Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: BP

  • Nuke Accident Would Dwarf Oil Spill

    This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

    Bob Herbert’s July 19 New York Times column rightly states that the harm from a meltdown at a nuclear power plant “would make the Deepwater Horizon disaster look like a walk in the park.” Herbert also warns that systems needed to prevent a meltdown are not well developed. “Right now, we’re not ready,” he says.

    The damage from the April oil well rupture which spewed into the Gulf of Mexico is still being calculated. It killed 11 workers and thousands of aquatic creatures. Recovery workers have become ill attempting to cap the damaged well. The ecosystem of a large body of water and coastline has been damaged. The economic losses are staggering.

    But the Deepwater disaster still can’t hold a candle to a nuclear accident.

    Understanding why a meltdown would be so devastating is possible only after recognizing that nuclear reactors produce the same radioactive chemicals in atomic bomb explosions. Splitting uranium atoms produces a cocktail of 100-plus chemicals that are radioactive waste products, including Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90.

    If water cooling a reactor’s core or waste pools was removed, from mechanical failure or act of sabotage, huge amounts of toxic gases and particles would be released and breathed by humans. Many thousands would be stricken immediately with radiation poisoning, and subsequently with cancer. Infants and children would suffer most.

    From 1945 to 1963, atom bombs were tested in the atmosphere in remote areas of the south Pacific and Nevada. But still, the fallout drifted long distances and contaminated the diet of all Americans. In 1999, the National Institute of Medicine concluded that up to 212,000 Americans developed thyroid cancer from the Nevada tests.

    But reactors are not in remote locations. Most are near highly populated areas. One example is Indian Point, which is just 23 miles from the New York City border. The plant has three reactors; one has shut down, but the other two have been operating since the mid-1970s. Its aging parts are corroding, and several “near miss” meltdown situations have occurred in the past decade, according to a 2006 Greenpeace report.

    If Indian Point experienced a meltdown, and an evacuation was attempted, New York area traffic would be far worse than its usual crawl. Radioactivity, carried by winds, would reach 21 million people living within 50 miles of the plant. Even among those evacuated, many would not be able to return to their homes, since their environment would remain contaminated.

    Indian Point may be the worst case scenario for a meltdown, as New York is the most populated city in the U.S. But nuclear plants are situated on the outskirts of virtually every major metropolitan area in the nation.

    Bob Herbert’s warning that systems to prevent meltdowns at nuclear plants are insufficient was also a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. One of the hijacked planes headed for Manhattan flew directly over Indian Point. Had the plane crashed into Indian Point’s core or waste pools, the consequences would have been far worse than the loss of nearly 3,000 lives at the World Trade Center.

    Safety systems exist at nuclear plants, but anything less than 100 percent effectiveness is dangerous. One flaw came to light in 2002 at the Davis Besse plant near Toledo Ohio. Boric acid had eaten through nearly all of an 8-inch a steel beam in the plant’s ceiling, reducing it to less than half an inch at its thinnest part. Disturbingly, the problem was discovered accidentally, not from any routine safety procedure.

    The meltdown scenario is disturbing, but there is more to the nuclear threat. Most radioactive waste is stored, but some is routinely or accidentally released into air and water from all 104 U.S. nuclear reactors. These enter our bodies through breathing, and also the food chain.

    No government program has ever measured how much radioactivity from reactors enters our bodies, as officials call these amounts “negligible.” But a landmark study, whose results have been published in five leading medical journals, has provided evidence to the contrary. Levels of Strontium-90 in nearly 5,000 baby teeth are 30 to 50% greater in children living closest to nuclear plants, and are rising over time. In the 1950s and 1960s, Strontium-90 was often cited as one of the most toxic chemicals in bomb fallout.

    Tooth study results raise the question of whether reactor emissions have raised cancer rates near nuclear plants. Again, government officials dismiss this possibility. But near nuclear plants in New York and New Jersey, increases in Sr-90 in teeth were matched by similar increases in local childhood cancer rates a few years later.

    Children suffer the greatest damage from radiation exposure, but adults are not exempt. Thyroid cancer is one of the most radiation-sensitive cancers, because radioactive iodine in bomb fallout and reactor emissions seek out the thyroid gland and destroy its cells. A 2009 scientific article reported the highest U.S. thyroid cancer rate in a small 90-mile radius. This encompassed eastern Pennsylvania, central New Jersey, and southern New York, where 16 reactors are located.

