NUCLEAR ENERGY PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

Item

Title
NUCLEAR ENERGY PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD
extracted text
RF_OH_2_PART_1_SUDHA

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
47/1,(FlratFloor)St. Marks .load
8ANGAt08E-6€0 001

JBPNW IN BRIEF

Larlv History :

A Long-standing professional association between two leading
cardiologists, Dr.Bernard Lown of the U.S. and Dr.Evgency
Chazov of the U.S.S.R;, was the impetus’.f4rthe formation of
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear .War.
Following an exchange of letters ’between Drs. Lown & Chazov,
in .which they, expressed their deep concern about nuclear war,
Dr.Lown met with two other Harvard University physicians,
Dr. James Muller and Dr.. Herbst Abrams. to discuss plans for
launching an international physicians movement to prevent
nuclear war. In December 1980, a meeting in Geneva brought
together Dr.' Lown, Dr.Muller, and Dr. Eric Chivian of Massa­
chusetts Institute of Technology with Dr.Chazov and two of
his colleagues, Drs.Leonid Ilyin and Mihail Kuzin. The his toric meeting of American and Soviet physicians provided the
concensus that has been the basis of IPPNW activity since
th en.
Objectives:

IPPNW is founded on the principle that, by virtue of their
Hippocratic path, physician's have a strong ethical commitment
to preserve human life and health and that this concern must
necessarily extend to the global community. Not only can
physicians fully understand the medical implications of
nuclear war; their professional identify transcends national
and political boundaries and makes impossible for:them to
speak with one voice on this critical issue. IPPNW seeks
to bring together physicians of diverse national identities
to apply their medical expertise to the problem of prevent­
ing nuclear war and controlling the nuclear arms race. In
general, IPPNW seeks to coordinate the activites of national
physicians groups, to foster communication among these
groups, and to assist in the establishment of new physicians
■groups.

Organization:

jpPNW is a federation of regional and national physicians
groups, each of which differs in its composition, structure,
and program. IPPNW respects the identity of each national
physicians group, and encourages individual physicians to
join and work with these groups. (Worldwide, there are 27
established regional and.national physicians groups and 17
groups in the process of organization, involving tens of
thousands of physicians.) IPPNW acts on behalf of all affi­
liated national groups through the IPPNW Internatiinal
Council and Board of"Directors. The current president of
IPPi'Ki is Dr. Bernard Lown. The
R^^1^1' f
Iiylivi

co

°t ™

i

-2-

Activities:
The World Coheresses of IPPNW. IPPNW has held twe int>rnational'congresses, the first outside' of Washington, D.C. ;n 1981
-TheCMMtM (3 to be. held io RfU^ht ;n
Hfya nd—t h e -scc®nd---i-n -C ambr rdg-eT--Eng-land--iR-'A^rri~t7''19o2.
e
First Congress was attended by more than 100 physic’z-i.i from
such diverse countries as the U.S. , U.S.SR. , Japan, Casacja,
France, Norway, Holland, West Germany, United Kingdom, ancj
Sweden, while the Second Congress was attended by 160 physici­
ans representing 31 countries. These congresses have attracted
worldwide press ■ at tention, and have fostered coordination among
national physicians groups. Congress working papers onthe
medical consequences of nuclear war have, been widely distributed
to world leaders in government, medicine, and education, The
Third-.Congress of IPPNJ was
held in June of 1983 in the
Netherlands,' The conference’brought
together more thangoo
physicians delegates from more than 40 countries.

Communication with World Leaders. IPPNW and. its nationalgffi- jhl
liate-s have communicated with world leaders about the dangers
of nuclear war and have brought relevant medical information
before many national agencies including the U.S. Congress,
Canadian Parliament, British Parliament, U.S.S.R. Ministry of
Health, and Hungarian Academy of Sciences. IPPNW has' also, maderepresentations to many international organizations such as the
'World Health Organization, the World Medical Association,-and
the Papal Academy of Sciences. In addition, representatives.
from IPPNW have met with Secretary-General of the United
Nations Javier Perez de Cuellar, who commended IPPNW's efforts
on behalf of World peace and asked that IPPNW become an on­
going rccource to the United Nations.
Z
Informing the Public. IPPNW has sponsored an historic television broadcast in the Soviet Union that featured three
American and three Soviet physicians in a roundtable discusssion of the medical consequences of nuclear war. This compre­
hensive, unedited discussion was seen first by tens of millions
of citizens in the Soviet Union, then by millions more ih
United States, Finland, Holland, Sweden, and other countries.
IPPNW physicians have also written articles and editorials
numerous medical and lay publications, spoken at hundreds of
meetings and gatherings, including the massive rally held in
New York's Central Park in June of 1982, and helped to desi9n
*
curricula on'nuclear war for leading medical schools in many
countries. The working, papers generated by the delegates of
the First Congress of IPPNW have been edited and collected in
a recently published book, Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions
of Nuclear War (1982, W.H. Freeman and Co. ). ' a quarter!^
newsletter, IPPNW Report, is distributed worldwide.

X,

''4

IP™*'

On September 21, 1970, five of the six living Nobel Peace Prize winners—Lord
Boyd Orr, Lester Pearson, Philip Noel-Baker, Linus Pauling and Rend Cassin—pre­
sented a declaration on peace and disarmament at United Nations headquarters
in New York calling for a moratorium on the development and deployment of new
offensive and defensive strategic nuclear weapons systems as a first step towards
full disarmament. The sixth Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ralph Bunche, endorsed
the declaration though he did not sign it because of his position in the U.N. Secre­
tariat as Under Secretary-General. The United Nations hopes to make the Seven-*
ties a "Disarmament Decade" in a renewed effort to halt and reverse the insensate
arms race in which the real cost of world military expenditure, trebled between
1949 and 1968.
In this issue, which is largely devoted to the question of armaments and peace
research, Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker presents a picture of the
current arms build-up on the basis of the findings of the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published in its Yearbook of World Armaments
and Disarmament.

The Arms Race
escalation of
total madness
by Philip Noel-Baker
Nobel Peace Prize, 1959

COMMUNITY n_.
Marks Hoad
47/1. (F>rst_FJ°2r^SI
BANGALORE-560 001

WIGHT D. Eisenhower was
not only President of the United Sta­
tes; he was also Commander-in-Chief
of the greatest army, and victor of the
greatest battle, in human history. After
four years in the White House, he
said in a press conference in 1957:
"I know of nothing that has occurred
in our time where greater optimism
must be maintained... than in this whole
business of beginning disarmament...
The alternative is so terrible that you
can merely say this: All the risks you
take in trying to advance are as noth­
ing compared to doing nothing, to
sitting on your hands."

On an earlier occasion, Eisenhower
said:
“War in our time has become an
anachronism. Whatever the case in
the past, war in the future can serve
no useful purpose."

Since he spoke these words, almost
every president and prime minister
in the world has re-echoed them, and
has declared that a nuclear war might
exterminate mankind. Scientists, be­
ginning with Einstein and Cockcroft,
and weapons-experts, from Oppen­
heimer and Isidor Rabi to Sir Solly
Zuckerman and Herbert York, have
ardently, even passionately endorsed
this view.

But, nevertheless, the governments
have gone on sitting on their hands.
Khruschev’s and Kennedy's great
disarmament plans were destroyed by
militarist opposition. The arms race
has continued with unparalleled fury;
world military expenditure, in real
terms, has increased by more than
60 per cent since 1957; the numbers
of nuclear warheads have increased
much more—perhaps they have been
multiplied by 10.
Much worse, wars have raged in
various quarters of the world, wars In
which the dead and mutilated must
be reckoned in millions—and often

mutilation is more terrible than death.
No-one outside the Institutes of selfstyled
“strategic analysts” really
doubts that there is a causal connexion
between the arms race and the wars;
that if a Treaty of General Disarma­
ment had been made by a compromise
between Kennedy's and Khruschev’s
Draft Treaties of 1962, the world
would now enjoy unbroken peace.
The U.N. General Assembly in
1969 declared that the 1970s must
be the Disarmament and Development
Decade. Since then the SecretaryGeneral has been engaged in a vigo­
rous disarmament campaign.

In his report to the General Assem­
bly in 1969, U Thant said: “The world
now stands at a most critical cross­
roads. It can pursue the arms race at
a terrible price to the security and
progress of the peoples of the world,
or It can move ahead towards the goal
of general and complete disarmament,
a goal that was set in 1959 by a
unanimous decision of the General
Assembly... If it should choose the
latter road" (i.e. general disarmament),
"the security, the economic well-being
and the progress, not only of the
developing countries, but also of the
developed countries, and of the entire
world, would be tremendously en­
hanced.”
On May 22, 1970, U Thant said to
a conference in New York: “Progress...
in the field of disarmament can be
achieved only if there is a strong
political will on all sides to undertake
the policies and measures that could

PHILIP NOEL-BAKER, Nobel Peace Prize,
1959, has devoted many years to research
on problems of peace and disarmament and
has written widely on the subject. Readers
will recall his special study on Science and
Disarmament published In our August-Sep­
tember 1967 Issue, "War or Peace?’.

SiBiii

Poisonous
mushreoms
The malignant crop of atomic mushrooms shown here is a tiny sampling of the
hundreds of nuclear test explosions that have blasted harmful radioactive
substances into the atmosphere during the past 25 years. Countries which signed
the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in Moscow, in 1963, agreed to discontinue all
nuclear tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space. Yet the Moscow
Aheaty. " does not .appear to have had much success in reducing the amount of
wfJLlear weapon testing," reports the SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments
and Disarmament. "From available data," it says, "it appears that the average
annual number of tests by all nations before the treaty was 40. The annual
average since the treaty has been 46." Since they concluded the treaty, the
USA, USSR and UK have exploded no nuclear devices in the atmosphere,
although underground nuclear tests have increased in number. But certain
countries that did not sign the Moscow Agreement have carried out atmo­
spheric tests since 1963 (top right, nuclear explosion in Mainland China;
bottom right, French nuclear explosion).

For every dollar spent on arms
only 30 cents for public health
lead to agreements.
If we are to
make real progress toward disarma­
ment, governments must approach
this subject in a new spirit.
They
must stop questioning the seriousness
of purpose of others and think how
they can demonstrate their own."
In the same speech, U Thant said:
"There is another aspect of the Disar­
mament Decade which... has been
largely overlooked... I refer to the
need for greater publicity concerning
both armaments and disarmament, so
that knowledge concerning these
matters can penetrate the conscience
of the people."
“Penetrate the conscience of the
people."
Yes, foreign policy, armament policy,
has been controlled for the last tragic
decade by those in the Establish­
ments of almost every nation who be­
lieve that armaments can promote
national security and national great­
ness, and who believe that disarma­
ment and the abolition of war are not
only utopian, but even ignoble. Only
a great tide of world opinion can des­
troy their power.

HIS is the significance of
SIPRI's (*) great "Yearbook of World
Armaments and Disarmament." SIPRI's
authority has been firmly established
by its other works; but the Yearbook
is, and will remain, its chef-d'oeuvre.
The product of a dozen first-class
brains, from a dozen countries, work­
ing within the Institute itself, who are
re-inforced, when needed, by experts
from outside.
The sections on military expenditure,
which open the Yearbook, more than
justify this claim. Chapter 1, which
sets out the trends of military expendi­
ture in the world at large, in certain
regions and among certain groups of
countries, and even of some individual
“Great" Powers, is a masterly piece
of statistical analysis. The clarity of
its exposition, re-inforced by the
charts attached to this chapter, and
by the detailed tables of expenditure
in Part II, give a wholly new picture
of the long-term history of the arms
• SIPRI = Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute. The Institute was found­
ed and Is financed by the Swedish Parlia­
ment, which set It up to celebrate the end of
a century and a half during which Sweden
had had no war. It has an International Board
of Governors, of which Mr. Gunnar Myrdal
Is the chairman.

race, and of its immediate and terrify­
ing significance today.
The constant increase of the burden
of military budgets has been a main
plank in the argument of those who
urge disarmament. But the tables
published hitherto have mostly been
at current prices and current exchange
rates; those who opposed disarma­
ment often claimed, without proving
what they said by doing the sums,
that increases of expenditure were due
to a rise of prices, and that, in real
resources, the burden of expenditure
remained the same.
The opponents of disarmament also
found another way of distorting the
facts. They drew up tables showing
a nation's armament expenditure as a
percentage of its gross national
product, without explaining that the
G.N.P. had much increased; thus they
showed Britain's expenditure as over
10 per cent of G.N.P. in the early
1950s, and as 6.7 per cent In 1968;
this left the casual reader with the
impression that large reductions had
been made, when in fact the burden
in real resources had increased.
SIPRI puts all these muddles right.
There are tables at current prices and
exchange rates. There are tables at
constant prices, showing the trends
in real resources over many years.
There are evaluations of the percent­
ages of G.N.P. spent on armaments
in different years by different powers.
These tables give a true picture of
the arms race since the present
century began. It is a picture that
will surprise, and shock, most people.
For 70 years, since 1900, the average
increase in the real burden of world
armaments has been 5 per cent per
year. Since 1948, the increase has
been greater: 6 per cent per year.
This meant that, from 1949 to 1968,
the real cost was trebled.
If the increase continues at the
present rate, the cost will double
again by 1980.
The world total in
1968, at 1960 prices, was: $153,498
million.

