychology.
Mainstream media increasingly report on nuclear events, from
governmental horrors of the past to the unsolvable waste
situation. The New York Times Magazine devoted its cover and a
12-page article (Erikson 1994) to radioactive waste, urging
patience. Noting that "nuclear waste buried in haste will still be
deadly in 12001 A.D.," Erikson warned, "we dare not act as though
as know," and urged the government to "relax its insistence on
immediate and irreversible burial and turn to forms of storage
that allow both continuous monitoring and retrieval."
NGP has developed a slide show presentation of an imaginative
journey to a nuclear guardian site of the future. Through images,
music, and narration, audience members envision how people at
guardianship sites might keep accurate knowledge of our nuclear
legacy alive, continue research,, and maintain containment of the
radioactive materials. Vital to the presentation is the suggestion
that these people in the future would feel gratitude that we, in
the late 20th century, remembered them, calling on the wisdom
traditions of our human heritage and our profound caring for life
across time, thus allowing them to participate in protecting
themselves from the enduring "poison fire" (Nuclear Guardianship
Project 1989). Such positive future images are needed to balance
anger, despair, helplessness, and other potentially incapacitating
responses, and to free human energy for creatively, committedly
facing the horror (Macy 1983; Glendenning 1989).
EDUCATION
The general public has been woefully uninformed about radioactive
materials, their biomedical effects, whether they can be safely
stored, transported or used, and where the materials are located.
Research is conducted primarily by vested interests within the
nuclear industry, with little information made available to the
public. Moreover, information has been hidden by governments in
the name of "national security." As citizens inform themselves,
they will influence their governments to pass legislation limiting
production and transportation and safeguarding already produced
radioactive materials.
People have the right to know about the slow, cumulative poisoning
that is taking place in us all, and also to information about ways
we can protect ourselves. There is no panacea, but there is
information about what makes cells less, or more, vulnerable, to
radiation damage (Lee 1990; Radiation Protection Home Page 1996).
Diet for the Atomic Age (Shannon 1987), for example, details and
justifies human dietary recommendation to help minimize radiation
absorbed and detoxify radiation poisoning (e.g., eat low on the
food-chain where radiation and other toxins are less
concentrated). Such knowledge may make a difference in how
incapacitated we or our children become from radiation exposure.
All this education and resultant action will only "occur in a
context of a radical shift in our collective consciousness, away
from materialism and greed toward reverence for all life. Creative
imagination is needed, both to devise strategies, and to motivate
us with the images of those [beings of the future] for whom we
work today" (Brown 1992).
Through the concepts and contributions of environmental justice,
deep ecology, and epidemiology, many people are moving away from
an anthropocentric belief, which views nonhuman living species as
inferior to humans, with less inherent right to exist. An
"ecocentric" perspective views humans as an intrinsic part of
nature, with a unique role and responsibility within the evolution
of life on this planet. "We [humans] alone are capable of holding
a truly broad world view that represents the whole of nature and
includes all possible points of view in addition to our own. We
can-and must-gain enough perspective to see ourselves as one part
of a much greater living system, or being, and learn to act
accordingly" (Sahtouris 1989).
PROMISING PROPOSALS
What are the essential requirements of a responsible global policy
on the care of radioactive materials? "Don't make it. Don't move
it. Don't bury it. Don't forget it." (Concerned Citizens for
Nuclear Safety 1988).
Growing numbers of non-governmental organizations are making
proposals regarding the responsible care of nuclear materials
(Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes, Greenpeace, Nuclear
Guardianship Project, Nuclear Information and Research Service,
Plutonium Free Future). They all recognize that safe storage of
nuclear materials cannot be guaranteed. Even the best designed
facilities will leak someday. Officials obscure that fact by
proposing new sites for the waste with the implication that moving
the waste will resolve the problem (Mongerson 1990).
Nuclear reactors themselves remain radioactive, long after
decommissioning. They are de facto waste facilities already.
Citizens are beginning to reject the "not-in-my-backyard" stance,
accepting the burden of responsibility. Mongerson, living near a
reactor, says it "is not a question of fairness to ask the people
who live around the waste generators to bear more risk than the
rest of us... Those of us who live at these existing facilities
are just stuck with a raw deal" (1990). Her local citizens' group
agreed that moved waste should not be placed in new sites but
should go to existing facilities.
When we stop generating radioactive waste, the accumulation of
these wastes will stop. Members of existing nuclear communities
would continue to be employed as the reactors were decommissioned.