    Other scientific reports have documented evidence that nuclear plant shut downs are followed immediately by dramatic reductions in local infant deaths and child cancers. This is similar to what happened nationally following the 1963 ban on above-ground atomic tests.

    Proposals to build new reactors to replace carbon-producing coal plants are accompanied by claims that nuclear power is “clean.” This could not be further from the truth. We should never forget that nuclear reactors are essentially controlled atom bombs.

    As lessons of the Deepwater fiasco are learned, we must understand the hard truth that certain energy sources pose very high risks to our security and health. We must do all we can to prevent another massive oil spill, or a nuclear meltdown. But we should go further, by developing energy sources that are safe. Solar panels need no security precautions. Wind mills don’t cause environmental catastrophes. We must be proactive and safe.

  • Scenarios for Nuclear Catastrophe

    In a recent article that I wrote, “British Petroleum, Imagination and Nuclear Catastrophe,” I argued we should use the occasion of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to imagine scenarios in which a nuclear catastrophe could take place.  The reason for imagining such scenarios should be obvious: to keep them from occurring.  

    Here is a proposition: Continued offshore oil drilling runs the risk of future offshore oil leak catastrophes that will destroy large aquatic and shoreline habitats.  Applied to nuclear weapons, the proposition could be restated in this way: Continued reliance on nuclear weapons runs the risk of future nuclear catastrophes that will destroy cities, countries and civilization.

    In my article, I proposed four of many possible scenarios that could be envisioned.  These scenarios involved a terrorist bomb on a major city somewhere in the world; an Indo-Pakistan nuclear war; an accidental nuclear launch by Russia, leading to a nuclear exchange with the US; and a nuclear attack by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il on Japan and South Korea.  

    These scenarios elicited responses that I would like to share.  The first response, from South Korea, expressed the opinion that Kim Jong-Il would not make a preemptive nuclear attack.  The writer said, “I agree with your imagined scenarios except for the following: …Kim Jong-Il is not so irrational that he would attack Japan and South Korea for not receiving development assistance.  He and North Korean officials usually say that they would attack only in the case of being attacked….”  This may be true, but it remains difficult to predict which leaders will act rationally and which will not.  It seems certain, though, that all leaders will not act rationally at all times with regard to nuclear weapons, and that deterrence theory, at a minimum, requires rational decision makers.

    The second and third responses imagine other scenarios.  The second response focuses on Israel: “You forget one other horrible scenario: Israel decides to preemptively bomb Tehran and Isfahan, because they ‘fear for their own safety.’ Armed with nukes, and in the name of ‘Civil Defense,’ rogue Israel thumbs its nose at the world again and takes out parts of Iran….”  Would Israel initiate a nuclear attack under certain circumstances, such as a major threat from Arab countries?  The truth is that we do not know under what conditions Israel, or any other nuclear weapon state, would initiate such an attack.

    The third response, from South Africa, focuses on the possibility of a US initiated nuclear attack: “In your scenarios you do not imagine the US pressing the nuclear button.   The United States is beyond question the most aggressive nation in the world and remains among the most recalcitrant in signing peace and environmental protocols.  As a person who lives outside the United States, I feel most threatened by the US.  The US does not negotiate, at the heart of which is compromise for the greater good.   Narrow interests are pursued relentlessly – even to the detriment of US citizens.”

    The response continued, “I was appalled to receive by email photos of a US warship recently launched.   It was built from the scrap metal of the Twin Towers and named ‘Never Forget’ or some such title.   I don’t believe that honors the lives lost.  What would have honored them would be a ship custom built to deliver aid, medical services, etc. to disaster areas and developing countries.   I do believe citizens in the US, so many of whom are brought up on the myth that the US is always in the right, should recognize their own potential to be the ultimate aggressors in the use of nuclear weapons.  They use every other weapon of destruction – Agent Orange, cluster bombs, etc.  Why should they hold back on nuclear weapons?”

    Would the US initiate a nuclear attack?  The answer is the same for the US or any other nuclear weapon state: We don’t know.  What we do know is that the leaders of countries that possess nuclear weapons are essentially holding the world, including their own citizens, hostage to the potential catastrophic consequences of using these weapons.