In 1980, it would be: $306,996 mil­
lion.
If the increase continues, at 5 per
cent per annum, then, says the Year­
book: “By the early years of the next
century the world will be devoting to
military uses a quantum of resources
which is equal to the whole world’s
present (1968) output."
“This Is not so preposterous as it
sounds", says the Yearbook. “The

world is now devoting to military
purposes an amount of resources
which exceeds the world’s total out­
put in the year 1900."
There are also valuable comments
on percentages of G.N.P.

In 1913, just before the First World
War, “probably no more than 3-31 per
cent of world output was going to
the military. In the early 1930s, the
percentage seems to have been about
the same. The average over the last
18 years... has been around 7-8 per
cent—more than double the 1913
figure".
Moreover, the world's output of
wealth has been increased at least
fivefold since 1913, so that in real
terms the resources “going to the
military" have been multiplied by 10.
There are other dismal facts given
in the Yearbook about this world
expenditure on defence.

--

It is greater in amount by 40 per
cent than the total sums spent by all
nations together on Education.
It is more than three times the
expenditure of all nations together on
Public Health.
These are depressing facts, particu­
larly to those who care about Unesco
and its mission toward mankind.

But there are worse facts still to
come.
The arms race is spreading to
continents where it was not known
before.
The figures for Africa, over the last
few years, show that military expend!ture there is rising by 7-8 per cent perQJ
year—more than the average for the
world.

| N the developing countries

of all continents, military expenditure
has risen since 1960 by an average of
71 per cent per year. The developing
countries—those which are receiving
economic aid from the International
Bank, the International Development
Agency, the U.N. Development Pro­
gramme, and other sources—have
spent many billions of dollars on
importing “sophisticated" weapons—
warships, aircraft, missiles, tanks,
—from the arms-producing nations.
This Is a new and an alarming fact.
In 1955, no developing country had
supersonic military aircraft; today no
less than 32 such nations have them.

Final sequel
to the
•Lucky Dragon’

[ir
| HIS fishing boat is a hulk lying on the mud-flats of a
narbaae dumn bjokyo Bay, inappropriately named “Island of Dreams" (Yumenoshima).
Still legible oVXLkw are the Japanese characters for Fukuryu Maru-Lucky Dragon.

But like its re suing place, the Lucky Dragon is ill-named. Sixteen years ago, on
March 1, 1954, the boat and its crew were hit by the fallout of a hydrogen bomb
explosion during a nuclear test in the Pacific.
At five o’clock on that March morning, the Lucky Dragon was near the Marshall

In 1957, no developing country had
long-range surface-to-air missiles; now
19 have them.
It is this military expansion which
has swallowed up the scarce foreign
currency resources which these deve­
loping nations should have invested as
productive capital in projects for eco­
nomic expansion and social progress.
In my opinion it is the real reason why
the U.N. Development Decade so
largely failed.

There are interesting facts in the
Yearbook about the percentages of
G.N.P. given to the military by two
leading nations, Britain and the United
States.
The U.S. figures are these:
'LUCKY DRAGON' (Continued)

Year

Islands fishing for tuna, when a huge incandescence rose above the western horizon.
The fishermen watched with awe. “The sun rises in the west,” one exclaimed.

1913 .........................
1928 .........................
1969 .........................

Before long, the boat was showered with a drizzle of small, white flakes which
clung to the crew’s hair, eyes and nostrils. The vessel was 87 miles from an obscure
atoll named Bikini. During their two-week journey back to Japan, the crew members
were stricken with a variety of ailments.

It was not until some days after their return to port that the fishermen learned what
the flash was. They were taken to hospital in Tokyo for treatment. In September 1954,
Aikichi Kuboyama, the ship’s radio operator died—the world’s first victim of the
H-bomb. (For full story see “Unesco Courier", August-September 1967.)
In the years that followed, the Lucky Dragon was all but forgotten. After being
decontaminated several times, it was abandoned on the “Island of Dreams" garbage
dump, until someone decided it should be sold for scrap.

When this became known, committees were at once formed to save the boat, and
fund-raising campaigns were launched. Tokyo’s Governor, Ryokichi Minobe, forbade
the scrapping of the Lucky Dragon, and two organizations, The Japan Congress
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs and the General Council of Trade Unions of
Japan, made plans to preserve the boat.
Painted and restored, the Lucky Dragon will now have its place alongside the
atomic museums of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as another reminder of the horror of
nuclear weapons and their destructive effects.

Percentage of G.N.P.
spent on Armaments

1.4
1.1
9.0

The U.S. is fighting the Vietnam
war; nevertheless, that nearly onetenth of its enormously increased out­
put of wealth should “go to the mili­
tary" is a fantastic thought.

Britain is fighting no war.
ures are these:
Year

1913 .........................
1928 .........................
1968 .........................

Her fig­

Percentage of G.N.P.
spent on Armaments

3.4
3.0
6.7

Double the percentage of a national
output which has increased only less
than that of the United States.

Nothing so demonstrates the almost
incredible momentum of the arms race/
and the profound and all-embracing"
militarization of world politics, as these
last figures.

The SIPRl Yearbook expands its
picture of the arms race by a new
and fascinating account of the tech­
nological trends and advances in the
mass-destruction “weapons-systems"
of the major powers, and of conven­
tional armaments as well.

11.02 AM
The hands of this clock In
Nagasaki, Japan, mark the
exact instant when an atomic
bomb was dropped on the
city on the morning of Augusta
1945. Three days earlier, an
atomic bomb had levelled 41
square miles of Hiroshima.

“^lew" ? Much of the material is
from already published government
sources, some from unofficial sources,
some from SIPRI's own researches.
But “new", because no-one has yet
constructed so comprehensive and so
illuminating a synthesis of what is
familiar, what ought to be familiar, and
what so far has been virtually
unknown.

The story of the nuclear competition
between the Soviet Union and the
United States is terrifying.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a first strike capability
Some authorities in the United
States have added a new dimension to
Its menace. They interpret the Soviet
missile SS9, with its multiple war­
heads, and the great increase in the
number of Soviet I.C.B.M.s, not as a
belated and desperate attempt to
catch up with the vastly superior nu­
clear strength of the United States, but
as an attempt to take a very dange­
rous lead.
SIPRI quotes a U.S. spokesman:
"They (the Russians) are going for a
first strike capability. There is no
question about that."
This cuts at the root of the comfor­
table, wishful-thinking theory that the
mutual deterrence of the nuclear
bombs gives us security from war.
SIPRI gives cogent reasons why this
view of Soviet policy is not at present
^credible; they say that the large U.S.
superiority in I.C.B.M.s throughout
the period since the missiles first be­
gan to fly must have made it appear
“from the Soviet point of view ... that
it was the United States which was
attempting to preserve a first-strike
capability." And they quote authori­
tative sources for the fact that for ten
years the U.S. have had the means to
render a million square miles of urban
areas in the Soviet Union uninhabitable
by human beings.

R

^^UT what General Staffs be­
lieve may be more important than the
-facts; their beliefs decide the policy
Which their governments pursue. And
no doubt it is because the U.S. Depart­
ment of Defense believe that the Rus­
sians “are going for a first strike capa­
bility" (i.e. for the power to destroy all
the U.S. nuclear weapons before the
U.S. can reply), that they are em­
barking on a new programme of
missiles with longer ranges and with
multiple warheads (MIRV). Many of
the Polaris submarines will be con­
verted to Poseidons; instead of one
Polaris warhead of 600 kilotons yield,
the Poseidon will have ten warheads
of 50 kilotons yield (50 kilotons is
34 times as powerful as the Hiroshima
bomb). Similar “improvements” will
be made in the land-launched missiles,
the Minutemen.
Departments of defence prefer to
take no chances.
The U.S. Department of Defense
appropriated $25 million for the de­
velopment of a new manned bombing

aircraft in 1969, and $100 million in
1970.
They are doing vigorous research to
improve the accuracy of their missiles
—if the average distance from the
target is halved, “the weapon yield
needed to eliminate a specific target is
reduced by a factor not of 2, but of
10.”
They are spending large sums on
research In oceanography; on so im­
proving submarines that they can re­
main submerged for two months or
more (what kind of human beings will
the crew be when they come up?); on
giving submarines the capacity to dive
and cruise at greater depths—“the
addition of 100 feet to the maximum
operating depth of a submarine adds
millions of cubic miles to the volume
of space in which the submarine can
navigate."
All these developments can be jus­
tified as "defensive", if you apply the
method of "worst case analysis" to
your weapon systems, i.e. if you
accept the worst possible assumptions
about the reliability of your own wea­
pons, about the effectiveness of your
enemy's defence etc. This is a me­
thod that would be tolerated in no
other sphere of government; but in
respect of armaments, “you must
always err on the side of safety."
But, however these U.S. program­
mes may appear in Washington (and
the ABM was only carried by the
Chairman's vote in a Senate divided
50-50), SIPRI is surely right in think­
ing that in Moscow they will seem
to justify the view'that it is the U.S.
which is seeking in the 1970s, as, in
Soviet eyes, they did in the 1960s, to
preserve a first strike capability.

merable others which are dealt with
in the Yearbook.
On chemical and biological warfare,
SIPRI's authority is already estab­
lished in' the world. The Yearbook
chapter on the subject will enhance it.

So will:
The section on the role of helicop­
ters in "conventional" war;

The section on submarine warfare;
The extremely valuable section on
the arms trade, and the remarkable
Arms Trade Register;
The outline of the disarmament ne­
gotiations and proposals since 1945;
The compendious information given
on the Moscow Partial Test Ban, The
Antarctic Treaty, the Outer Space
Agreement, and the Non-Proliferation
Treaty;
The revealing diaries of events in the
Nigerian civil war and the Israeli-Arab
wars; and much more besides, with
which there is no space to deal.

c

If both sides believe that first-strike
capability is the fixed purpose of the
other, and if their military research
and weapon programmes appear to
the other to be devoted to this aim, the
"stability" alleged to result from mutual
nuclear deterrence will not be of much
practical value for the peaceful con­
duct of world affairs. And the SALT
talks in Vienna—the secret U.S.-Soviet
negotiations about the possible limi­
tation of "strategic" arms—do not
seem to give much hope that the race
in these long-range nuclear weapons
will be ended in the early future.
MIRV poses the most difficult of ins­
pection problems; and if SIPRI is right,
the point of no return may already
have been passed.

^^OMETHING must be said,
however, about the Yearbook's analy­
sis of the post-1945 phenomenon of
Government Military Research and De­
velopment. It has long been plain that
Military Research and Development
(R & D) is the real dynamo which dri­
ves the arms race. It is R and D which
makes the arms race a remorselessly
self-escalating burden on the nations'
wealth. It is R and D which drives
up the cost and scale of armaments
from year to year.
It has long been known that vast
sums were being spent on R and D.
But SIPRI has brought out something
profoundly significant—and new.
“Behind this extremely rapid rate
of technological
improvement
in
weaponry," says the Yearbook, “so
much faster than that of civil goods,
there is an enormous disparity between
the two fields in research and devel­
opment. .. For every $100 of military
procurement (i.e. actual purchase of
arms by the Government) in the Uni­
ted States, Britain and France, there
is over $50 of research expenditure (*).
For the general run of manufacturing,
the research input for every $100 of
Ou‘
fr°rn $1.9 (France) to
$7.5 (U.S.) The disparity is not so
great in other countries, but it exists
everywhere."
a

MIRV and ABM are only the most
dangerous of the weapon develop­
ments now under way; there are innu­

^Fl^.,l9ures are: UK- ** U.S.

Moreover, the military research figu­
res are understated—they exclude
expenditure on space research and on
atomic energy research. All in all, the
research input for weapons is at least
ten times that for civil goods and ser­
vices.
This conjures up visions of
rotting urban ghettoes which modern
engineering ought to cleanse; of starv­
ing children who ought not to starve:
of rampant diseases which science
could wipe out.
But worse than that:
"This tremendous research and de­
velopment drive behind the advance in
weaponry has an impetus of its own.
Once massive funds are voted for
weapons research ... it is inevitable
that further improvements will be
made, and inevitable that new fields of
warfare will be explored...
“Weapons research proliferates in
another way. . .: each new weapon
spurs the development of counter­
weapons."
Alas, what might science do for the
betterment of human life and hap­
piness if the balance of R and D were
ten to one the other way!
This Yearbook is a sine qua non for
the proper understanding of world
affairs.
Lest I have given it a colour which
others might contest, let me end by
quoting the words of SIPRI's Director,
Mr. Robert Neild:
“The Yearbook is factual: but of
course the selection of the material
and the way in which it is presented
implies a set of valuations, and we
should make them explicit. Obviously
the staff—drawn as they are from
many different countries—have differ­
ing views on a wide number of ques­
tions of world armaments and disar­
mament. The common elements in
their approach may be summarized
thus:, that the rise in world military
spending, and more particularly the
constant technological acceleration in
weaponry, is highly dangerous, and
that the attempts so far made to slow
down, halt or reverse the process
have been incommensurate with the
danger; that arms competition, though
it is not the sole or main cause of
world tensions and conflicts, is an
important independent factor which
increases and exacerbates tensions;
and that arms limitation or disarmapent could help considerably to re­
duce these tensions."
Amen.
■
The SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments
d Disarmament 1968-1969. prepared by the
ickholm International Peace Pesearch
titute. is published by Almqvist 6 Wiksell
ickholm. Humanities Press, New York and
■aid Duckworth t Co.. Ltd., London.
ces hardback and soft cover respectively:
and 32 Kr.; $12.00 and $6.50; £5 and

IMPORTS OF MAJOR WEAPONS
BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(millions of U. S. dollars)

1950

Importers :

1958

1968

Greece and Turkey

20

380

50

Middle East

20

240

640

(including the UAR)

30~

North Africa

V

(Algeria. Libya, Morocco, Tunisia).

