Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNukes and Nuns
I first met Sisters Carol Gilbert and Ardeth Platte at a gathering for young nuns in March 1980. Their task was to help us understand the ways in which the Gospels called us to work for justice in our communities and our world.
Carol and Ardeth were two of the three nuns who were convicted and imprisoned in July 2003 for breaking into the N-8 Minuteman III nuclear missile site in Colorado and symbolically spilling their blood on it. A Denver federal court sentenced them to 30 and 41 months, respectively.
Back then I didn't care much for their message. It contradicted my own uncomplicated understanding of the world and questioned the purposes and practices of the U.S. government. What they said seemed convoluted, overwhelmingly, and just plain nutty.
The next time I saw the sisters was 27 years later. They had come to my town to give a presentation about their arduous trial.
The nuns' protest at the missile site was not an off-the-cuff act. They are members of Plowshares, a worldwide peace organization that calls attention to the dangers of militarism and seeks the dismantling of all nuclear weapons. The sisters' hammers and wire cutters served as symbols of disarmament and referred to Isaiah 2:4 which reads: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." This time I found the nuns truly inspiring and courageous.
So what had transpired to me during those 27 years that caused me to change my outlook toward these nuns-and indeed the social justice movement? Quite simply, I witnessed people's struggle for truth and justice.
I first learned about this struggle when I visited Nicaragua in 1985 as I stood on the blackened ground of the port of Corinto where several huge oil storage tanks had once sat before they were blown up by the CIA. Ronald Reagan wanted to neutralize the Sandinistas, who were deemed Communists, in order to clear the way for comfortable trade arrangements U.S. corporations had been enjoying under the deposed dictator Somoza.
In 1986 in Lima, Peru, I saw how desperate peasants tried to make a life for themselves after they left their mountain farms, which had been run over by armed insurgents. These people came to the city to sell plastic combs, laundry buckets, and toys. They were part of the city's rapid six-fold increase in population which until the 1980s had been stable for 300 years.
My trip to Cochabama, Bolivia, during the Christmas 1985 was delightful. I stayed with a congenial family who taught me in Spanish language. However, two images stick in my mind from that trip. One is of the poor peasant woman on New Year's Day who was sleeping on the street with her child by her side. Her head poked up for a minute when my companions and I walked near her and then went back down. Sleep often helps to forget hunger. Another woman I saw wore a cracked, light brown, faux leather jacket. The calculator that dangled from a chain on her wrist helped her figure out the exchange of dollars to bolivianos. The Bolivian economy was so inflationary that one dollar would get you one million bolivianos; 750,000 bolivianos would get you a Coke. And speaking of coke, I saw the coca fields. Turns out that the reason the peasants cultivated it was because the world demand for cocaine earned them enough money to feed their families.
As I flew across the ocean to the former Soviet Union on April 26, 1986, little did I know that a nuclear reactor was melting down in a small town called Chernobyl. Little did the people of the Soviet Union know either, especially those who were participating in the festive May Day celebration in Kiev on May 1, just 50 miles from Chernobyl. I witnessed how the Soviet government didn't care enough to tell its people that they were in danger. I also witnessed how the U.S. embassy not only denied me or my fellow travelers any help but refused to acknowledge that there was an emergency.
The Nuclear Weapons Freeze of the 1980s came from Americans' response to the Reagan administration's decision to escalate the country's weapons of mass destruction stockpile. As I helped circulate petitions on the street corners of my city, an old man yelled at me: "You people don't know what you're doing," he said. "We have to keep the U.S. safe with these weapons."
All of a sudden and out of the blue in 1991 we were at war with Iraq in tiny country known as Kuwait, a place where the oil flows. Although the war didn't last but 100 hours and ended in our victory, thousands U.S. soldiers became sick from Gulf War Syndrome. It was later learned that the depleted uranium applied to the tips of our rockets was such a lethal substance that just touching the remains of blasted vehicles affected our soldiers-thousands of them.
In 2002 the United States began the Afghanistan War and in 2003 it launched what would become the Iraq War and Occupation. Both of these military actions were responses to 9/11-yet another means of gaining control of that precious Middle Eastern oil. The U.S. military still uses depleted uranium only the rockets it fires are not confined to the desert. They are being launched in cities where hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians live.
These experiences changed me. I learned not to trust political leaders' motives, especially when they decided to stomp into a country "to save it from evil dictators." I also came to understand that our government cared more about corporate profits than people, including the American people. This was the same message that Sisters Ardeth and Carol had delivered 27 years before and they, together with Sister Jackie Hudson, subsequently put their lives on the line for that message.
Most people have not had the opportunities I did to learn these lessons about social justice. Somehow, those of us who have been enlightened must find ways to share the truth with those who are not exposed to it.