    Deterrence can fail in many ways, some of which we cannot foresee, and it may be the unforeseeable scenarios that are most dangerous.  We don’t know what the trigger may be, only that we are playing with nuclear fire.  The Gulf of Mexico recovery from the British Petroleum oil spill may take decades.  For civilization to recover from nuclear war could take centuries and might not be possible.  The oil spill in the Gulf has provided us an opportunity to awaken to the nuclear dangers that confront us and to act.  The question remains: Will we seize this opportunity?

  • British Petroleum, Imaginación y la Catástrofe Nuclear

    Click here for the English version.


    Antes del catastrófico derrame petrolero de la British Petroleum en el Golfo de México, hubo voces de ambientalistas que advertían que las perforaciones mar adentro están llenas de riesgos – riesgos exactamente del tipo de daño ambiental que está ocurriendo. Los comentarios fueron recibidos con burla por muchos que corearon consignas como “¡Perfora, cariño, perfora”. Ahora está claro que quienes gritaban  “¡Perfora, cariño, perfora” es una  multitud necia y codiciosa. El bienestar económico de las personas en y alrededor de la costa del Golfo ha sido gravemente dañada y, para algunos, destruida por completo. La vida acuática y de los estuarios, en el Golfo y más allá, ha sido víctima de un desastre ambiental que hubiera sido previsible con un poco de visión e imaginación.


    Albert Einstein llegó a la conclusión de que “La imaginación es más importante que el conocimiento.” Él dijo que “el conocimiento se limita a todo los que hoy conocemos y entendemos, mientras que la imaginación abraza el mundo entero, y todo los que alguna vez sabremos y entenderemos.”  Intentemos aplicar nuestra imaginación a las armas nucleares y la guerra nuclear. Éstos son algunos de los escenarios:


    Escenario 1: Al Qaeda logra lo que la mayoría de los comentaristas cree que es imposible. Obtienen los materiales para varias armas nucleares y contratan a científicos para construir primitivas armas nucleares.  Estas armas son detonadas en Londres, Nueva York y París en pocas horas una tras otra. Millones yacen muertos y heridos. Los mercados bursátiles del mundo se desploman. Antes de los ataques terroristas nucleares, las personas que advirtieron de tal posibilidad fueron objeto de burlas.


    Escenario 2: La disuasión nuclear fracasa totalmente, y la India y Pakistán inician una guerra nuclear por Cachemira. El centenar de ojivas nucleares detonadas en las ciudades de India y Pakistán dejan millones de muertos y disminuye la temperatura global a tal grado que se reducen significativamente el tamaño de las zonas agrícolas en donde los alimentos se pueden cultivar. La pérdida de cosechas deja cientos de millones de personas muriendo de hambre. Antes de la guerra, la gente que advirtió de tal posibilidad fue objeto de escarnio.


    Escenario 3: Una guerra nuclear comienza con un lanzamiento accidental de un misil con armas nucleares por parte de Rusia, seguido por un ataque de represalia por los EE.UU., que ocasiona más represalias de Rusia, y por supuesto más de los EE.UU.. Antes del  lanzamiento accidental, poca gente creía que un accidente tan catastrófico y la represalia fueran posibles. En su secuela, el escenario parece demasiado factible. La gente ahora se da cuenta que los dispositivos a prueba de fallos para evitar lanzamientos accidentales fracasaron, pero los que preveían este peligro y advirtieron al respecto, fueron víctimas de  burlas sangrientas.


    Escenario 4: El líder norcoreano Kim Jong-Il lanza un ataque nuclear que destruye bases militares de EE.UU. en la isla japonesa de Okinawa. Amenaza con destruir las ciudades de Kyoto, en Japón y Seúl, Corea del Sur a menos que reciba la ayuda para el desarrollo que dice que le fue prometida por Estados Unidos. Los que denunciaban que la continua posesión de armas nucleares por los cinco miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas daría lugar a la proliferación nuclear, y que dichas armas podrían caer en manos de dirigentes irracionales, fueron denunciados como ignorantes.