Sub-Saharan Africa

-

30

-

(the rest of Africa excluding South Africa)
South Africa

5

10

70~

40

340

200

90

350

70

. .............
Nam and the Republic of Viet-Nam)

_______

10

South America

40

140

100

TOTAL excluding North Viet-Nam and the Republic
of Viet-Nam

220

1.470

1,200

North Viet-Nam and the Republic of Viet-Nam

—

30

470

TOTAL

220

1,500

1,670

Tables taken from the SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments and Disarmament. Figures
rounded to nearest 10, or to nearest 5 when under 10. Values calculated at constant
1968 prices.

EXPORTS OF MAJOR WEAPONS
■

to areas in table above (North Viet-Nam and the Republic
of Viet-Nam excluded)
o
(millions of U.S. dollars)

Exporters :
USA

USSR
UK

____________________________

1950

1958

1968

60

800

290

40

140

380

70

230

210

110

220

France
Canada

20

5

40

Italy

—.

20

30

80

10

10

5

Mainland China
Federal Republic of Germany

—

Czechoslovakia

5

Japan

10

Sweden
All other

TOTAL

____ 5

—

30

30

40

10

220

1.470

1,200

IMPORTS OF MAJOR WEAPONS
BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(millions of U. S. dollars)

-„?P

Greece and Turkey

1968

380

50

240

640

30~

North Africa
(Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia)

30~
r

............ „
■

90

340

200

350

H.

ro-.2

cS

j!

70
_______ o

J

4.

_

40

140

100

220

1,470

1,200

:

If

i

E

2

=

|

-2

|

10

70~

_

E

<

The SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments
and Disarmament 1968-1969. prepared by the
Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute, is published by Almqvist & Wlksell,
Stockholm, Humanities Press, New York and
Gerald Duckworth i Co., Ltd., London.
(Prices, hardback and soft cover respectively:
60 and 32 Kr.: $12.00 and $6.50; £5 and
£2.10.)

1958

1950

Importers :

-

Moreover, the military research figu­
res are understated —they exclude
expenditure on space research and on
atomic energy research. All in all, the
research input for weapons is at least
ten times that for civil goods and servioes.
This conjures up visions of
rotting urban ghettoes which modern
engineering ought to cleanse; of starv­
ing children who ought not to starve:
of rampant diseases which science
could wipe out.
But worse than that;
"This tremendous research and de­
velopment drive behind the advance in
weaponry has an impetus of its own.
Once massive funds are voted for
weapons research ... it is inevitable
that further improvements will be
made, and inevitable that new fields of
warfare will be explored...
"Weapons research proliferates in
another way. . .: each new weapon
spurs the development of counter­
weapons."
Alas, what might science do for the
betterment of human life and hap­
piness if the balance of R and D were
ten to one the other way!
This Yearbook is a sine qua non for
the proper understanding of world
affairs.
Lest I have given it a colour which
others might contest, let me end by
quoting the words of SIPRI’s Director,
Mr. Robert Neild:
“The Yearbook is factual: but of
course the selection of the material
and the way in which it is presented
implies a set of valuations, and we
should make them explicit. Obviously
the staff—drawn as they are from
many different countries—-have differ­
ing views on a wide number of ques­
tions of world armaments and disar­
mament. The common elements in
their approach may be summarized
thus:, that the rise • in world military
spending, and more particularly the
constant technological acceleration in
weaponry, is highly dangerous, and
that the attempts so far made to slow
down, halt or reverse the process
have been incommensurate with the
danger; that arms competition, though
it is not the sole or main cause of
world tensions and conflicts, is an
important independent factor which
increases and exacerbates tensions:
and that arms limitation or disarma­
ment could help considerably to re­
duce these tensions."
Amen.
■

South America___________________

|

TOTAL excluding North Viet-Nam and the Republic

■

North Viet-Nam and the Republic of Viet-Nam
220

TOTAL

30

470

1,500

1,670

Tables taken from the SIPRI Yearbook of World Armamerits and Disarmamenl Figures
rounded to nearest 10. or to nearest 5 when under 10. Values calculated a\t constant
1968 prices.

EXPORTS OF MAJOR WEAPONS
to areas in table above (North Viet-Nam and the Republic
of Viet-Nam excluded)
o
<

(millions of U.S. dollars)

Exporters :

1950

1958

1968

USA

60

800

290

USSR

40

140

380

70

230

210

__

110

220

UK
France

Canada

20

5

40

Italy

—

20

30

Mainland China

_

80

10

10

5_

Federal Republic of Germany
Czechoslovakia

—

5

-

10

Japan

Sweden

5

30

All other

TOTAL

30

40

10

220

1,470

1,200

Super-arms for developing countries
MILITARY expenditure in
the developing countries is only a
small fraction of the world total; but it
seems to have risen rather faster than
world military expenditure as a whole
and
to
have
been
accelerating
recently.
The spread of existing sophisticated
weapons through the Third World is a
very significant aspect of the arms
competition there. This "horizontal"
proliferation is the complement to the
technological arms race which is per­
haps the most important feature of the
arms competition in the developed
countries. More and more developing
countries
are
acquiring
fighters,
ground-to-air missiles, and so on. The
Third World countries do not, for the
most part, produce these sophisticated
weapons themselves; the weapons are
supplied by the industrial nations.
Some Third World countries, such as
Israel and India, are beginning to pro­
duce more sophisticated weapons; but
these weapons are usually produced
under licence with a substantial pro­
portion of imported components.
The arms competition in the Third
World would be very different if it
were not for the fact that the great
powers are seeking influence there.
They may be looking for strategically
placed allies, they may be anxious to
support regimes friendly to them
against internal armed. opposition, or
they may wish to protect their eco­
nomic interests or to gain general sup­
port for foreign policy (in the form
of votes in the United Nations, for
example). One of the main methods
of exerting influence is by supplying
arms.
There are some important qualifica­
tions about the figures and information
discussed here and shown in the tables
opposite. The figures are, as far
as is known, the first comprehensive
quantitative estimates which show how
the trends have changed in the past
two decades.
They are based on
incomplete unofficial information—offi­
cial figures are virtually non-existent.
The tables are limited to the
supply of major weapons: ships, air­
craft. armoured fighting vehicles and
missiles.
Because no support equip­
ment and no other weapons are in­
cluded. they represent only a part—
but an important part—of the arms
trade.
The figures are constructed to
represent the "real" transfer of resour­
ces They are based on comparable
values for comparable items, using
such criteria as speed, weight, type of
engine date of production. They do
not take into account differing prices
or differing terms for individual trans­
actions such as aid, credit, loans or
subsidies. That is. they attempt to

measure the quantum of resources
represented by the weapons, not the
cost in foreign currency paid by the
recipient country.
“In drawing conclusions from these
figures," says the SIPRI report,
"we have allowed for their wide
margin of error. In dealing with the
arms trade with these countries, it
seemed right to construct the best pic­
ture we could, using our own judge­
ment on information from alf kinds
of sources.
The alternative—using
official information only—would have
meant that little or nothing could be
said on a matter of great international
importance.
"There is also a caution on the use
the military expenditure figures. They
cover the military expenditure of the
countries out of their own domestic
resources: military aid is included in
the budget of the donor countries."
Major weapon supplies to Third
World countries have been rising even
faster than their military expenditures.
The long-term trend from 1950 to 1968,
has been for the supply of weapons
to increase, in volume terms, by some
9 per cent a year, against 7 per cent
a year for military spending.
It has
not been a smooth rise over the eigh­
teen years: there was a high point
around 1958, when United States mili­
tary aid was at its height, and there
has been a rapid increase since 1962.
In 1968 deliveries of major weapons
to the Third World countries, at
$1,700 million, were higher than ever
before: they were around $300 mil­
lion, or 15 per cent, above the 1967
figure.

A

growing number of Third
World countries have acquired super­
sonic fighters, anti-aircraft missiles
and helicopters for military use. The
helicopter is becoming more and more
important in the weapons inventory of
the great powers and this is also true
for Third World countries.
The two main areas responsible for
the increase in major weapon sup­
plies since’1962 have been the Middle
East and North Viet-Nam and the
Republic of Viet-Nam. In 1968, these
two areas accounted for 70 per cent
of total major arms deliveries. In the
Middle East, it was not only the
re-equipment which followed the SixDay War which made up the massive
influx of weapons: there were exten­
sive arms purchases by Saudi Arabia,
Iran and Kuwait.
In addition, there
were in this period significant increa­
ses In major arms supplies to South
Africa and the four North African
countries.

The pattern of the short-term in­
crease from 1967 to 1968 was a little
different. Again, it was dominated by
the Middle East, but in addition there
were notable increases in arms sup­
plies to the Indian sub-continent and
to South America: in both these areas
the trend had previously been falling.
The United States, the Soviet Union,
Britain and France dominate the mar­
ket for major arms exports. During the
1950s these four countries accounted
for 80 per cent of major arms supplies
to the Third World. During the 1960s.
this proportion had increased to 90 per
cent, and it is still rising.
The United States share of major
arms supplies to the Third World has
fallen both absolutely and relatively
since the end of the 1950s. Since
1960, the emphasis of US military
assistance policy has shifted from the
defence of states from possible exter­
nal attack to the defence of govern­
ments from possible internal insurrec­
tion: developing countries have been
encouraged to acquire counter-insur­
gency equipment rather than sophisti­
cated conventional equipment.

Such items include helicopters,
trainers, patrol boats, refurbished
World War II combat aircraft, which
are relatively inexpensive. The Arms
Trade Register for 1968 shows that a
large part of the equipment supplied by
the United States in 1968, particularly
in Latin America consisted of these
items.
Major arms supplies from the Soviet
Union have risen throughout the
period.
In the last few years, the
Soviet Union has exported roughly the
same quantity of major weapons as
the United States. The most rapid
increase in Soviet major arms supplies
occurred in the second half of the
1950s.
Between 1954-58 and 195963, major arms supplies from the
Soviet Union doubled.
Between
1960-64 and 1964-68, they rose by
only about 10 per cent.
The first arms agreement with Egypt
was made in 1955; it was followed
soon after by a similar agreement with
Syria. In 1958 the Soviet Union began
supplying arms to Iraq and Indonesia,
and a little later to Africa. Arms sup­
plies to India and Cuba began in 1960.
Although major arms supplies to India
and the Middle East have increased
substantially in recent years, the total
Soviet rise has been relatively small
because of a considerable reduction in
supplies to Indonesia and Cuba, which
reached their height in 1962.

In the short term, major arms sup­
plies from both the United States and
the Soviet Union have risen, particu­
larly in the Middle East. The Soviet
Union has been meeting the replace-

ment requirements of the U.A.R. and
Syria, while the United States has
been supplying sophisticated equip­
ment to Israel,.-Jordan and Iran:
Britain and-Frapce together account
for approximately 20 per cent of total
major arms supplies during the period.
The British share has fallen since the
end of the 1950s. The level of sup­
plies from France has risen throughout
the period, though not continuously;
it is now approaching equality with the
level of British supplies.
During the 1950s, a large propor­
tion of British arms were supplied to
countries which had had traditional
military ties with Britain, or to ex-colo­
nies.
Many of these traditional reci­
pients have turned to other sources.
The U.A.R. and Iraq turned to the Soviet
Union. Jordan is receiving more and
more weapons from the United States,
and India from the Soviet Union. An
embargo has been placed on British
arms supplies to South Africa, which
has consequently turned to France.
In the short term, there have been
rapid rises in both British and French
major arms supplies. In 1968, Britain
and France accounted for 35 per cent
of total major arms supplies. France
has determinedly expanded its markets
in South Africa and in Latin America
■ and South Asia. The embargo on
Israel has been accompanied by an
increase in orders from and deliveries
to the Areb countries. France conti­
nues to supply arms to French ex-colo­
nies
A large part of the recent
increase in British major arms supplies
has consisted of deliveries to the oil
rich countries of the Middle East.
Among the other suppliers, Canada,
the Fed. Rep. of Germany and Italy
have increased their exports in the last
few years. Major arms supplies from
Italy and Canada were also high during
the 1950s, in relation to their current
level.
Canada was selling Sabre
fighters, built under licence from the
United States, during the 1950s; it is
now selling Canadian built and design­
ed transports. Italy is selling trainers
and helicopters. During the 1950s,
Italian exports consisted primarily of
ships.
The rise in major arms supplies
from the Fed. Rep. of Germany to
countries outside Europe has consisted
of surplus equipment.
Iran and
Venezuela, in particular, have pur­
chased large quantities of ex-Luftwaffe F-86 fighters.
The Swedish defence industry is
comparable in sophistication to those
of Britain and France. However, Swe­
dish exports of major weapons to the
Third World have been extremely low
and have fallen to an almost negligible
amount during the 1960s. This is prob­
ably the result of the increasingly res­
trictive Swedish arms trade policy. ■
The above text is abridged from the SIPRI
Yearbook
of World
Armaments
and
Disarmament 1968-1969, published by the
Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute.