One way to start is to view the new film about the Sisters Ardeth, Carol and Jackie Hudson titled "Conviction" by Brenda Truelson Fox of Boulder, CO. It illustrates the sisters' commitment to disarmament and the price they paid as a result. Former president of the U.S. National Association of Evangelists Ted Haggard and anti-nuclear weapons advocate Helen Caldicott, MD, are featured. Copies of the 43-minute film are available through the website Zero to Sixty Productions: www.ztsp.org.
Olga Bonfiglio is a professor at Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and author of Heroes of a Different Stripe: How One Town Responded to the War in Iraq. She has written for several national magazines on the subjects of social justice and religion. Her website is www.OlgaBonfiglio.com. Contact her at olgabonfiglio@yahoo.com.
13 Comments so far
Show AllCheck this one out, Billy, it's from www.lutins.org
If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear [power] is really very good.
-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, June 2001
Contrary to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's assessment, nuclear power and nuclear devices have not enjoyed a safe history at United States facilities. At least 50 nuclear weapons lie on the ocean bottom due to U.S. and Soviet accidents. A large number of incidents mar the safety record of nuclear plants, facilities, bombers and ships, of which Three Mile Island is only the best remembered. Numerous deaths and injuries resulted from these incidents. In addition to accidents, the day-to-day operations related to nuclear materials processing and handling have led to massive contamination of this country's landscape.
The U.S. Department of Energy spends over $4 billion each year for the restoration and management of sites contaminated by nuclear materials. Their 2000 Federal budget noted: "The Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for addressing the environmental legacy resulting from the production of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons complex generated waste, pollution, and contamination that pose unique problems, including unprecedented volumes of contaminated soil and water, radiological hazards from special nuclear material, and a vast number of contaminated structures. Factories, laboratories, and thousands of square miles of land were devoted to producing tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Much of this is largely maintained, decommissioned, managed, and remediated by the EM program, which is sometimes referred to as the 'cleanup program.' EM's responsibilities include facilities and sites in 30 states and one territory, and occupy an area equal to that of Rhode Island and Delaware combined - or about 2.1 million acres."
On 23 October 1999 directors of the Radiation and Public Health Project released a report which found that the cancer-causing radioisotope Strontium-90 has been found in the teeth of children born in the 1980's at levels equal to those of the middle 1950's, when the U.S. and the former Soviet Union were conducting routine above-ground bomb tests. The elevated levels were attributed to accidents such as those at Three Mile Island (in 1979) and Chernobyl (in 1986), with contributions from ongoing releases at other nuclear reactors. Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Professor Emeritus of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, noted, "Strontium-90 is a known carcinogen and a marker for other shorter-lived fission products and simply should not be present at all in our children's teeth."
Paul,
The $50 billion proposal is not government out of pocket expense. It is a proposal of loan guarantees for the new nuclear build.
For many utilities, the expenditure of $3-5 billon for a single new generating unit really stretches the balance sheet and requires that most of the financing of the plant be with debt. The loan guarantees would improve the utility's position in trying to obtain financing.
One of the disadvantages of nuclear is its high front end cost and the extended licensing and build time required. These factors, by their very nature, introduce risk to the utility. The government is quite cognizant of these risks and is trying to mitigate those risks.
On munitions, I will agree with you that, except when facing enemy armor, the use of DU munitions is probably not justified. Against a lightly armored enemy, it is overkill. To my knowledge, we are not facing armored opposition in any combat zone at this time.
We also agree that fossil fuel consumption, particularly coal for power generation, is the most serious problem facing society. It is my personal opinion that survival of humanity may well be at stake.
Regards,
Bill
Thanks, Termite, for the pat on the back. My posts take an inordinate amount of time because after the 4 brain surgeries I have undergone my left side is disabled so I am only able to type using one hand, a slow process to be sure. It's nice to realize someone is listening/reading. Added to that my keyboard is messing up (skipping letters) so I have to repeatedly edit. Maybe it's an ego trip, or that I'm just being anal, but I learned long ago that typos, syntax errors, lack of proper punctuation/capitalization, and spelling errors detract from the message, so I prefer not to be viewed as that ignorant of proper form.
Billy, are you aware that I didn't just grab that $50 billion figure out of thin air? There is legislation pending in Congress right now proposing giving the nuclear industry $25 billion a year in subsidies for each of the next two years. Check it out. BTW, as I stated previously, coal is much more of a threat at the moment, has caused more pollution, deaths, and illness than nuclear (even with two bombs dropped on Japan in WWII), and usage needs to be seriously curtailed rather quickly.