    Hay muchos escenarios posibles para el inicio de una guerra nuclear y aún quedan muchas justificaciones para su posesión. Los líderes de Estados poseedores de armas nucleares sostienen que sólo son para la disuasión nuclear, es decir, para evitar la guerra con la amenaza de una represalia. No prevén el posible fracaso de la disuasión, a pesar de que reconocen las consecuencias catastróficas de un fracaso. Ellos creen que las armas nucleares apuntalarán el prestigio de un país y le darán mayor poder en el sistema internacional. Muestran con orgullo sus armas nucleares y ponen a prueba sus sistemas de lanzamiento de misiles. Los que argumentan que la disuasión nuclear podría fallar son ignorados por completo.


    Los líderes políticos y militares no han cumplido con la proposición de que en todo sistema complejo en el que los seres humanos están involucrados, la falla del sistema es una posibilidad. Han rechazado la idea de esta falla significaría la aniquilación de la humanidad. Los científicos que denuncian esta falta de visión, no son tomados en cuenta. Los ex políticos de alto nivel que advierten acerca de estos peligros, también son objeto de burlas. Incluso algunos jefes militares que se oponen a seguir dependiendo de las armas nucleares, son ridiculizados en público.  Los supervivientes de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, que fueron testigos de primera mano de los horrores de las bombas atómicas, han contado sus historias en un intento de alertarnos sobre el peligro de las armas nucleares, pero sus voces son débiles y poca gente en las altas esferas las han escuchado.


    Organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo han declarado su compromiso con un plan urgente para la eliminación de las armas nucleares, y también sus palabras caen en oídos sordos. Pero, al igual que los supervivientes de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, continúan denunciando porque es lo correcto. Las armas nucleares pueden terminar con la vida en la Tierra tal como la conocemos. Son capaces de destruir la civilización. Una guerra nuclear de grandes proporciones, sería el fin de la  especie humana. Incluso una guerra nuclear limitada o aún accidental, aniquilaría ciudades y países.


    Ahora que el petróleo derramado por la British Petroleum en el Golfo de México continúa destruyendo el océano y el medio ambiente circundante, tal vez sea demasiado tarde para preguntarnos si vale la pena el riesgo de seguir perforando mar adentro Es evidente que no..  Sin embargo, todavía no es demasiado tarde para plantear la cuestión de si por la continua dependencia de las armas nucleares, vale la pena arriesgar la supervivencia de las generaciones futuras.

  • Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: Urgent Call for Action

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    The massive and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused by a drilling rig explosion and eventual collapse of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform leased by British Petroleum is already considered the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history and possibly the entire world’s. The consequences of this continued oil spill flow from the ocean’s depth is incalculable…we are truly in uncharted territory!

    Jean-Michel Cousteau, president of Ocean Futures Society, along with his late father, the legendary Captain Jacques Cousteau, have made enormous contributions to our knowledge and understanding of our planet’s oceans and diverse bodies of water. A few days ago, accompanied by a group of dedicated scientists from his organization, Jean-Michel traveled to the accident site in the Gulf of Mexico. They are voluntarily there to assess the situation and to help collaborate in finding solutions.

    Jean-Michel said this “I have been on site at the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Prestige oil spill in Spain, but they don’t compare with the magnitude of this Gulf spill. We will look for immediate solutions but may mostly find reasons why this must never happen again and what must be done for the future.”

    We are faced with a terrible question after observing the desperate and so far failed attempts to control or cap the oil gusher.

    What is the environmental impact and extent of damage to the marine ecosystems and the coastal zones, so rich in bio-diversity of both plant and animal? The Gulf of Mexico is home to one of the largest barrier reefs in the world, the Mesoamerican Reef, unique in the Western Hemisphere and second in size only to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. An ancient natural system dating back 225 million years, the reefs function as a natural barrier to storms and hurricanes and are critical to the survival of plant and animal species. It is an important defense against coastal erosion as well. The fragility of these ecosystems is well known and is particularly susceptible to contamination threats. More than 400 species live in the islands and marshlands at risk of oil toxicity AND oxygen depletion occasioned by the oil dispersants used to break up the oil threaten fish and plankton with serious domino effects all the way up the food chain. In the states of Louisiana and Florida, hundreds of thousands of birds and other animals are already dying and in grave danger.