10th ANNIVERSARY OF U.K. DECLARATION
ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF COLONIAL PEOPLES
I EN years ago, the United Nations General Assembly approved the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence- to Colonial Countries and
Peoples. All peoples, it declared, had the right freely to determine their
political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The importance of this historic Declaration was recalled recently by
M. Rene Maheu, Director-General of Unesco, on the occasion of the 25th
anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Speaking in Geneva on
behalf of 21 international organizations of the U.N. family (1), he declared :
“It was within the United Nations that the idea and the process
of decolonization took definite shape. The Trusteeship Council
and the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, in particular,
have been largely instrumental in bringing about the emanci­
pation of many peoples formerly under colonial rule.
“The accession of these peoples to independence, however,
has’not only profoundly altered the composition of the interna- A)
tional community and the relations among its members, it has y
also highlighted a number of problems which had never pre­
viously appeared in their true colours and in all their gravity.

“I refer to the problems of underdevelopment. Mankind has
suddenly realized both that development has been the privilege
of a minority instead of being, as it can be, the condition of all,
and that most of the countries seeking to achieve it were unable
to do so by their own unaided efforts.
“In this respect, a tribute must be paid to the Economic and
Social Council, the organ of the General Assembly mainly res­
ponsible for the development of this new awareness that has
changed the spirit of our times. The Council hammered out the
idea of integrated economic and social development and secured
acceptance of it not only as a possibility but as a duty devolving
upon each individual country and upon the international commu­
nity as a whole...
“’... The world is still dominated by too many rulers and groups
who do not suit their actions to their words, who preach peace
while waging or preparing for war, who exalt justice while tole---rating discrimination and flagrant inequality, who pay lip service®)
to progress while diverting to armaments enormous sums which
they could more usefully spend on development, both in their
own country and abroad...”

During the past year, the "Unesco Courier" has on many occasions de­
scribed the successes and setbacks, the aims and hopes of the global
struggle for the development of the under-privileged countries. Our Feb­
ruary and October 1970 issues were largely devoted to the problems of
development and our January issue dealt with education, an integral part of
economic and social development.
') The International Labour Organization — the Food and Agriculture. Organization of
the United Nations — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Oroaniza
■'on 7" the World Health Ownlzatlon — the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Deve opment and its two affiliates, the International Finance Corporation and the Interna
tional Development Association — the International Monetary Fund — the International
Civil Aviation Organization - the Universal Postal Union — the International Telecom
munication Union — the World Meteorological Organization — the Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization - the International Atomic Energy Agency —the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — the United Nations Conferlnceon Trade and
Development — the United Nations Industrial Development Organization —the United
Nations Children's Fund - the United Nations Development Programme ~ the United
"W°ru1 ^ncy ,or Pales^e Refugees In the Near East - the Of ice
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuoees _ the llmtori ki
tne umce
and Research Institute -the World Food Programme
ed Nat'°nS Tram,ng

»■

Printed in France by Georges lang. Paris.' COM.70/I.254-/A

«,r•

hmlth ceil

BANGAl.QHE..5fl00(:n

A NUCLEAR WAR AND INDIA
Talk of a nuclear holocaust usually fails to invoke a sense

of doom in India.

This is because there is a general feeling

that the war will be fought between the Great Powers only,

and that too, in Europe; and even if we do have a nuclear war
it is only an alternative to dying of hunger.

illusions.

These are' just

A nulcear war anywhere in the world will involve

India. Prevention of all wars and a stop to armaments will'not
I
only ensure that we do not die of a nuclear war, but will also

not die of hunger or communicable disease.

If the money spent

on our sophisticated arms imports is used for the supplies of
clean drinking water for the next ten years there would probably

be no water borne diseases in India.
The atom bombs of the type used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had

an explosive power of kilotons of TNT (thousands of tons of TNT)

Hydrogen bombs developed a decade later have an expd^ive power
of megatons (millions of tons).

bomb

A single thermonuclear

has an expd\L)sive power greater than that of all the explosives
used in all wars since gunpowder was invented.

The present

day nuclear arsenals have an explosive power 5OO6times greater
than that of all the

explosives used in the Second World War.

No country on Earth could survive an all out nuclear war.

It

is estimated that such a war would take place by the end of this
century, a bare sixteen years from now.

That such a war has not

taken place as yet is now consolation for it need take place just

once for the planet to be destroyed.

It is painful to realise

that we may the last generation on this earth and that subse­
quently there would be no one to watch the beauty of the sunrise

...2/-

: 2 :

or the mysticity of the sunset.
India lies in the Northern Hemisphere approxmiately between
the latitudes 10° and 35°.

It is believed that a nuclear war

This

will be fought in Europe between latitudes 40° and 60°.

places us in India in a relatively unenviable position.
The effects of a nuclear explosion are mainly due to a blast

wave (which is almost hal4 the total energy released) the

heat flash and radiation.

The consequences of each of those

would depend bn whether the blast is exploded in the air
(air burst) or on the ground (surface burst).

'.7e may not get

the effects of the blast and thermal waves, but we certainly

would be affected to a great extent by the global radio­
active fallout.

In fact, it is unlikely that any country in

the world escape the global radioactive fallout, no matter
where the nuclear war is fought.

The upper atmosphere would

be injected with radioactive particles and these would descend
all over the globe in weeks and months.

By this time only

the long lived isotopes, particularly strontium 90 and cesium

137, would be significant.

Tine effects of these over years

would be cancer and genetic defects.
Our grain reservoirs would not survive the holocaust - the
grain would be radioactive and unfit for consumption.

too would not be spared.

crops.

Crops

Insects would rapidly consume the

Protection against insects is mainly by birds and

insecticides.

Birds are less resistant than insects to

radiation and would not survive.

And insecticides not being

stored underground would become radioactive.
It would be difficult to quantify the atmosphere disturbances.

...3/-

: 3 :

Millions of tons of particulate matter would be injected into
the atmosphere.

The

dense clouds so formed would obscure the

sun, causing a fall in temperature and reducing photosynthesis

A drop of even 1 or 2 degrees Celsius in the average

in plants.

temperature in the Northern Hemisphere would seriously affect
crop growth.

a blast.

Oxides of nitrogen would be liberated too during

If they entered the trophosphere more ozone would be

produced which would reduce plant growth.

If the oxides of

nitrogen entered the stratosphere the ozone would be depleted
giving rise to all the problems associated with an excess of

ultraviolet radiation, specially blindness and skin cancers.
So no matter how we look at it we in India stand to lose in
a nuclear war.

In fact, it is foolish to think just in terms

of India when a nuclear conflict is concerned.

If India must

survive a nuclear war then the entire world must survive or
we all die together.

Only 'when this is fully realized can

we impress upon our leaders and military strategists of the

consequences of nuclear war.

And unless there is a global

understanding of this problem and urgent steps are taken to­

wards complete global disarmament we in India cannot think of
marching into the future with heads held high.

health cell
COMMUNITY
326, V Main , I Block
Koram»ngala
Bangalore-560034
India

THE

PEACE MOVEMENT AND THE THIRD WORLD

Eboe HUTCHFUL

Introduction
The resurgence of the peace movement in the West is undou­
btedly e major political event of the early eighties. The
growth of the movement end its gathering momentum since 1980

heve been made forcefully obvious in massive peaceful demon­
strations (400 000 in Amsterdam in November 1981,550 000 in

Bonn, thousands more in Tokyo, London, Ottawa)

as well as in

not-so-peaceful protest (riots in Berlin, bombings in France,
Even more than in the 1960s the movement

Germany and Italy).

enjoys an extremely broad base of support, cutting across the
traditional sociopolitical categories - woman, youth,

labor,

clergy, environmentalists, progressive intelligentsia, and even
political conservatives - all more or less radicalized by their

perceptions of the danger of an increasingly nuclearized and

militarized environment.

This strength has posed a serious challenge to the power
of the bourgeois state at a critical time, end it is being met
by mobilization of the repressive state apparatus (1700 polizei
in Bonn alone), contemplation of special security legislation

end suspension of certain civil rights, etc. A movement on a
similar scale has not so far developed in the Soviet Union and

Eastern countries (although it does exist),- not least because
of the determined opposition of the governments there to such
manifestations of independent'protest (note East Germany's recent

expulsions of peace protestors).

Militarization-nuclearization; symptoms of fundamental
social contradictions
To describe this

phenomenon in the singular number"movement"

is to misname it.

It is only in the broadest sense that any

association embracing socialists, the Greens Party, and the
National Conference

of Catholic Bishops can be seen to consti­

tute a single movement.

This heterogeneity is a source of both

strength and weakness.

Obviously, it has made possible some

unity among diverse social strata over minimum programs to defuse
the nuclear threat; it has marshaled a popular constituency which

no government dare ignore.

At the seme time, it inhibits an

objective understanding of the root cause of the nuclear threat
Department of Political Science, University of Port Harcourt,
Harcourt, Nigeria.

today and leads to utopian and contradictory "solutions."
For nuclearization is only a symptom, not and disease.

Funda­

mental solutions cannot be pegged at the level of immediacy

(whether in the form of a "freeze," specific controls over
nuclear weaponry, or disarmament proposals)

but must be sought

in the eradication of the social contradictions producing nuclear

ization and militarization.

This is where the difficulty begins.

While some view the

nuclear threat in moral end theological terms (and even within
the churches there is no consensus on the practical implications

of such arguments), others see it as excesses basic to conditions
of production end distribution under advanced capitalism, and

increasingly under Soviet socialism.

In this sense, the stru­

ggle for "peace" actually reflects a split within Euro-American
capital and its constituency over how to approach the deepening

contradictions of contemporary capitalism:

a fascist rightwing

seeks final confrontation with the forces of socialism and is

ready to extirpate social struggles with nukes; a liberal-theo­
logian approach treats the problem as a "moral and religious
issue" and,

like all religious thought, sees no systemic roots

of militarism; and, finally, a progressive wing sees nucleariza­

tion es the cumulation (and deadliest manifestation)

of the exce­

sses of capitalism.

Immediate cause of

peace protests

The immediate cause of the peace protests is less controver­
sial and can be traced to (a)

tion of sophisticated and

the development of a new genera­

super-accurate nuclear weaponry(soviet

5S-20s, American cruise and Pershing II missiles)
strike" capability;

with "first-

(b) NATO plans to restore the nuclear balance

in Europe by installing 572 intermediate-range nuclear missiles

on European soil beginning December 1983;

108 Pershing II and 96

"Tomahawk" cruise missiles in West Germany, and cruise missiles

in Britain (160) , Italy (112) , Belgium (48)
(48);

(c)

and the Netherlands

the emergence of right-wing governments in the West

(particularly the Reagan Administration in the US)

that seem

prepared to contemplate not just deployment but actual use of

nuclear weapons;

(d)

the substantial propaganda of the Reagan

Administration that "limited" or "protracted" nuclear war is
not only possible but winnable, scenarios of civil defense under
nuclear attack and instruction on how to survive a nuclear war,
repudiation of SALT II and revival of cold war rhetoric; and

(e)

prolonged stagnation end crisis in world capitalism, and the

potent absurdities of Thatcherism and Rerg^nomics, e.g. increa­

sing unemployment in order to stimulate "economic revival,"
cutting old age benefits and social welfare in order to increase

arms production.

Old contradictions seem all the more intolerable:

large-

scale investment in weapons capable of more and more complete
devastation as a "condition" for peace,

arms control treaties

that result in intensified arms race, billions of dollars in

payments to European and American farmers to curb production
when millions ere dying of starvation in the world, "develop­

ment" predicated on probably irreversible ecological damage,

etc .

SuperPower rivalry and nuclear blackmail
Yet, in spite of the groundswel.l of support in the West the
peace movements have evoked no corresponding movements in the

Third World.

Does this mean that "peace" is irrelevant to Third

World countries? Yes, it is - as long as the question is framed
within the context of the immediate concerns of the peace move­

ments.

Both in terms of distance and reality, the nuclear issue

seems remote, and even irrelevant, in relation

to the daily

struggle of the Third World messes for survival.

Even so,

some

countries of the Third World (India, Chine, Brazil, Argentina,
Israel, South Africa, etc.)

have developed nuclear capability.

The apparent lack of concern about the dangers of nuclearization
(indeed, support for it, considering that some other Third World

countries are espiring to acquire such capability or are under
pressure to do so)

appears paradoxical in the

light of the thesis

of this paper that far from being peripheral to the nuclear con­
frontation, the Third World is, in fact, central to it.