Those who work with radiation and seek to contain it are already,
in a sense, guardians (Macy 1994a).
The Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Waste (1990) subscribes to a
plan of action specifying that generators must retain title to,
responsibility for, and possession of the waste they have made. An
independent policing system to assure generator compliance,
[inter]national criteria and regulations are essential.
Incineration, redefinition as "below regulatory concern," or
dilution to disperse the dose over a larger population must not be
allowed. Reparation and recovery plans must be developed for the
residents and workers in areas where nuclear activity has taken
place (World Uranium Hearings 1992).
Dr. Rustom Roy, a leading researcher in nuclear waste, recommends
that we store nuclear waste in packaging "on the ground at
military research and production sites where it was produced.
Likewise, on-site storage of civilian fuel rods is the way to go
for at least the next 50 years. We already have 500 huge, highly
radioactive holes in the Nevada Test Site. These can never be
moved, changed, or cleaned up. But one of them could take an
enormous amount of grouted radioactive defense waste, making both
safer" (1993). The goal in radioactive waste management must be to
isolate human-made radioactive materials from the environment for
their entire hazardous life.
Nuclear Information and Resources Service has created a proposal
for storage-for-decay:
The material must decay to radioactive levels indistinguishable
from (not in addition to) original background, as determined by
using appropriate sampling techniques and the best available,
appropriate detection instrumentation properly calibrated and set
at the most sensitive setting. The general rule is that 10 to 20
half-lives is the hazardous life of radioactive materials. In some
cases, depending upon the original amount of radioactivity in the
material, 20 or more half-lives may be required for the material
to reach levels that are indistinguishable from original
background. The need for 20 half-lives or more generally will
apply to highly concentrated wastes, such as those from nuclear
power plants, and not to medical waste (1995).
Radioactivity can be measured on a number of scales: mass of the
radioactive materials, amount of radiation given off, kind of
radiation (alpha and beta particles, neutrons, or gamma waves), or
the half-life of the radioactive isotopes. The choice of scale may
depend on which arguments are being made (Young 1994). Long-term
environmental safety should be the main concern of all nuclear
policy. Guidelines for a uniform global classification policy for
radioactive materials should thus include the following:
a. all those containing significant amounts of long-lived
radionuclides should be isolated from the environment
according to the most stringent long-term management option;
b. radionuclides should be segregated according to half-life;
c. radioactive waste should also be classified by level of
radioactivity (as in Sweden, where low, intermediate, and
high-level categories require different levels of cooling and
shielding) (Young 1994).
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES
To accomplish phasing out worldwide nuclear power, while being
responsive to the environmental disruption caused by continued
large-scale use of fossil fuels, an intense, global response is
needed, developing and using energy efficiency technologies and
renewable energy sources which derive directly or indirectly from
solar radiation (Taylor 1996).
Energy efficient technologies are fully developed for every
end-use sector of the economy. They could cut U.S. energy
consumption roughly in half, with no reduction in comfort,
service, or lifestyle. Non-polluting renewable energy sources
include wind power, solar thermal energy, solar photovoltaic
electricity, biomass, and solar buildings. The DOE has made its
own study showing that wind power alone could, in principle,
supply more than the entire U.S. energy demand. Another little
known fact is that the DOE has estimated the total renewable
energy resource base in the United States to be enormous, nearly
one thousand times the current energy consumption in the country.
However, for renewable energy to flourish, regulatory conditions
must be reformed to eliminate biases that favor conventional
energy technologies over renewable technologies (Stockholm
Environmental Institute 1993).
The primary obstacle to a sustainable energy future is not
technical or economic but political will. The shift can happen in
a timely way if enough governments, communities, and industries
fundamentally change their approach and make a firm commitment to
promote and develop renewable energy. Individual citizens, as
policy-makers and community participants, play a critical role
(Thomas, Greensfelder, and Akino 1996).
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
It will take public opinion on a wide scale to ensure that the
world's leaders act. Radiation protection has been compared to
safe sex; everybody has to be an expert. "We won't solve the
problem of containing radiation until its danger is universally
known, like knowing that fire is hot and you ought not to put your
finger in the flame or you will be burned... It has to be in our
bones" (Carde 1994).
Citizen involvement is needed. Citizen organizations must provide
governments and international authorities with studies and
analyses to strengthen international law for peace-keeping and to
prevent worsening environmental impact from the dismantling of old
systems and weapons proliferation (Gorbachev 1994). Rancho Seco,
providing nuclear powered electricity to Sacramento, California,
was the first reactor to be shut down by citizen referendum. A
milestone was just marked in Japan when the town of Maki rejected
a planned nuclear plant by referendum. The mayor has said he will
honor the result and refuse to sell town land to the utility (The
New York Times 1996). A "Resolution for a Plutonium Free World"
has been offered to build consensus toward prohibiting the
production of plutonium (Campaign for a Plutonium Free World
1996).