    When the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground in Prince William Sound twenty-one years ago, it spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil that contaminated all in its path – the water, the beaches, the rocks, the birds, the marine animals and plants – eventually covering 1,300 miles of coastline and 11,000 square miles of ocean with the black sludge. The limitations of our human resources to combat the disaster were underscored by visuals of a clean-up effort undertaken by 12,000 people using shovels and paper towels. After twenty-one years, the negative impact of the spill continues to be felt in this formerly pristine area with a myriad of adverse effects that has decreased the “wilderness character” of the area. To put the new disaster into perspective, it is estimated that the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spillage now spews into the Gulf of Mexico every FOUR days. We seem to be no better prepared for such a disaster 21 years later.

    Some in the political and media communities cynically argue that this is a natural “phenomenon”, that some oil natively exists in the water and that the ocean will cleanse itself of this oil…naturally. Nothing could be further from the truth! Crude oil is the result of a heterogeneous mix of fossilized organic compounds, predominantly hydrocarbons deposited into the earth’s sedimentary strata millions of years ago. The hydrocarbons are insoluble in water and thus do not mix with the ocean’s water. The dark brown waves of sludge wash up on the beaches, marshes and wetlands intact and undiluted by the water destroying all animal and plant life in its wake.

    This oil spill, vastly larger, worse and more intense than any supertanker event, is located at a profound depth in the ocean – spewing massive amounts of oil from more than 1 and 1/2 miles deep. The origin of this environmental disaster creates a hidden menace beneath the water’s surface. A team of University of Georgia scientists has confirmed clouds, or oil plumes, containing small particulate oil matter in the depths of the ocean, a number of which are several hundred feet thick and extend for several miles. This bespeaks to the real ecological catastrophe in the Gulf. Sharks and turtles are already swimming through this toxic soup and dying. There is no way to predict what will happen if the crude oil flow cannot be sufficiently mitigated in the coming months, or worse, if it continues to spill until the well is exhausted. In any event, no argument can be made but that the negative and adverse effects are inestimable and catastrophic.

    Let us also not lose sight of another fundamental axiom…Environmental contamination knows no borders. It needs no passport to travel to the far reaches of our treasured planet. Underwater currents and anticipated seasonal cyclonic activity will no doubt carry millions of gallons to already precarious habitats in the Arctic and the Antarctic. So let us not feel secure or, worse, detached from this disaster simply because we are not in its direct causal path.

    What lessons are there to be learned from past oil spills that have been repeated without cessation for the last twenty years?  This tragedy mandates that we continue to develop technologies that are designed with better margins of safety and triple failsafe backups as a priority. We should honestly and transparently execute the periodic evaluative reviews required of both equipment and personnel in adherence with our current regulatory law. By all preliminary accounts, British Petroleum, in their rush to create a revenue generating well, did not follow the correct, established procedures on this oil rig and dismissed repeated warnings by people at the well site. We need to develop a mindset, both as a society and especially in the business culture that plans for prevention.

    As the old saying goes: Why is there never enough time to prevent a mistake but always enough time to fix one? The truly sad statement about the way we deal with these “mistakes” up until now is that we not only don’t take the correct, preventive steps, but faced with the specter of a disaster, we neither allot the correct amount of time or resources to correct it…the Exxon Valdez and Katrina standing out as stark reminders of this modus operandi. To be constantly surprised and left impotent by these man-made catastrophes speak to an arrogance that overrules common sense. If the result of failed preventive measures in this arena is too dire to contemplate, then perhaps deep sea drilling is not an option.

    Jean Michel Cousteau concurs. He has stated: “The sad side of the human species is that we talk a lot and take very little action until we have a catastrophe on our hands.”

    We cannot change what has occurred, but we must learn the lessons from this calamity. As a society, we need to refocus and change the way we act toward our environment; how we rapaciously exploit our natural resources (both flora and fauna) thinking that technology will solve all the ills created by that voracious appetite. We must adopt a new philosophy: one that has a more balanced approach to the use of the earth’s resources and to our relationship with nature…of which we are only a small part. We need to accept that nature is a lot more complex than we believe it to be and that technology is a lot more limited than we want it to be.

  • Desastre en el Golfo de México: Una nueva llamada de emergencia

    Click here for the English version.