This

would become obvious if one first decisively rejected, as one

must, the illusion that America's aggressive nuclear posture is
in response to warlike Soviet intentions against Europe or Americ

The Reaganite hawks justify renewed American armamentism in terms
of the necessity to prevent "spread of totalitarian power," to
promote "defense of free institutions," and to defeat Kremlin
attempts to "get power over the whole world."

Yet,

the essen­

tially defensive intentions of Soviet nuclear, policy have consis­

tently been stressed both by the Soviet leaders themselves end
by responsible American commentators.

Even at the. height

of the

cold war, in the 1960s this was implicitly admitted to be the
case:

r

: 4 :
The theme of Soviet eggressiveness hrs been repeated so often

end so loudly in the pest during the lest quarter-century that
it is now accepted by most Americans as a fact-ts little to be

questioned as night following day.

And yet, paradoxical though

it may seem, we know of no serious analyst of Soviet society
and Soviet policy who really believes it.2
More recently, even normally anti-Soviet sections of the American

press have admitted that

Despite their willingness to rely on brute force,

the Soviet

leaders have shown no inclination to risk nuclear war with the

United States. By nature they tend to assume the worst and to
prepare for the worst, which is whv they arm as they do.^
Moreover, Soviet nuclear weapons have been confined to Soviet

soil, not deployed on the national territory of third parties,
as are American missiles (even, as now, against considerable

domestic opposition).

Nuclear blackmail has consistently been

American rather then Soviet policy, although,

given no other

choice to guarantee its national security, the Soviet Union has

accepted the nuclear challenge so thoroughly that it may have

outstripped the Americans (or so the Americans say).
Paradoxical growth of Fast-West trade

In wpite of temporary setbacks (Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan,

Polent)

Soviet relations with Western Europe over the

last two

decades have been characterized by peaceful coexistence and

expanding trade, industrial, scientific and cultural exchanges.
While it remains true thgt "commercial transactions between East
and West take piece in a highly complex and volatile environzt
ment, subject to recurrent cycles of conflict and accommodation,"

en undeniable feature is its consistent growth.

Between 1966

end 1972 Soviet exports to NATO economies grew by an average of

11.3% per annum and imports by 10.5%.

In 1966, Soviet exports

and imports to and from the West constituted about 22% end 25%
respectively of total Soviet world trade; in 1972, the figures

were 22% and 28%.

In 1982, Soviet trade with the West had incre­

ased to 31-6% of the total (compared with 14.1% for the under­
developed countries).
These expanding commercial relations should be understood
against the background of the problems of both capitalist and

socialist production in Europe.

With American domination of

the world capitalist .market, increasing competition from the

Japanese, and stagnation in their domestic economies, European

| 5

:

governments end firms (as well as those of Canada and Japan)

were encouraged to exploit Eastern markets.

The West German

’’economic miracle" also found ?n export outlet to the East.
For these smeller European economies the socialist countries
offered a "vast and rapidly expanding market" for commodity

exports as well as "lucrative prospects for industrial, techno­
logical and managerial cooperation.For the Soviet Union,
lagging technological development in nonmilitary industries, a

series of bad harvests end persistent problems of agricultural

production, choronic shortages of consumer goods, etc.,

led to

large food imports, procurement abroad of high technology goods,

advanced machinery and equipment, machine tools, etc.

The

principle governing these exchange was that of peaceful coexis­
tence, the assumption that "the economic system of both commu­

nism and free enterprise will survive into the indefinite future,"

and that "neither side will probably dismantle its own social

structure or try to overwhelm the other with military force.
According to Pisar;
Today, the prevailing view rejects the notion of the two hostile,

non-communicating economic orbits as not only untenable, but
downright harmful to the interests of the East.?
In the late sixties and early seventies, with Czechoslovakia

hardly behind them, there was a "considerable increase" in long­
term trade, industrial and scientific cooperation agreements
between the East and the West in Europep

This included large-

scale joint ventures between capitalist firms and state organiza­

tions in Yugoslavia, Rumania and Hungary; mammoth agreements with
West German industry (and also with Italian and Austrian firms)

for delivery of large-diemeter rolled steel and construction of

pipelines in return for supplies of Soviet natural gas; and agree­
ments with Japanese firms for developing Soviet Fer Eastern resour­

ces.

After 1962, there was the transfer of a large and growing

quantity of Soviet patents to UK, US, etc., and particularly to

France.

The largest beneficiaries of this "opening to the East"

were West Germany and a number of individual European firms, such
as Fiet(Italy), SECAM and Renault (France),

(Britain).

ICI.BAC, and Leyland

Considerable liberalization' of trade with the East

(and evasion of NATP restrictions)

took place among most Western

European countries, further liberalization being constrained more

by "fundamental differenqes between the economic systems" and by
fears of disruption of Western markets by the sales practices of

Eastern state trade organizations than by any ideological differ­
ences.

Individual EEC governments and banks competed to extend

: 6 :

liberal export credits to Poland and other Eastern countries
(total credits of more than five-year duration already exceeded

S3 billion by end 1971), leading to fears that this would subvert

the "common commercial policy" of the EEC end erode its competiti­
ve position in relation to Japanese end American exporters.0
With this evidence (not to mention the just concluded
"Conference on European Security and Co-operation")

a nuclear con­

frontation, let alone "exchange,"’ hardly appears likely or immi­
nent in Europe, even without underestimating the recklessness of

the belligerent Reagan Administration in Washington.

Real causes of European nuclear scare
Clearly, the real cause and function of the European nuclear

scare need to be sought elsewhere.

The real reasons are;

(1)

the erosion of the American hegemony in the Third World by the
tide of revolutions- revolutions supported militarily by the
Soviet Union; and (2)

the fear of attenuation of the American

empire in Europe,, arising out of the paradoxical combination of

a European peace movement and unprecedented growth in Soviet
military power.

TIME has accurately (if unwittingly)

identified

the "sequential triumph of leftist revolutions" in the Third
World as the fundamental problem for America.Nuclearization
is only the ultimate attempt to stem these revolutions; it is

itself only a single aspect of a more generalized militarization

of the international environment occurring in response to these

revolutionary struggles, a process of militarization, the bleakest
aspects of which ere manifested precisely in the Third World.

Dependence on Third World strategic materials
To understand this requires some understand!ng of the contradic­

tions of the cepitalist.system, et the center of which stands
America.

Since its mercantile genesis, modern capitalism has

always been an international system, and could only grow and sur­

vive as such.

Postwar developments made this ev'en

more true.

The technological revolutions in the nuclear, aerospace, electro­

nics end other industries made possible an unprecendented growth
in the scale end complexity of capitalist production in civil and

military industries.

These advances accentuated the importance

of basic energy sources, created a demand for n'-w mineral raw
materials and raised the strategic significance of traditional

and nontraditional m'etals (vanadium, titanium, molybdenum, tungs-

ten, uranium,

thorium, etc.), many of which existed in inadequate

quantities or not at all in the national territories of the main
capitalist countries.

This hrs sharply increased the dependence

: 7 :

of the m?in capitalist countries on external sources of supply
of strategic and other materials, much of it lying in the Third
The United States,

World countries.

traditionally the most self-

sufficient of the Western capitalist countries in the ere? of raw
materials,

is dependent on imports to - n absolute or "critical"

degree for a large and growing range of strategic materials.

Current US import dependence is 100% for thallium and thorium,
over Q0% for tantalium, mica, end asbestos, 80% for nickel,

columbium, flourine, graphite, platinum and bauxite, between 60%

end 75% for cobalt, manganese, chromium, tin and mercury, and
about 50% for zinc end tungsten.^
Military applications form
an important proportion of total US consumption of these imports,

ranging from about 25% to 26% for thallium end germanium, to
over 15% for copper, cobalt and thorium (mainly in aircraft and
aerospace engines)

and 8%-1 0% for manganese, tungsten, chromium,

antimony, nickel, tantalium, beryllium, cadmium and zinc.

some of these

For

metals, such as mangenese (indispensable for the

removal of sulphur impurities during steel manufacture)

and cobelt

(used in jet engines, missiles, gas turbines end generators for

corrosion resistance at extremely high temperatures), there ere
simply no substitutes.

Shortages of these materials will have
12
It has

serious consequences for US GNP and military power.

been estimated that the US has within its own borders only 1%-10%
of the reserves necessary to meet demand up to the year 2000;

with only 8% of its present population, the US will require
50-100% or more of the known reserves in the capitalist world.

The dependence of Western Europe and Japan on imports' is

still greater.

For example, West Germany imports 100% of its

chromium, copper, manganese,

antimony, platinum, asbestos, and

a high proportion of its energy needs.
tantially different for Japan and the

tries.

The picture is not subs­
other West European coun­

On the other hand, the Soviet Union and China are self-

sufficient in most minerals and raw materials, including oil.
These two countries also contain the bulk of the world's reserves

of meny strategic materials.

Investments abroad
Postwar advances in capitalist productive powers also ajid made
possible the concentration of capital in larger and larger units.

These developments were summed up in the emergence of the giant
American corporations.

The rising organic composition of capital

end falling rste of profit nt home, the much larger profits

to be made abroad (from a combination of cheap labor end energy,

virgin markets, lower taxes, etc.), and the need for new of
guaranteed sources of raw materials drove these corporations

to extend more and more of their operations outside the con­
fines of their home territory.

The structure end operations

of a typical large multinational today are demonstrated by

Texaco (1981

US;

total assets; i>27.5 billion, 55% held outside the

total revenues (1981); $59 billion.

60% derived from oversees operations).

Net income;

$2.3 hillion

Texaco's assets include

oil and gas exploration and exploitation interests in 6 Western

hemisphere and 22 Eastern hemisphere countries, ownership or
part-ownership through subsidiaries and affiliates of 50 refine­

ries in 30 countries, end extensive marketing interests in petro­
leum products, petro-chemicals and natural gas in 150 countries.

A similar concentration of assets and internationalization
of their business operations are manifest in the banking system.
In 1971, the 13 largest US banks together controlled a total

of 15195 billion in assets end maintained 822 foreign affiliates;
in 1976, the 10 largest banks controlled $348 billion in assets

and 1069 foreign affiliates.

The largest bank, Bankamerica Cor­

poration (1976 assets; $72,2 billion), derived 15% of its total

profits from foreign operations in 1971

and 40% in 1976; Citi­

corp, the second largest (1976 assets; $63 billion)

and the one

with the most extensive foreign lending operations (much of it
concentrated in the Third World), derived 40% of its profits in
1970 and 72% in 1976 from operations abroad.

These tendencies toward outward expansion of capital charac­

terized the motion of capital as a whole, although it was most
marked in the case of the leading imperialist country.

American

direct investment abroad grew from 1556 .6 billion in 1 967(53.8%
of all foreign direct investment)

47.6% of the total) _in 1976.
scale,

to 15137 billion (but only

Similar growth, but on a smaller

occurred in the same period for the UK (from 1517.5 to

$32.1 billion), West Germany ($3.0 billion to $19.9 billion),
Japan ($1.4 billion to $19.4 billion) and France '($6.0 billion

to $11 .6 billion) .

:

9 :

Contradictory pulls
This export of capital occurred under inherently contradictory

pulls;

(i)

growing rivalry between the lending capitalist power;

competition between capitalism and socialism;

(ii)

end (iii)

growing confrontation between imperialism and national libera­

tion.

Under the conditions of monopoly, capital could not main­

tain its rate of surplus value without producing these revolu­

tionary condition;

it could not internationalize itself without

at the same time internationalizing the class struggle.
While socialism (the product of the contradiction between

socialized production end private property)

is the logical .

product of capitalism as such, national liberation (the conflict
between the growing international reality of capital and its

form as national private property)
talism.

is specific to monopoly capi­

National liberation found a natural ally in socialism.

Soviet military power armed revolutions;

in turn,

the Soviet

Union sought to promote its national security through support
for anti-imperialist struggle and, extension of the zone of

socialism.

The result was a string of successful revolutions;

first North Korea, North Vietmen, and Cuba, then (since 1975)

Cambodia, South Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Iran, Nicaragua,
Zimbabwe, and now El Salvador.

With, its huge and sprawling investments in the Third

World, the unusually large profits accruing from these invest­
ments, and its dependence on foreign sources of strategic and

other resources, the US stood to lose heavily from these revolu­
tions.

Its response was to set up a global military machine,

enter into alliances with repressive and reactionary regimes,

and intervene against revolutionary movements wherever they
raised their heads-.

The internationalization of capital in its

monopoly phase thus product its necessary corollary in millita—

rism. Baren's and Sweezy's remark that "the real battlefield
between capitalism and socialism have for years now been in

Asia, Africa end Latin America - in Korea, Vietnam, Algeria,
Cuba, the Congo" is no less true now than when it was first
made (in 1966) .

Growing revolutions abroad,

persistent stagnation at

home - these were the two realities that swept President Reagan
and a number of right-wing governments into power in the West.

•

10 :

The crisis at home and abroad accelerated existing tendencies

toward militarization in the capitalist countries.

Prolonged

recession led to greater emphasis on arms production to sustain
employment and the balance of payments.

With their monopolistic

conditions, long-term limitless R&.B, and guaranteed profit
margins, defense contracts were an ideal way to escape the
consequences of a general fall in the rate of profit.