Projects are underway to address the total rejection of nuclear
weapons. This year (1996) the World Court decided that the use or
threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of
international law under almost any conceivable circumstance. The
Manhattan Project II calls for the same kind of commitment,
intelligence, and urgency that created nuclear weapons to be
brought to bear on abolishing them (Ellsberg 1996). The
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is being signed, while India
continues its demand that nations with stockpiled nuclear arsenals
eliminate them within a specified time frame.
A fresh policy start is being advocated in the U.S. where
organizations and members of the legislature have urged convening
a Blue Ribbon Commission to conduct a top-to-bottom review of
high- and low-level nuclear waste policies.
Roland Posner (1990) recommends that a legislative body for our
descendants be formed to systematically collect relevant
information for future generations. As Gofman (1994) put it, "A
trustworthy data base is a sacred obligation to humanity." Posner
calls for a "Chamber of Future Affairs," which would be advised by
commissions for middle- and long-term prognoses and an ethics
commission. It would be supported by an office of future-research,
a data office to collect and make the relevant information
accessible to everyone, and an executive office to supervise
danger areas to warn people and other animals away.
We must develop a comprehensive global approach to managing all
radioactive materials over the generations that they will exist.
Political, military, and business leaders, and ordinary citizens
must face the problem together. We need leaders in religion,
politics, and science to speak out and point us in new directions,
away from secrecy, and toward a new paradigm for our
civilizations.
CONCLUSION
No accomplishment of our generation-no work of art or science-will
matter more to posterity than the steps we take now to keep our
radioactive legacy out of the biosphere. We have the technical
ingenuity for nuclear guardianship; do we have the moral strength?
Do we care enough for future generations? I believe we do (Macy
1994b).
As Macy's challenge states, all our remarkable human
accomplishments will amount to nothing if future generations are
sickened, crippled, and killed on a massive scale by the toxic
byproducts of this generation's technological excesses.
Radioactive pollution constitutes one of the most menacing threats
to the present and future of humankind, because of its endurance
over time, its ubiquity, and its invisibility. Although no one has
found any permanent means of safely containing radioactive
materials, the nuclear industry continues to produce more and
more, through weapons research and production, and in nuclear
power plants of all kinds. The industry mines, transports,
processes, reprocesses, and buries nuclear materials with totally
inadequate safeguards, threatening life and health at every step
of the way. Secrecy and misinformation perpetuate public ignorance
of the dangers. Citizens throughout the world must educate
themselves and bring pressure to bear on governments and corporate
interests to dismantle the industry altogether and provide for the
safe, accessible storage and monitoring of all radioactive
materials, so that future generations will be protected as much as
possible and enabled to continue the guardianship of this legacy
as long as necessary.
REFERENCES
Bauriedl, Thea. 1992. "Psychoanalyst's View On Guilt, Grief,
Responsibility, and Mythology." From the Swiss publication NUX.
Translation by N. Menrath and K Smith. Nuclear Guardianship Forum.
1992. 1. Spring,
Bertell, Rosalie. 1986. No Immediate Danger, a Prognosis for
Radioactive Earth. 2nd edition. Summertown, TN: Book Publishing
Company.
Brown, Molly Young. 1992. Cousteau Society Proposes Bill of Rights
for Future Generations." Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 1 Spring.
_____ . 1994. "How Can We Face the Challenge? Fifty Years at a
Time." Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 3, Spring.
Campaign for a Plutonium Free World. 1996. Resolution for a
Plutonium Free World. Berkeley, CA: Inochi.
Carde, Margaret. 1994. "Everybody Has To Be An Expert." Nuclear
Guardianship Forum. 3, Spring.
Caufield, Catherine. 1989. Multiple Exposures, Chronicles of the
Radiation Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes. 1990. Position Paper.
East Concord, NY: Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes.
Cole, Jim. 1992. Facing Our Future: From Denial to Environmental
Action. Novato, CA: Growing Images.
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. 1988. Daily Reminder. Santa
Fe: Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. Post card.
D'Arrigo, Diane. 1986. "Nuclear Waste." Energy Fact Sheet, # 1.
Washington, DC: Nuclear Information and Research Service.