    El derrame de petróleo crudo en el Golfo de México causado por la plataforma de la BP (British Petroleum) se considera ya como el  riesgo ambiental más grave al que se haya enfrentado nunca Estados Unidos y tal vez el mundo. Las consecuencias del continuo flujo del hidrocarburo desde el fondo del mar son incalculables.


    Jean-Michel Cousteau, presidente de Ocean Futures Society, junto con su padre, el legendario e inolvidable defensor de los mares, el capitán Jacques Cousteau, ha contribuido enormemente al conocimiento de los océanos y cuerpos de agua de nuestro


    mundo. Hace unos días,  Jean-Michel acompañado por un grupo de dedicados científicos de su organización se desplazó al sitio del accidente. Ahí están trabajando en forma voluntaria tratando de colaborar para encontrar soluciones.


    Jean-Michel ha declarado lo siguiente: “He sido testigo de sucesos como el desastre del derrame de los buque-tanques  Exxon Valdez en Alaska y Prestige en España, pero nada de eso se compara con la magnitud de lo que estamos viviendo.  Debemos encontrar respuestas inmediatas y a la vez evitar que situaciones como estas se repitan.  Estas contaminaciones de los mares del planeta son una amenaza directa para la vida en general”.


    Viendo los intentos desesperados y fallidos por sellar el pozo de petróleo, nos enfrentamos a esta agónica pregunta. ¿Qué daños se han ocasionado ya al ecosistema marino y las zonas costeras tan ricas en su diversidad animal y vegetal? En el  Golfo de México se extiende una de las más grandes barreras de arrecife del mundo , el Arrecife Mesoamericano, tan sólo superado por la Gran Barrera de Arrecife de Australia.  Es por demás conocida la enorme fragilidad de estos increíbles eco-sistemas ante las contaminaciones.  Los humedales de los Estados de Lousiana y la Florida, hábitat de cientos de miles de aves y una gran diversidad animal, están en grave peligro.


    Hace 21 años, cuando el buque-tanque de la Exxon encalló en el arrecife del estrecho de Prince William, el barco derramó 11 millones de galones de crudo los cuales contaminaron playas, rocas, aves, animales marinos y plantas. La impotencia del ser humano se vio reflejada cuando los trabajos de limpieza fueron efectuados por más de 12 mil personas usando palas y toallas de papel.


     Las consecuencias del impacto ecológico aún se siguen sintiendo en lo que fue un sitio prístino que ha cambiado negativamente para siempre.   Para hacer una comparación, se estima que cada cuatro días las aguas del Golfo de México reciben el equivalente a un cargamento entero del Exxon Valdez.  


    Algunos políticos y comentaristas de los medios, rayando en el cinismo, han dicho que este es un ‘fenómeno’ natural y que el mar se encargará de arreglarlo por sí mismo. Nada es más lejano a la verdad. El petróleo crudo es el resultado de la mezcla heterogénea de compuestos orgánicos de origen fósil, principalmente hidrocarburos, depositados hace millones de años en los distintos sedimentos terrestres. Los hidrocarburos son insolubles y por lo tanto no se mezclan con el agua del mar. Las marejadas negras llegan sin cambios a las playas, esteros y humedales de las costas, destruyendo a su paso toda la vida animal y vegetal.


    Este derrame, es mucho más intenso que los de los buque-petroleros y se localiza a enormes profundidades – más de un kilómetro y medio-  y mide ya miles de metros de espesor bajo el agua.  No hay forma de predecir qué ocurrirá, y mucho menos si el crudo sigue fluyendo durante meses y tal vez durante años, hasta que se agote el manto submarino.


    No perdamos de vista un axioma fundamental. La contaminación no conoce fronteras ni necesita pasaporte para alcanzar los sitios más lejanos del planeta. Las corrientes submarinas y la actual temporada ciclónica, llevarán sin duda alguna millones de galones de este crudo a sitios como el Ártico y la Antártida. En otras palabras, no nos sintamos ‘seguros’ sólo porque no vivamos cerca del sitio de este desastre.