In the matter of DU, since it would be a permanent contamination (and there are other substances nearly as effective the military could use that aren't radioactive), wouldn't it be more prudent to err on the side of safety than sorrow? Our government's hardheaded approach of denial, despite worldwide declarations it is recogized as a nuclear WMD, seems patently unwise, but I guess that's the norm for this administration, and some in our military. We live in very troubled (and troubling) times.
Paul,
Your right-we are constantly talking past each other.
It is true, worldwide renewables generate more electricity than nuclear. Over 90% of the worldwide renewable generation is hydroelectric. In fact, hydroelectric alone outgenerates nuclear.
There are direct subsidies for the new nuclear build in the form of matching funds for the first couple of plants to file for construction license. This is less than $1 billion (not chump change but not $50 billion).
There are subsidies for actual electricity generation from the first couple of plants (it is the same generation subsidy that wind gets except that nuclear is capped and wind is not).
There are non-cash support items as well. There is some insurance against government delays for the first couple of plants. There is Price-Anderson backup insurance (can kick in after private insurance cap is reached but has never been used). There are loan guarantees.
It is true that I work in the nuclear industry. All of the opinions that I express in posts are my honest opinion, are not cleared through my employer, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of my employer. I am not paid by my employer to make posts-I do them from home on my own time. I don't normally include my employment because I don't think it is relevant.
I did not include any views on DU weaponry primarily because I don't think it is relevant to the subject of nuclear power. I recognize that you and Kem and some others passionately believe it is a terribly dangerous material. I personally don't believe the inordinate hazard you posit is well documented.
I have no difficulty with renewable power generation. It, like nuclear, is very much lower in GHG emissions. My major difficulty is with coal without carbon sequestration.
Regards,
Bill
To Paul Magill Smith,
Thank you for taking the time to spell out so clearly yet again the strong case against nuclear power. I have heard respected physicians and scientists speak on this subject, but one can never say it enough. I appreciate your efforts and advocacy.
Thank you for writing this article. There is a lot of confusion, sometimes, as to how to proceed in pursuit of peace and justice. We need to hear about those whose vows encourage humility, so Olga Bonfiglio, your work is very much needed. These three nuns are a beautiful and inspiring example to those who wish to follow the precepts of their faith calling us to use the power of love and not the weakness of fear. I look forward to buying Brenda Truelson's book, Conviction.
capeflandaveral, thank you for providing the link to the utube video. It is a reminder that peace activists are on the right track, that the work of peace activists is important, if an oppressive government is so alarmed by them; and we do have an oppressive government, that must be watched themselves.
I think the US government is so cynical that veterans dying from depleted-uranium-caused illness is part of their plan. Most veterans are from lower-class families, so they are getting rid of the "undesirable poor"(wasn't it Jonathon Swift who satirically proposed that the poor could feed themselves by eating their babies?), while enriching the healthcare industry by providing substandard care and increasing the value of their own investments. Maybe I'm losing it, or I'm learning to think like the enemy--the plutocrat.
If you want to see a short video that shows undercover government agents illegally spying (the TALON program) on the protesters who supported the nuns in Colorado, go to
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EBXOmI3VAYk
read this very good article about DU;
http://lonestaricon.com/2006/Archives/09/news06.htm
RE: Billy_y4 October 28th, 2007 9:32 pm
We've discussed this time and again, but I guess one more time won't matter if someone reads my rebuttal to what you say.
You said, "Renewables are good and should be encouraged but they cannot be deployed on the scale and on the timeline that needs to happen"
I say this is complete BS.
Why do you never add that nuclear gets a hundred times the funding renewables get? (and the current administration is asking for $50 billion more just for the next two years.) This is an important ommission on your part.
Why don't you add that nuclear has been heavily subsidized from day one, and this funding has sucked available monies away from renewables?
Why don't you point out that renewables (even with the limited funding they receive) are on a par now with all the nuclear power generation worldwide, and will out pace nuclear considerably in a very few years?
Why don't you point out, because of the Chernobyl & Three Mile Island incidents construction of nuclear power plants was shut down for the past thirty years for valid reasons? (I know, I know, you'll say nuclear plant design is much safer now than then, to which I'll counter with, "In the whole of human history has there ever been a machine built that didn't eventually break?)
Why don't you point out that Wall Steet won't cover building new nuclear plants because of adverse risk, and if new ones are to be built it will be up to the American taxpayers to foot the bill to insure the risk against a potential castrophic accident?
Why don't you point out that uranium is a finite material and, just like oil, will run out (possibly within a couple generations)? What good does a 'temporary' solution to our energy problem do us?
Why don't you point out there have been several hundred nuclear 'mishaps' in the past fifty years the public has heard very little about because of government secrecy, or flat out lies (and efforts of the nuclear power lobby)?