But with

the increasing technical sophistication and scale of production,

prohibitive R&.D costs and unprecedented rate of obsolescence
end growing competition abroad, the main arms manufacturers
could not arm themselves without at the same time arming the

rest of the world.

Military capital,

ruled by the logic of expansion.

like -all capital, is

On the ether hand,.more end

more armamentism becomes the key to containing the spreading

revolutionary fires end arresting the decay of the capitalist

hegemony.

Reagan's threat to "drew the line at El SaJvador"and

the growing cycle of US military intervention and intimidation
in the Third World since his ascent to power is only too clearly

demonstrated by the record (from 1982 only),

as tabulated below.

Objectives of the armementist policies

Previous experience has persuaded the US that it cannot hope
to win these wars of liberation.

This is the significance of

Haig's threat to "go to the source of revolutionary unrest"
(i.e. the Soviet Union and Cuba).

It is this light that the nu­

clear "scare" created by deploying Pershing II in Europe should
be seen.

Its objective is not to provoke a nuclear war in

Europe.

(In this sense, the Reagan Administration's belated

protests of peaceful intentions may be genuine.)

On the contrary

its real objective is, first, to frighten the Soviet Union into

anxiety over its own territorial security in order to force it
to withdraw support to national liberation struggles.

This

accounts for Reagan's proposal to "spend the Soviet Union into

oblivion" (i.e.

to reduce it to economic exhaustion “nd force

cessation of "military adventures" abroad).

The nuclear talk

became necessary because of the American misunderstanding (mis­
representation?)

of "detente" as a moratorium on Soviet support

for liberation struggles (cf. the accusations over Angola), and,
beceuse of the failure of successive strategic concepts (massive

retaliation, balance of terror', etc.)

as a subtle maneuver to

oblige the Soviet Union to recognize the sanctity of the American
sphere of influence.

11

U5 military interventions

Name/Locetion of

T arget(s)

Military Exercises

1. Berber? (Somalia)
N ovember 1982.

2. "Operation Bright
Star"

US naval air ground

Libya,E thiopia,

forces

Middle East

US(RDF), Oman.Somalia, As above

Sudan

December 1982

3. "Ocean Venture 82"

US naval units(60

Cuba, Grenada

ships)

4 . "Teem Spirit 83"

US , South Korea

North Korea

US, Honduras

Nicaragua

6. "Readex 83"

NATO Units

Caribbean region

7. Mediterranean

US Sixth Fleet(nuclear Libya

February 1983

5 . "Operation Big Pine"

February 1983

F ebruary 1983

8. Pacific, Atlantic
Coasts off

Nicaragua July 1983
□a "Operation Bright

Star"

carrier1N imitz1)

US naval units(2car-

N icaragua

rier groups, * bat­
tleship group)

US, Egypt,Somalia,

As with previous

Sudan, Oman

exercises

US Carrier Fleet,

Libya,C had

August 1983

10. Mediterranean

July-August 1983
11 . C had
August 1983

AWACS

US arms, equipment;

"Libya-backed"

French, Zairean

rebels

intervention forces
12. "Big Pine II"

Nov.-Dec. 1983

US, Honduras

N icaragua

:

12 :

The second objective is to Helf the process of European

integration in order to halt the decay of Amerid&’s European
empire (particularly West Germany).

The European empire is,

indirectly, e key to the control of a. vet larger empire beyond,
1
3
particularly in Africa.
Pisar argues that "progressive inte­

gration of the area (Europe)

is accepted F-s an established fact."

by Western and Eastern Europe.

If this is 5n any sense correct,

such integration would have major geopolitical implications,
most obvious loser of which would be the United States.

the

Given

the increasingly suspect commitment of the Soviet Union and

Eastern Europe to socialist transformation at home and abroad,
and the limitations of the socialist division of labor as it is

presently constituted, the possibility of such an integration

should not be discounted.
American nuclear brinksmanship should therefore be as seen
as a reaction to the threat, not of a European war, but of a. Eu­

ropean peace.

Harris notes, quite properly,

ing aim of American defence policy (is)

that "the underly­

to control Western Europe

as much as Eastern Europe," and that exaggerated estimates of

Warsaw Pact force levels.~re an essential ingredient of this.
The American missile ploy appears to be working.

(1/8/83)

As Pravda

warned West Germany:

The deployment of American missiles will lead to a dangerous

growth in military confrontation.

There will also be a certain

complication of relations with the countries who (sic)

accepted the American nuclear

presence.

have

This particularly con­

cerns, West Germany, whose government has accepted the deployment '
of the

first-strike weapon Pershingr2.

West Germany will be greatly multiplied.

The military threat for
Its well developed

contacts with Socialist states will be threatened, and it will
only be able to see East Germany across a bank of missiles.
(Emphasis edded.)

The European "missile debate" must also be seen in terms of

interimperialist rivalries and the different needs of the main
capitalist nations relative to the Soviet Union a.nd East Europe.

Short on energy and raw materials, unable to compete elsewhere
against America and Japan, European capitalism finds Eastern

markets increasingly crucial to its survival.

With a relatively

small military industry, Western Europe cannot hope, and does

not wish, to compete militarily with the Soviet Union. America,

: 13 :
however, with its prodigious military machine whose sole

raison d'etre has been for -Imost four decades the "Red threat,"
has powerful entrenched interests against normalization.

The

same military machine is the ultimate guarantee of American

leadership of the Western alliance, the pretext for keeping
European communists (-nd Third World radic lc)

out of power. It

is also the protective umbrella under which American capital
penetrated, and continues to dominate, Europe and the rest of
the capitalist world.

While Europe-'n pence offers important

economic benefits to West Europe,

it will be hard to achieve

because it necessitates painful readjustments in American psyche,

economy, dominant interests at home and power profile abroad.

However, America is not the only superpower that is react­

ing to the threat of peace with increased armamentism . , The conse­
quences of peace would be only slightly less profound for the
Soviet military-industrial complex that has subordinated all

economic rationality to itself.

Partial reintegration into world

capitalism has actually enhanced the USSR's militaristic profile

abroad.

The most important broke on Soviet trade with the West

has been the persistent balance-of-payments problem and shortage
of hard currency.

To fill the gap the Soviet Union has intensified

arms sales to Third World countries.

Next to crude oij, arms are

the largest single Soviet source of hard currency.

maintain oil exports to the West,

Recently, to

the Soviet Union has stepped

up arms-for-oil deals with the Middle East; in 19R2, Libya more

than tripled its oil export to Soviet Union in order to liquidate
its huge arms debt to the USSR.

The drift in Soviet policy from

arms-for-liberation to arms-for-commerce logically follows from
the rapprochement with capital and the abandonment of autarky.
C onclusion
This analysis should show that Third World anti-imperialist

struggles are actually the reverse side of peace movements in the
West; they are in many ways the functional equivalent.

However,

the objectives of liberation struggles are not necessarily consis­
tent with some of the major ideological trends within the peace
movements.

To the extent that "peace" is conceptualized as a mora­

torium on social struggles, or as the unfettered expansion of
capital mediated by an equilibrium state, it can only be ultima­

tely indifferent, if not hostile, to struggles for national libera­

tion.

Such liberation is driven to take recourse to armed struggle

14
which seems antithetical to ''pe?ce." but l!peccs" is not merely

the abolition of the more horrendous forms of armamentism; it is

the eradication of the social contradictions tlr-t constitute the
systemic roots of ?rmnrrentism , This can only occur through the

evolution of a world-order whose active principle is the control
by peoples and social groups over their conditions of life and

self-realisation.

Only thus can today’s .-Wesome t echnology( pre­

sently enslaved by capital)

be liberated from the compulsive- urge

to fashion weapons of destruction and redirected to the fulfill­
ment of human needs.
However, there ere certain short-term objectives which can be

adopted by both the Euro-American peace movements end the progre­
ssive groups in the Third World to defuse the growth of armomen-

tism.
(1)

These include:

Securing soverignty over strategic resources, many of which

have direct military application - such as thallium, germanium,

garnet, thorium, uranium, etc., of which Third Wprld countries
have substantial reserves.

Practical policies to advance national

sovereignty and control over these resources could constitute a
, .
15
potent peece policy,
(2)

Supporting resistance against stationing of foreign military

bases and deployment of nuclear weapons on national soil, and/or

movement of nuclear missiles across or over national territory,
airspace, or waters;
(3)

Supporting the demand for declaration of nuclear-free

zone s.
Working together for the achievement of the limited short-term

goals will go a long way toward strengthening both movements
end national liberation struggles and making- them into a force
to reckon with.

Motes

1.

2.

See interviews in Time Magrzine, 29 Moreh,1982,pp.14-15.

Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capitalism: An

Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (Penguin,
1 975) , p.1 84 .

3.

Time Magazine, 29 March,

4.

Samuel Pisar, Coexistence and Commerce:

1982.

Guidelines for

Transactions between East and West (New York: McGraw Hill,
1970),

5.

p.2.

ibid,

6.

ibid.,p . 1 .

7.

ibid.,p . 23 .

8.

Dietrich A. Loeber, East-West Trade: A Sourcebook on the

International Economic Relations of Socialist Countries and
their Legal Aspects (New York: Oceana Publications, 1976).
9.

Essay, 8 August, 1983.

10.

For this militarization and its social basis as it occurs in

Africa, see my "Trends in Africa" in Yoshikazu Sakamoto and
Eric Johansen (Eds.), Militarization and Society(World Order
Models Project (forthcoming).

11.

Helge Hveem, "Militarization of Nature-: C onflict and Control
over Strategic Resources and Some Implications for Peace

Policies," Journal of Peace Research xvi, 1,1979.

12.

ibid,p.7.

13.

France is particularly useful here.

For a discussion of the

role of France as a subimperial power for the United States
in Africa, see Galen Hull, "The French connection in Africa.:

Zaire and South Africa," Journal of Southern African Studies
5,

14.

2, 1979.

Chad today shows up this role very well.

Nigel Harris, Of Breed and Guns; the Crisis in the World
Economy (London:

15.

Penguin, 1 983),p.222.

For a discussion of this, see Hveem, "Militarization of
Nature" (N ote 11).

****«■
(Reprinted from ALTERNATIVES December 1983.)

.

THE_ POLITICS _0F

iT

NUCLEAR ENERGY

^UNlrYH^,

B°a^in3ala
k
IncUa^0'5600^ - ""

Alan Roberts

The golitical imgortance of nuclear gower

Modern capitalism has turned increasingly towards techno­

logical "advances" that are suspect in the extreme. They
are marked by their dubious or plainly negative contri­
bution to human welfare/ and by their destructive effects
on the enviornment.

There are some whose harmfulness is now widely recognised as, for example, the replacement of efficient public
transport by a commitment to the private car, the switch
to detergents, the massive use of pesticides, the waste of

energy in packaging (particularly the non-returnable bottle
and the :.lurrij.nium can) .
It is now clear, however, that one particular development -

the nuclear power industry - looms above all others, in
its ominous implications for the future of humanity, and in
its significance as an issue on which mass action against
the system's irrationality is likely.

Its predominance derives, firstly, from the sheer magni­
tude of the economic commitment involved. The leading
capitalist countries intend to generate most of their

electrical power by nuclear means before the turn of the
century, necessitating an unprecedented speed of construction
Over the next decade alone, the US government hopes to .see •
nuclear capacity increased eight-fold;France
and Japan
aim at roughly fifteen-fold growth. Those programmes imply
that the USA, for instance, is to spend well over a trillion

(million million) dollars on the nuclear industry in the
2 ■
next two and a half decades. It h,as been estimated that,
if the 1985 target is cachieved, the nuclear power industry
will absorb over fifty per cent of gross US capital for­

mation over the next decade.
Next in importance is thr transparency of the irrationality

involved. It is not a matter of waiting till consequences
difficult to foresee have come to p«ss - as, for example,
it was necessary for the polluting effect of detergents
actually to show themselves, or'for the cities to become

congested, polluted and deformed by the■automobile. The
damage inherent in the nuclear development can be clearly

foreseen at this very moment.
The third feature is one of special significance for
social change: it concerns the response of the populations

in the advanced capitalist countries once they are reached
by the arguments against nuclear power. Outstanding here

is the example of Sweden, the only country where' the issue
has been made the subject of more or less formal nation­

wide discussion. These discussions, carried on in the
course of the year 1974, saw the population ewing from

approval of the nuclear programme to bettor than two-to-

one opposition. As a result, the government cut is ten-ycar

nuclear target to one-seventh of its former size (from
3
fourteen reactors to two).
Similar responses on a more local scale have been evident
in the USA, where the nuclear industry openly.expresses

its fear that nuclear moratoria (federal or state) will bo
imposed as a result of public opposition."
Thus it is not simply a question of a valid issue, implying
a struggle for all concerned with humanity's future. The
campaign against the nuclear commitment also has the
character of a transitional demand, striking at the very
assumptions of consumerist society, and yet Understandable
to and acceptable by the people affected. •

In countries of the Third World, the political context of
the nuclear issue is different but the validity of. the
struggle is no loss clear. It is necessary to-emphasise

this point particularly, since the proponents of nuclear

power often advance arguments allegedly based on the
interests of a power-starved Third World - arguments which,

as we will see, could hardly be more specious.
Why the nuclear programmes are unacceptable

The dangers associated with nuclear power have been
adequately explained in a number of publications, and here
we will simply refer th# reader to them.5 They fall under

the following main headings:

3

1.