    ¿Qué lecciones deberíamos aprender de algo que se ha repetido sin cesar desde hace ya más de dos décadas?  Sabiendo que el mundo es impredecible significa que nuestras tecnologías deben diseñarse con mayores márgenes de seguridad y efectuar con toda honestidad las revisiones periódicas necesarias tanto a equipos como personal.  Tal parece que este no fue el caso de la plataforma de BP.  Debemos anticiparnos a lo peor, planear para prevenir y aún así, tener otro plan en el caso de que fallen las prevenciones.  Ser sorprendidos constantemente por las catástrofes sólo indica que la arrogancia domina más nuestros actos que el sentido común.


    Jean-Michel Cousteau ha dicho a este respecto: “Algo muy triste de la especie humana es que hablamos mucho pero actuamos muy poco hasta que tenemos un nuevo desastre en nuestras manos”


    Ya no podemos cambiar lo que ha ocurrido, pero debemos aprender de esto.  Hay que enfocar en forma completamente diferente la forma como actuamos, como explotamos los recursos naturales de nuestro mundo tratando de depender siempre de las tecnologías. Hay que desarrollar una nueva filosofía para el uso apropiado de ellas y nuestra relación con la naturaleza, de la cual solo formamos parte.  Hay que aceptar el hecho de que la naturaleza es mucho más compleja de lo que creemos entender, y que la tecnología es mucho más limitada de lo que queremos creer.

  • British Petroleum, Imagination and Nuclear Catastrophe

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    Before the catastrophic British Petroleum oil gush in the Gulf of Mexico, there were environmentalists who warned that offshore drilling was fraught with risk – risk of exactly the type of environmental damage that is occurring.  They were mocked by people who chanted slogans such as “Drill, baby, drill.”  Now it is clear that the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd was foolish and greedy.  The economic wellbeing of people in and around the Gulf coast has been badly damaged and, for some, destroyed altogether.  Aquatic and estuary life, in the Gulf and beyond, has fallen victim to an environmental disaster that was foreseeable with a modicum of vision and imagination.

    Albert Einstein reached the conclusion that “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” He said that “knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Let us try applying our imaginations to nuclear weapons and nuclear war.  Here are some scenarios:

    Scenario 1: Al Qaeda does what most commentators believed to be impossible.  They obtain nuclear materials for several nuclear weapons and hire scientists to construct crude nuclear weapons.  These weapons are detonated in London, New York and Paris within hours of each other.  Millions would lie dead and injured.  Around the world stock markets would freefall.  Before the terrorist nuclear attacks, the people who warned against such a possibility were mocked.

    Scenario 2: Nuclear deterrence fails dramatically, and India and Pakistan engage in a nuclear war over Kashmir.  The hundred or so nuclear warheads that detonate on Indian and Pakistani cities leave millions dead and lower global temperatures so as to significantly shrink the size of agricultural areas in which food can be grown.  Crop failures leave hundreds of millions more people to starve to death.  Before the war, the people who warned against such a possibility were mocked.  

    Scenario 3: A nuclear war begins with an accidental launch of a nuclear-armed missile by Russia, followed by a retaliatory strike by the US, which brings further retaliation from Russia, leading to still more from the US.  Before the accidental launch, few people believed that such a cataclysmic accident and its retaliatory follow up were possible.  In its aftermath, the scenario seems far too feasible.  People now realize that the failsafe devices to prevent accidental launches could fail, but those who foresaw this danger and warned about it earlier were mocked.

    Scenario 4: North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il launches a nuclear attack that destroys US military bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa.  He threatens to destroy the Japanese city of Kyoto and Seoul, South Korea unless he receives the development assistance he says was promised to him by the United States.  Those who argued throughout the Nuclear Age that continued possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council would result in nuclear proliferation and the weapons falling into the hands of irrational leaders were mocked.  

    There are many scenarios possible for the onset of nuclear war and there remain many justifications for nuclear weapons.  Leaders of nuclear weapon states argue that these weapons are only for nuclear deterrence, that is, to prevent war by threatening nuclear retaliation.  They don’t foresee the potential failure of nuclear deterrence, even though they recognize the cataclysmic consequences of failure.  They believe that nuclear weapons bolster a country’s prestige and give it greater power in the international system.  They proudly display their nuclear weapons and test their missile delivery systems.  Those who argue that nuclear deterrence could fail catastrophically are mocked.