Why don't you point out that NOBODY, in fifty odd years, has ever come up with a safe way to store nuclear power plant waste products for the amount of time needed until they become innocuous?
Finally, and to be perfectly honest, why don't you point out your pay check has come from the nuclear power industry for many years?
Billy, I really do appreciate that you recognize burning hydrocarbons for power is a great threat to humanity at the moment future, but your failure to mention that our unlawful use of the WMD known as DU (depleted uranium), a waste product of nuclear power plants often given to the US military for weaponry so expensive storage is negated, poses a threat to not only humans, but all other life forms on this planet down to a level of even microbes.
It's not all your fault, Bily, in fact there is even some mis-information contained in the article above. When the author states, "It was later learned that the depleted uranium applied to the tips of our rockets was such a lethal substance that just touching the remains of blasted vehicles affected our soldiers-thousands of them.", she is wrong on three counts.
'Touching' DU is relatively harmless, but getting it inside the body, especially through inhalation, is deadly, AND the contamination can be passed to a spouse during intercourse. It also modifies genetic structure causing birth abnormalities, and a study of children born to returning First Gulf War vets indicates a rate of 67%.
Second, it's not just rockets being 'tipped' with DU, but a solid core within that atomizes into a fine dust upon impact, AND is being used in shells down to as small as .50 caliber (some 'bunker buster' bombs contain over a ton of DU). This 'dust', through wind currents, can span the entire globe in as little as 9 days, putting every person & living thing at risk, and won't become harmless for BILLIONS of years.
Third, the number of troops experiencing the problems of 'Gulf War Syndrome' from the first Gulf War now numbers in the HUNDREDS of thousands, and many times the amount of DU used in that war have been used in the current war in Iraq & Afghanistan. Scientists have now made definite link between DU & Gulf War Syndrome, but the US government is in denial about it. (The US government also claims only 320 tons of DU were used in GW1, but independent studies put the amount at over 800 tons...of course ou government would never lie to us, now would it? LOL)
Doesn't it make sense that if we got rid of nuclear power plants as quickly as possible there would be no internatinal controversy about whether a nuclear program was formulating weapons grade nuclear material, or not?
Thank you for this well written and deeply felt article. The detailing of our individual journey toward political understanding is a vital component to the national healing we must embrace. We need to forge vehicles for reaching out to each other and share these stories learning from the Women's 70's Consciousness Raising. We need to reclaim and to synthesize a new language in order to correct ills and set goal we can achieve.
My own journey brought me through the navy's nuclear propulsion program. One of the more shocking discoveries I experienced there was that there were many who were deeply concern over the actual details of the nuclear industry. Many of our finest are in uniform and many of them feel isolated as much by the actions of the left as by the betrayal of the right.
This fact leads in part to my call for a new party, Democratic Capitalism, The Purple Party. Through this new party we can lead through example. In addition to having a congruent energy policy as a major plank of a platform we can establish a network of Party Media. From local new paper, dailies and weeklies; to radio and TV all syndicated into regional and national distribution.
Chuck,
Gasoline can be used to power an ambulance to save lives or to make napalm to destroy them. Is it right to prohibit the ambulance because of the weapons potential of the fuel? Lumping nuclear power and nuclear weaponry is quite the equivalent.
The existing fleet of PWR and BWR type reactors do make transuranic metals. This is also true of the possible new US reactors now in the review process. This is inherent in the water cooled type reactors.
Future reactors will need to avoid the use of water coolant. This will permit a nuclear spectrum which will destroy (by fission) the transuranics. With this type reactor the waste is all relatively short lived. (Reactors of this type have been built and operated in the past but were somewhat more expensive than water cooled types.) These reactors will also be able to 'burn' the transuranics created in today's reactors.
(Other than an imbecile president and a demonic vice-president) the greatest threat to the world today is global warming. The only power source that is available to replace coal for power generation on the scale that needs to be done is nuclear power. Renewables are good and should be encouraged but they cannot be deployed on the scale and on the timeline that needs to happen. (Both PV solar panels and wind turbines are manufacturing at capacity and significant queues exist for both products.)
I was born on August 6, so, when it comes to nukes, you can always sign me up in opposition!
It doesn't matter if it is nukes as weapons or power source. All the transuranium elements are death metal and no one with anything resembling intelligence would fiddle with them on a living planet.
The first problem of course is to transmit, with the little access we have to the public mind space, that all nuke is based on death metal. The nice sounding "nuclear power" is but a primitive use of heat from decaying death metal to heat water to steam to turn turbines.
The point is, put things in such perspective so that it can be grasped in thirty seconds. It's sad, but that is the world we live in.