Unscheduled discharges of radiation to the '
environment, in amounts exceeding the low levels

prescribed in normal operation.

2.

Catastrophic releases of fuel or waste materials,
following on a "melt-down" of the fuel, after an
accident.

3.

Deliberate release (or the threat of it), of radio­
active materials, as a measure of terrorism or
criminal extortion.

4.

Environmental damage arising from nuclear wastes
(whose disposal remains an unsolved problem).

5.

Undesirable political and social measures adopted
to cope with these hazards.

The possible magnitude, of some of these dangers can be
judged from the simple facts concerning the highly toxic
element plutonium. The maximum permissible annual intake’
of plutonium is at present one millionth of a gram,, a'

quantity known to be capable of causing cancer (and ednsi-.
dared too high a risk by many authorities, including
Britain's Medical Research Council).6 But the most common

type of nuclear reactor.-, in normal operation, over one year,
produced

about 200 kilograms of plutonium.*.

Of course, stringent precautions arc taken to ensure that

this and other radioactive poisons are contained and

never reach the atmosphere. But. no system of containment
can be perfect, nor verified with absolute accuracy.
(Today, for .example, the inventory of plutonium in a

reactor cannot be checked to better than 1%.)
Suppose then that, by the end of the century, when upwards

of 2,000. reactors are envisaged, a small fraction of the
plutonium generated in a year "leaks" to the atmosphere

whether by accident or. -malevolent design. If the leak is

as small as one hundredth of one per cent of the total,
this still constitutes a maximum permissible dose for
every person in the world, ten times over.
The nuclear programme thus embodies a proposal to organise

power production around stocks of highly poisonous substances,

4 in quantities almost unimaginably vast in relation to their.
toxicity. To accept such a programme,. one would need to be
supremely confident of the social system in which it is to

be implemented - confident both of its ability to maintain
unprecedentedly high standards of technical skill with

absolutely infallible rigour, ahd of its political and
social stability over many generations. The reader can
betpresumed to lack such confidence.
Despite’ the quite extraordinary and often ingenious safety
routines .implemented by the nuclear technologists, whose

efforts to achieve the impossible must compel admiration,
the safety of the US nuclear industry has already been the
target of damaging criticisms. Tijcse concern the workings

of about fifty reactors in the world's most industrially
advanced country; what can bo expected when perhaps 2,000
reactors arc operating in dozens of countries throughout
the world?
Some indication of an answer to this question was given by
Jenn-Claude Deny, managing director of Francatomo. If took

the form of a broad hint

to investors, that the profita­

bility of nuclear power in France would not be allowed to

suffer., - like tne American industry's - from-an exaggerated
concern for safety . ... ^
As for the possibility of malevolent activity, the infant
nuclear industry of the USA can already record, amongst
other incidents, a threat*to crash a highjakod plane into

a reactor, a series of apparent sabotage attempts in a
re-processing plant, and the selection of nuclear plants for
terrorist blackmail attacks by followers of Charles Manson.3

It should be remembered that the possible damage arising
from nuclear catastrophes is not confined to the existing

population in the country of occurrence.
• Thj^ very nature of the radioactive threat lends itself
to dispersal in space over national and -even continental .

boundaries, and to persistence in time so that generations
remote from the present suffer illness and death (the genetic
effects of radiation) . 1’hu lesson from the USA in particular

is that the industry's safety standards will tend to be

- 5 -

proportion?.! to public concern over the issue; in this

light, the struggle against nuclear power can be seen also

as a simple struggle for human survival on the planet.
The disposal of waste materials from reactors - and of
the worn-out r..actors themselves - remains an unsolved
problem. Its magnitude can be gauged from one figure
alone: the annual wastes from an average reactor today

contain 1,000 times the radioactivity of. the Hiroshima

bomb. VJhile research proceeds on possible methods of
permanent disposal, the industry contents itself with

"waste management" - that is, retrievable and (it is hoped)
secure methods of storage. Here it should be noted that

the cost of this "temporary

storage (which is by no moans

at a satisfactory level of security) will rise in the next

two and a half decades to some seven billion dollars in

the United States clone. It is easy,.then, to understand

the fear expressed by US Environmental Protection agency
experts, of "the possibility that an interim engineered
storage system may become permanent solely due to economic

To understand the ominous implications here, one should
first note that the interim methods make the' poisonous
waste "retrievable" - or in other words, accessible. Thus’
they continually invito malevolently-inspired acquisition <
or atmospheric release. Also, the time scale of the

"permanent11 storage required is not in dispute: the longlasting component of the wastes (particularly plutonium)
must be kept rigorously clear of the environmnnt for
hundreds of thousands of years - half a million, for safety.

This poses the unprecedented problem of finding a storage
which will not be disturbed by the geological processes that
occur over such a time span. .Research has not yet proved
that such storage exists. Hero, once again, an issue of

sheer survival is involved, in the struggle to prevent such
irresponsibility towards future, generations.

The nuclear industry has generally treated critics with

disdain, making concessiops to them reluctantly and only
afterpublic opinion has been roused. But in recent years,

some of the more far-sighted proponents of nuclear power

.5.

- 6
have started to recognise the strength'of the opposition's

ease, particularly in the area of "nuclear malevolence".
Their proposals for coping with nuclear hazards constitute
in themselves an equally ominous political and social threat
Thus the US Atomic Energy Commission has. proposed a special
federal police force devoted to the security of plutonium
plants and shipments. It has complained of recent court

rulings protecting individual privacy, and requested
legislation which would facilitate security checks on
i
n 10
nuclear
industry personnel.
With the projected growth of the industry, the number of
workers affected by such restrictions of civil rights could

run into the millions. Already, according to the New York
'limes. Taxes state police keep dossiers on opponents of
nuclear plants.11
The dangers involved here should not bo underestimated. Afew kilograms of plutonium make an ideal weapon for black­

mailing a whole city, since it effectively disperses
itself in small particles once exposed to the air. Even
graver is the real possibility of constructing a nuclear
bomb from plutonium in a reactor's waste, impurities would
•make it inefficient but, as an experiment has convincingly
shown, little skill would be needed-to achieve a weapon
with the destructive force of about 100 tons cf TNT.12

This would be within the capacity of "amateurs*', anys

government with nuclear power plants would have the
facilities to manufacture weapons 100 times more deadly.

After an extortion threat, whether successful or not, an
atmosphere of hysteria could well be envisaged, in which

authoritarian "law and order" proposals would be difficult
to combat. They would even have a certain rationality,
inside a globally irrational context.

^he^many levels of i£££tionnlit^

Thu risks just outlined justify the verdict -that a major-

development of nuclear power is irtational, if our
criterion is the welfare of humanity. But this is far from
the only sense in which we can justly apply the epithet
"irrational" to capitalism's'nuclear perspectives.'

- 7 It should first be appreciated that the current nuclear
programme is not, a long-term solution to the problems of

power generation, even in the opinion of capitalism's own
analysts. It is projected as merely bridging the gap
between the present period marked by rapidly diminishing
stocks of oil, end the situation in perhaps three decades
or so, when alternative sources of energy will be commer­

cially viable.
The tapping of the sun1s energy is one important such
alternative, to which capitalism is now belatedly starting

to devote increased research and development funds. The
primary aim here is to find ways of reducing the capital
costs of large-scale solar power plants.

.For reasons discussed below, solar power is still seen as
loss attractive than fusion power - a variety of nuclear

plant working on a different principle from the current
models.. Existing "fission

reactors rely on a controlled

version of the nuclear reaction - the "splitting' of a
heavy atom such as uranium or plutonium- which in its
convulsive release produced the explosion of the Hiroshima
bomb. A "fusion" reactor would be based on taming the

nuclear reaction underlying the hydrogen bomb, in which
light elements "fuse" together to form a heavier clement.
Steady progress is being made in the research on controlled

fusion, particularly since a Soviet breakthrough in this

field some years ago - the "Tokamak" development. It is
generally believed, however, that several decades will
elapse before commercial fusion reactors.enter into

service, even after a basic design has proved itself in
the laboratory.
Thus present nuclear programmes are supposed tb justify
themselves by their contribution to power needs in the
next few decades. But it is precisely in this short term
that there arise the most serious doubts of the programme1s
utility, because of the severe shortage of rich uranium ores

The industry's major hope here lies in the breeder reactor,

whoso operating core is wrapped in a "blanket" of natural
uranium. Such a reactor will convert the bulk of this

uranium into a suitable fuel (normally, less than one
per cent of it is abailable), thus producing (or "breeding")

8

■more fuel thin it uses up. The world, supplies of "burnable"

uranium could thus bo effectively increased perhaps 70 time

Before agreeing with the US administration that breeder

reactors thus.represent the solution to the nuclear fuel
shortage, some facts should be noted. The inherent dangers
of the breeder reactor vastly exceed those of the current

models, and justify the greater concern and opposition of
aware scientists.15 A whole series of technical difficultly

have resulted in repeated postponements of the expected
date of operation cf a commercial- breeder, the latest

estimate, (probably optimistic) now landing in the-1990s.
Tho significantly hi-gner capital costs, as compared to
today's power-stations, are likely to result in., yot more
delays before the buying reluctance cf electrical utilities

is overcame, z-uid even then, a breeder will take somewhere

between 20 and 40 years to produce enough fuel for one
reactor.
Thus, reliance on the advent of breeders to "stretch''
fuel supplies represents a dubious gamble. Yet what.the
industry is thereby gambling en, is the whole cost-

■ competitiveness of nuclear power.
It is irrationality of another sort which emerges here;.
the nuclear programme is not oven rational on capitalism's
.-wn criterion of cost efficiency. Reactors already planned
arc not assured cf a fuel supply wnich con keep them

competitive.'Thousands of billions of dollars .are to bo
invested in the hope that something will turn up..
Even with the'cheap uranium supply, available today, the
industry can establish the competitiveness of now plants
only by ignoring well-established trends, that would send

the price- of nucloar-generated electricity skyrocketing.
The most important of those trends' are, firstly, the
staggering escalation in the capital' cost of nuclear plants
and secondly, the devere drop in efficiency of nuclear
plants after about five years' running.

.8.

In May. 1975, the Friends of the Earth showed how woefully

th_ relevant, utility had underestimated costs, when they

testified against the proposed Rancho Seco 2 reactor near
Sacramento (California) . Adopting realistic figures for
capital cost, interest rates and capacity factor (i.e.

efficiency), and for operation, maintenance and decom­
missioning, the FOE calculation showed that the true cost

of a unit of power was nearly four times the figure
submitted by the utility.
a

study of the Grenoble Institute has shown that, in

France, nuclear-generated electricity cannot compete with
il at today's prices. In the heating of a household, for
example, we can deduce from the study that oil will bo

cheaper so long as its price remains below $45 a barrel
17
(price in early 1977s approximately $16).
The escalation in capital cost (we consider its explanation'
later) shews no Sign of abating. O^ourse, that of coalfired plants also chows an increasing trend, but nothing
like as 'severe - a 1975 study estimated that the difference

■

in price between a coal and a nuclear plant was itself in­

creasing by $19 per kilowatt per year.
In other wordss
every year the price of a 1000-megawatt nuclear plant leaps

another $19 million above.that of its coal-burning rival ...
/
The curves of

capacity factor against reactor age also

show a dismal trends that the efficiency is low and becoming
19
&
oven lower.
zill this may make the nuclear commitment
seem extraordinary enough; but we. have not yet mentioned
the most astonishing irrationality of all. Some preliminary
remarks are needed.

The power output of a generator of any sort cun never

represent pure gain, since- some power is inevitably
consumed in building and running it. In the case of a
nuclear reactor,' a great deal of power is required merely
to set it up in business - to build the 'station, mine and

mill the initial fuel supply, etc. A most important part

of this power input occurs at the stage where natural uranium
is treated so as to increase the fraction of it which can
be "burnt" as fuel - the "enrichment” process.

10 -

All this means that the station will be running for some
time before it has "paid,back" the power used to set it

into op&ration. Calculations of this "break-even" time have
been carried out for various reactor designs; they indicate
that about two years of normal operation will be needed to

repay the power input for construction.
Now consider the effect of a rapid nuclear programme, with

the number of reactors doubling every few years. To see this
effect, let us adopt some definite (though fictitious)
figures; suppose a reactor's "pay-back" time is one year

(this is unrealistically low), and that the number of
reactors is doubling every year (this is unrealistically
fast). Suppose also that a reactor takes a year to build

(instead of the actual six to nine years).

In year one, no reactors are operating but one is being
built; so no power is produced, but one year's output is
consumed,. In year two, one reactors is operating, but

two are under■construction, so one year's output is
produced, but two are consumed. In year three, three reactors
are operating but four are being built; so three year's
output is produced, but four are consumed ...

If the calculation is continued it will be found that the
programme uses up more power than it produces, in every
year of its operation. Of course, in the real world such

a programme must come to a halt at some stage, the number
of reactors cannot go on doubling each year indefinitely.

Bi is at this point that the nuclear industry will become .
a net power producer; but until then, it will actually be
a net consumer of power.