Del Tredici, Robert. 1987. At Work in the Fields of the Bomb. New
York: Harper and Row.
Drach, Ivan. 1991. Quoted in Greenpeace Newsletter. Washington,
DC: Greenpeace USA. January-February.
Eichelberg, Don. 1994. "Public Is Opposed, Industry Pushes On."
Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 3. Spring.
Ellsberg, Daniel. 1996. "Manhattan Project II: Abolishing Nuclear
Weapons." In Greg Ruggiero and Stuart Sahulka., editor. Critical
Mass, Voices for a Nuclear-Free Future. Westfield, NJ: Open Media
and Campaign for Peace and Democracy.
Erikson, Kai. 1994. A New Species of Trouble. New York: W.W.
Norton. Adapted as "Out of Sight, Out of Mind." In The New York
Times Magazine. March 4.
Feiverson, Howard. 1977. Quoted in Theodore B. Taylor. 1996.
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons: Global Security Study No 22.
Santa Barbara CA: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Fuller, Ed. 1992. Interview by Karen Smith. Nuclear Guardianship
Forum. 1. Spring.
Glendenning, Chellis. 1989. Waking Up in the Nuclear Age, The Book
of Nuclear Therapy. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
_____ . 1994. My Name is Chellis, and I'm in Recovery from Western
Civilization. Boston: Shambala.
Gofman, John. 1981. Radiation and Human Health. San Francisco:
Committee for Nuclear Responsibility.
_____ . 1990. Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An
Independent Analysis. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear
Responsibility.
_____ . 1994. Interview by Anthony Phillipson. "John Gofman, A Man
Who Refuses to Lie." In Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 3. Spring.
Gofman, John, and Egan O'Connor. 1994. The Law of Concentrated
Benefit Over Diffuse Injury. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear
Responsibility.
Goin, Peter. 1991. Nuclear Landscapes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Goitein, Ernest, Philip Klasky, and Ward Young. 1996. "Comments to
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed
Ward Valley Low-Level Radioactive Waste Repository." San
Francisco: Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition. Unpublished paper.
Gorbachev, Mikhail. 1994. Quoted in Parade Magazine. January 23.
Griffin, Susan. 1992. A Chorus of Stones: The Private Life of War.
New York: Doubleday.
Haas, Robert. 1992. In Susan Griffin. 1992. A Chorus of Stones:
The Private Life of War. New York: Doubleday. Book jacket.
Hamilton, Minard. 1994. Radioactive Waste: The Medical Factor.
Washington DC: Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
_____ . 1996. "The Deadly Consequences of Nuclear Power." In Greg
Ruggiero and Stuart Sahulka, editors. Critical Mass, Voices for a
Nuclear-Free Future. Westfield, NJ: Open Media and Campaign for
Peace and Democracy.
Herbert, Anne. 1994. Quoted in Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 3.
Spring.
Hilgartner, Stephen, Richard C. Bell, and Rory O'Connor. 1982.
Nukespeak, the Selling of Nuclear Technology in America. London:
Penguin.
Hogan, Linda. 1991. "Hearing Voices." In Janet Sternburg, ed. The
Writer on Her Work, v2. New York: WW Norton and Co.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1991. In
Nicholas Lenssen. Nuclear Waste: The Problem That Won't Go Away.
Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and The
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. 1993. Plutonium,
Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
Komanoff, Charles and Cora Roelofs. 1992. Fiscal Fission: The
Economic Failure of Nuclear Power. Washington, DC: Greenpeace.
Lee, Lita. 1990. Radiation Protection Manual. 3rd edition. Redwood
City, CA: Grassroots Network.
Lenssen, Nicholas. 1991. Nuclear Waste: The Problem That Won't Go
Away. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Lifton, Robert Jay. 1979. The Broken Connection. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Lynch, Rosemary. 1995. "The Bomb that Went Off in Our Hearts: The
Myth of Innocence." The Wolf of Pace e Bene. Fall.
Macy, Joanna. 1983. Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
_____ . 1991a. "Technology and Mindfulness: A Call to Attention to
the Radioactive Results of Nuclear Technology." Nuclear
Guardianship Forum. 1. Spring.
_____ . 1991b. World as Lover, World as Self. Berkeley, CA:
Parallax Press.
_____ . 1993. "Indigenous Peoples Speak Out." Nuclear Guardianship
Forum . 2. Spring.
_____ . 1994a. "Swiss Authorities Debate Guardianship." Nuclear
Guardianship Forum . 3. Spring.
_____ . 1994b. Quoted in Nuclear Guardianship Forum 3. Spring.
p.1.