    Political and military leaders have failed to honor the proposition that in every complex system in which humans are involved, system failure is a possibility.  They have dismissed the idea of system failure leading to nuclear annihilation.  Scientists spoke out about this shortsightedness, but they were mocked.  Former high-level policymakers spoke out about the dangers, and they, too, were mocked.  Even some former military leaders spoke out against the dangers of reliance on nuclear weapons, and they were mocked.  The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who witnessed the horrors of the atomic bombs firsthand, have told their stories in an attempt to awaken people to the danger of nuclear weapons, but their voices are soft and few people in high places have listened to them.  

    Civil society organizations from throughout the world have called out for a commitment to an urgent plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and they also have been mocked.  But, like the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they continue to speak out because it is the right thing to do.  Nuclear weapons can end life on Earth as we know it.  They can destroy civilization.  In a major nuclear war, they could bring the human species and most complex forms of life to extinction.  Even in a smaller nuclear war or accident, they could destroy cities and countries.  

    As the oil from the British Petroleum failure in the Gulf of Mexico continues to destroy the ocean and surrounding environment, it is perhaps too late to ask ourselves whether offshore drilling is worth the risk.  Clearly it is not.  It is still not too late, however, to raise the question of whether continued reliance on nuclear weapons is worth the risk to humanity and to future generations.  

  • Apocalypse in the Gulf Now (Oil) & Next (Nukes)

    As BP’s ghastly gusher assaults the Gulf of Mexico and so much more, a tornado has forced shut the Fermi2 atomic reactor at the site of a 1966 melt-down that nearly irradiated the entire Great Lakes region.

    If the White House has a reliable plan for deploying and funding a credible response to a disaster at a reactor that’s superior to the one we’ve seen at the Deepwater Horizon, we’d sure like to see it.

    Meanwhile it wants us to fund two more reactors on the Gulf and another one 40 miles from Washington DC. And that’s just for starters.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has warned that at least one new design proposed for federal funding cannot withstand tornadoes, earthquakes or hurricanes.

    But the administration has slipped $9 billion for nuclear loan guarantees into an emergency military funding bill, in addition to the $8.33 it’s already approved for two new nukes in Georgia.

    Unless we do something about it, the House Appropriations Committee may begin the process next week.

    Like Deepwater Horizon and Fermi, these new nukes could ignite disasters beyond our technological control—and our worst nightmares.

    Like BP, their builders would enjoy financial liability limits dwarfed by damage they could do.

    Two of the new reactors are proposed for South Texas, where two others have already been leaking radiation into the Gulf. Ironically, oil pouring into the Gulf could make the waters unusable for cooling existing and future nukes and coal burners.

    Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently admitted to Rachel Maddow he has no firm plans for the radioactive wastes created by the proposed new reactors, or by the 104 currently licensed.

    That would include Vermont Yankee, where strontium, cesium, tritium and more are leaking into the Connecticut River. VY’s rotted underground pipes may have leaking counterparts at every other US reactor.

    After 50 years, this industry can’t get private financing, can’t get private liability insurance and has no solution for its wastes.

    The Gulf gusher bears the simple lesson that technologies that require liability limits will rapidly exceed them, and must not be deployed.

    No US nuclear utility has sufficient capital resources to cover the damages from a reactor disaster, which is one reason taxpayers are targeted as the ultimate underwriters.

    On May 27, the House Appropriations Committee was scheduled to vote on new nuke loan guarantees, which had been attached to an emergency military spending bill. Amidst a flood of grassroots opposition, the vote was postponed.

    But it could return as early as June 15. We can and must stop these new guarantees, which would feed the gusher of nuke power hand-outs being dumped into new climate/energy legislation.

    By all accounts, despite the horrors of the Gulf, the administration still wants legislation that will expand deepwater drilling and atomic technologies that are simply beyond our control…but that fund apparently unstoppable dividends for corporations like BP.

    It’s our vital responsibility to transform this crisis into a definitive shift to a totally green-powered earth, based solely on renewables and efficiency. We have a full array of Solartopian technologies that are proven, profitable, insurable and manageable. They are the core of our necessary transition to a prosperous, sustainable future.

    As our planet dies around us, truly green climate/energy legislation must come…NOW! The next key vote may come when the Appropriations Committee reconvenes.

    Make your voice is heard. It’s all we have.