Makhijani, Arjun. 1994. Interview by Francis Macy. Nuclear
Guardianship Forum. 3. Spring.
May, John. 1990. The Greenpeace Book of the Nuclear Age, the
Hidden History, the Human Cost. New York: Pantheon Books.
Mongerson, Carol. 1990. Position Paper and Action Plan. East
Concord, NY: Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes.
The New York Times. 1996. "Voters in Japanese Town Oppose Nuclear
Power Plant." August 5.
Nuclear Guardianship Project. 1989. Guardianship Site: Late Twenty
Second Century A.D. Berkeley, CA: Nuclear Guardianship Project.
Performance with slides.
_____ . 1992. "On the Responsible Care of Radioactive Materials."
Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 1. Spring.
_____ . 1994a. "Nuclear Timeline: Decay of Radionuclides, Compared
with Historical and Geological Periods.". Nuclear Guardianship
Forum. 3. Spring.
_____ . 1994b. "Nuclear Guardianship Ethic." Nuclear Guardianship
Forum. 3. Spring.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. 1995. "High-Level
Radioactive Waste," An Energy Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Nuclear
Information and Resource Service.
_____ . 1996 "Nuclear Information and Research Service Web Page."
Washington, DC: http://www.nirs.org/.
Peaslee, S. Claire. 1993. "Sending Signals to the Future, How to
Design Long-Term Warning Markers for WIPP." Nuclear Guardianship
Forum. Spring. 2.
Posner, Roland, ed. 1990. Warnungen an die ferne Zukunft: AtommYll
als Kommuniktionsproblem. (Warnings to the Far Future) Raben
SteifzYge Verlag.
"Radiation Protection Home Page." 1996.
http://www.umich.edu/~bbusby/.
Roy, Rustum. 1993. Interview by Fran Macy. Nuclear Guardianship
Forum. Spring. 2.
Ruggiero, Greg and Stuart Sahulka. 1996. Critical Mass, Voices for
a Nuclear-Free Future. Westfield, NJ: Open Media and Campaign for
Peace and Democracy.
Sahtouris, Elisabet. 1989. Gaia: The Human Journey from Chaos to
Cosmos. New York: Simon and Schuster. (Updated and republished in
1995 as Earth Dance, Living Systems in Evolution.)
San Francisco Chronicle. 1996. "Microbe Confirmed As New Form of
Life." August 23.
Schell, Jonathan. 1982. Fate of the Earth. New York: Knopf.
Seed, John and Joanna Macy, et al. 1988. Thinking Like a Mountain;
Toward a Council of All Beings. Philadelphia: New Society
Publishers.
Shannon, Sara. 1987. Diet for the Atomic Age, How to Protect
Yourself from Low-Level Radiation. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publishing
Group, Inc.
Stockholm Environment Institute. 1993. Toward a Fossil Free Energy
Future, the Next Energy Transition. Boston: Tellis Institute.
Tanahashi, Kazuaki. 1996. "The Irony of Goodness: America's
Nuclear Weapons." Berkeley: Inochi. Unpublished paper.
Taylor, Theodore B. 1996. Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. Santa
Barbara, CA: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Thomas, Jan, Claire Greensfelder, and Nora Akino. 1996. Safe
Energy Handbook, 2nd edition. Berkeley: Plutonium Free Future.
Video Project. 1995. Nuclear Legacy, On the Fiftieth Anniversary
of the Atomic Age. Ben Lomond, CA: The Video Project.
Vyner, Henry. 1988. Invisible Trauma, the Psychological Effects of
Invisible Environmental Contaminants. New York: Macmillan.
Williams, Terry Tempest. 1991. "The Clan of One-Breasted Women."
Epilogue In Terry Tempest Williams. Refuge. New York: Random
House.
World Uranium Hearings. 1992. Declaration of Salzburg. Salzburg,
Austria: World Uranium Hearings.
Young, Ward. 1994. "Hazard-based Classification, a Wiser
Arrangement." Nuclear Guardianship Forum. 3. Spring,
Oser and Brown. Radioactive Pollution - Nuclear Guardianship Model
------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1996, Wendy Oser and Molly Young Brown
This article was originally published as:
The Guardianship Ethic In Response to Radioactive Pollution: A
Meta Model for a Sustainable World
in Current World Leaders International Issues
v. 38, No. 6, December, 1996
International Academy at Santa Barbara
800 Garden Street, #D, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 USA
FAX 805-965-66071; phone 805-530-2682
email: iasb@igc.org