In th-e real world, also, the figures are not as they are
given in the example. But the effect still persists in a
modified form, even after we insert the correct data for

power input in operation and building time. We still find
that the programme will not "break even", in the sense of
producing more power than'it consumes
number of years.

for a certain

Just how many years, will depend on a number of factors;.

the type of reactor, its operating efficiency, the grade

of ore mined, the power consumed in regular operation .

.10.

- 11 -

But the most detailed calculations available

20

suggest

that, inserting the figures appropriate to current programmre,
this "break-even" time can easily exceed 20 years.
But this is precisely the period in which the nuclear

programme is supposed to compensate for the exhaustion of
oil supplies, while the world awaits the arrival of fresh
power sources. In other words, the nuclear programme will

qn j tp possibly consume more power than it produces, in the
very period when it is supposed to be the key factor in

power generation-!
It should be pointed out that a programme with oil and
coal-burning stations1^ substituted for nuclear, but

expanding just as quickly, would make an even worse showing
It is the sheer speed of the projected construction progr­
ammes which determines their short-term energy inefficiency.

But of course, no one plans to build conventional power
stations at such a breakneck pace - since' no one has the

illusion that such a programme would solve any "energy
crisis". This illusion attaches only to plans for nuclear
power stations, when one "forgets" the energy needed to

build them; to puncture the illusion, the 'sort of energy
analysis sketched above is required.
Before arriving at an overall judgement on capitalism's

nuclear project, we should appreciate the element of

uncertainty which runs through

the above analyses. Some

of the needed data - what fresh reserves of uranium will
be discovered, for instance, or what long-term efficiency

(capacity factor) will be achieved by nuclear stations can only be estimated. Some of the relevant calculations
require time and manpower that have not yet been devoted

to them, so that only suggestive approximations are
available.
However, this very absence of reliable information is
itself highly revealing. Let us adopt some of the

criteria commonly advanced, within a framework of
capitalist assumptions, for implementing a new technology,

and consider how they are met in the case of nuclear power.
Let us see what preconditionsshould be fulfilled to justify
the investment of capital involved.

.11.

12
First, the safety of the new industry should be sufficiently
guaranteed, as to obviate the risk of the whole development

being aborted-at some future date. .(This could occur, for
example, as a sequel to the catastrophic release of radio­
active material, by a plant accident or malevolent design.

The public reaction could well make it politically im­
possible to continue operation of the existing plants,
and force the abandonment of the large amounts of capital
they represented.)

Secondly, the programmes adopted should actually achieve
their declared goals: that is, to produce significantly

more power than they consume, in the vital period of the
next few decades.
Thirdly,.-the electricity-produced should be competitive
in cost with that generated by ”conventional"—(oil-or-

coal-fired) stations.
Fourtly, plants should not be projected unless they are
guaranteed a suitable supply of fuel over their- working

lifetime.
Fifthly

the financial, mechanisms should exist that will

enable the “consumer"

(i.e. the electrical utilities) to

obtain the capita} needed to buy the reactors concerned.

It is when we review these reasonable criteria that there

emerges the full irrationality Of capitalism's nuclear
plans: it has not been demonstrated that they satisfy a
single one of these basic requirements.
At best, the nuclear industrialists can be regarded as

undertaking a colossal gamble. They are gambling that no

catastrophic accident will occur in the short term, despite
the. narrow squeaks already in the record. They are gambling

that fresh high-grade ore reserves, or a technically and

commercially viable breeder reactor, will be available in
time. They are gambling that the trend to ever-higher
capital costs, and the decline with age in the efficiency
of the functioning reactors, will be reversed, or econo­
mically compensated for by. increased cost of conventional

fuels.
.12.

13

In the USA, they are even gambling that “something will

turn up" in the way of finance, to permit the purchase

of reactors by the electrical utilities.

(Early in 1975,

some 60% of reactor orders in the USA had been cancelled

or postponed, mainly because of the refusal of finance
21

houses to lend the purchase money.)

It is true that capitalist enterprises have been known to

"gamble" before this - to spend on research and development
or to launch on .the production of a new commodity whose
market was not assured. But we remind the reader of the

sums involved in this particular gamble - well over a

thousand billion dollars in the remainder of this

century, in the United States alone.
It would be easy to conclude that the gods of history,
with the destruction of capitalism high on their agenda,
arc^taging their proverbial prologue of induced lunacy.

But a pat verdict of "guilty but insane", even if
supported by the evidence, hardly goes far enough; it is

also necessary to understand.

The attempt to reach even a partial understanding is man­
datory, and not only because-of the importancc/of the nuclear
programme in itself, both economically and politically.

There is another issue involved: that of the dynamic of
the capitalist economy in the present period. It may be
that the nuclear industry can serve as a paradigm
showing - in not-so small miniature - the emergence of

new trends or changes in the relative weight of ones
already known.

The Energy Company’s Gamble
There are few industries, even today, as heavily monopo­
lised as the nuclear industry. When one days "pressurisedwater reactor", one says Westing-house;, and "boiling-water
reaator" likewide means General Electric. And these two
types, built by the two giants directly or through

subsidiaries and licensing agents throughout the capitalist
world, account for over 85% of the nuclear-component
industry.

.13.

14

The powerful pressure of these multi-national corporations

exerts itself even on those countries possessing their own
proven reactor designs. Thus Francis Perrin, formerly
the French high commissioner for atomic energy, has recently
complained of the "monolithism" of the French nuclear pro­

gramme (even while rubbishing the anti-nuclear campaign
as "based only on totally-false assertions" and on
declarations "devoid of all objective value"). He recalls

General de Gaulle's decision (December 12, 1967) to
proceed with the construction of two large reactors of a
French design (graphite-moderated, gas-cooled, fuelled by
natural uranium) that has elsewhere proved itself.; The
blocking of this decision he lays to the account inly of
some unnamed highly-placed civil servants, also responsible

for the present plan to instal "almost exclusively" the
pressuriesed—lyater reactors of ... Westinghouse. *
He calls, but without much apparent faith in the likelihood

of success, for the French programme to include more
"diversification", a feature not sufficiently provided
by the present inclusion of some boiling-water reactors from.
22
*
General Electric.

The weight of -the multi-nationals has been felt evcSn in
Britain, the country whose own design of gas-cooled

reactor pioneered the commercial generation of nuclear
electricity. Hot debate raged after the Central 'Electricity
Generating Board and the National Nuclear Corporation
both recommended a- switch to the American light-water reactor

But under intensive questioning before a House of Commons

Select Committee, they were unable to justify their

recommendations, and the Government
for the time being, at least.

decided not trip switch

The revelations from Lockheed and other firms have 'made
notorious one of the process^ by which the multi-nltionals
"conquer" foreign markets: old-fashioned bribery of
influential natives. It should not be assumed, however,

that this is always the predominant factor.” Sheer size

counts for a great deal - as illustrated in the unhappy
( '
case of the design of an international computing language.-'

.j
.14.

i

- 15 ~

The world's experts agreed on a suitable language, and
devoted much effort to its elaboration,, But their eugenic
offspring, Algol runs a very poor second in its breadth

of social acceptance to the inferior

. nguage, Fortran -

which was born with a silver spoon in iut> mouth, sired by
the market-dominating IBM.

In another direction, a still vaster oligopolistic

structure

is shaping up, as the leading oil companies complete their
transformation into'what has been accurately described as
"energy companies". Already in 1971, the oil giants were

responsible for the milling of some 40% of US uranium ;
their coal production amounted to.20% of the US total, and
their acquisition of coal reserves guaranteed their future
dominance in the industry (one oil company alone - Humble was the nation's second largest coal owner) „ In the nuclear

field, Gulf Oil (with the third largest assets - about
$9 billion ~ of any oil company) had set up Gulf General
■ Atomi'-c
• . . 23
This latter company threatens Britain1s lead in gas-cooled
reactors, and already in 1972 there was "consternation in
the nuclear industry" as a consequence,, according to one
24
writer., * Gulf promise-- delivery of high-temperature gas
■reactors (an advanced design) around 1930v

But if this represents competition wi th the dominant

light-water American reactors., is similar consternation
apparent, among-the ruling giants,, Hardly? the chairman
of Gulf General Atomic, E.Prockett, happens to sit on
the board of Westing house alsoa
A thrust towards monopolisation is kui.lt into the nuclear

project. A single plant of today's typical size - a
thousand megawatts of electrical power ~ costs upwards

of half a billion dollars, and smaller units are neither

readily available nor called for in quantity. Companies
with’ assets not running into the' billions can hardly

hope for a sizeable share of such a market, nor risk the

investments needed to establish themselves.
The dynamic of capitalism's nuclear project—has been

spelled out -

wijdi_S!ainQ--naivC'aSmi ration - by Simon

Rippon, the editor of a technical journal noted for its

fcryon-t?—not to say fanatical, nuclear partisanship.
.15.

16
"... The big industrial concerns have not entered
the busihess for quick profits - indeed, most of
the companies that have entered the nuclear business
around the world have been shaken to their foundations
by losses on early projects and few can see dramatic
■ profits in the future. For the most part the position
of industry is that the long term direction of energy
supply is going to be increasingly in the direction of
nuclear power and therefore for the well-being of their
company they must establish a foothold in this sector
of the business in spite of the heavy initial costs."

It may be doubted whether the "foothold" is being seized

as reluctantly as Rippon makes it sound. For the. larger
giants,, nuclear power spoils centralisation, size, growth .

The prospect before them is an intoxicating one: the power

industry swollen to a size unheard of, its relative weight
in the economy enhanced several times over, and all of it
within the grasp of one or two amicably-coexisting combines.

The power industry as a whole can of course anticipate such
an increase in its relative share of the gross national
product, since the power needs of industrial capitalist

society grow faster than the GNP itself. In Japan, for
instance, official projections are for a growth of 4% in
the GNP, compared to 6.2% for the electrical output.
Using this data, a simple calculation show^that the

proportion of the GNP represented by electricity output
(i.e., its relative weight in the economy) will be double
what it is now, in a little over 30 years.

It is only this perspective which can explain the gambles
they are taking, and. pressuring governments to take.
They are not really gambling that no catastrophes will
occur, that no hitches will hold up the breeder reactor
when it is needecl, that the nuclear project will remain

cost-competitive.
What they are really gambling on - and from their viewpoint,
it is a "rational" risk to take - is that their economic

and especially their political weight in society will be
so massive, that society has no option but to make their
bets come home.

It is the next decade which is crucial for this outcome.
By 1985, the nuclear share in electricity production is

designed to reach, in the leading capitalist-countries,
.16.

17
the 10% level or close to it (the USA, 13%; the EEC, 17%;
France, 30%).

Within the present structure of industrial capitalism, it
is hard to envisage a situation in which such proportions

of the power supply could simply be switched off, no matter
how powerful the arguments in terms of human welfare or

even of economic efficiency.
Perhaps a catastrophic "melt-down", releasing millions of
curies of radioactivity, killing tons of thousands of

people, damaging property to the extent of billions of

dollars? Studies by the American Atomic Energy Commission
27
have shown that accidents could well have such a scope.
But if society really depends on the nuclear branch of its

power industry in order to continue along its accustomed
path, and if this path can still claim an overall acceptance

then an

alternative -to a shutdown would be the adoption

of "firm measures", allegedly ensuring that such disasters

could not recur.
Such measures, whose shape was sketched in the AEC report

mentioned earlier, would be repressive and authoritarian
in the extreme; and there can be little doubt that among

the movements heavily repressed would be any spreading
panic or mobilising action in connection with nuclear
power.

But if nuclear- power reveals itself as unarguably waste­
ful, Suppose the tendencies for nuclear plants to decline
in efficiency with age, and to require more and more

capital for.their construction, become so pronounced that,
on economic grounds they should simply be replaced by
non-nuclear methods of power generation. Would not this
be a situation disastrous to the nuclear industry, one
in which their gamble had definitively failed?
Possibly - if they allowed such a situation to arise.
• But, as a Harvard-MIT study pointed out in the
technology Review:

.17.

- 18 -

"The price of usable energy from oil, coal or uranium
now has little to do .with the marginal production
cost of any of those resources... Instead; the price
of energy from alternative technologies is the result
of a complicated process of assigning relative values
to a variety o.fj-unergy-producing resources and
t chnologies /those who either control or require these
resources and technologies. This process is both
intensely and inherently political."1®
In assessing the degree of control over energy prices, it

is vital to realize that we are not dealing with an isolated
handful of reactor manufacturers

t

more and more, the

Energy Company becomes a powerful reality, and the relative
pricing of the various methods of electricity generation
falls increasingly under its control. "Free competition"
between the various primary fuels started to lose its

reality many years ago, as the oil companies moved over
into the mining of coal, of

of uranium

ranium, into.the processing

and - through subsidiaries and affiliates -

into the building of reactors. Their influence will be
exerted to fix prices that reflect, not the resultant of

competitive forces, and not the realities of cost of

effectiveness but simply the interests of their own needs
for expansion, investment and profit.

Thus, if the nuclear industry is gambling, it knows in
advance that the dice will bo loaded in its favour. And

even if its luck turns unexpectedly bad, and the table
rund against it incessantly, there remains a further and

decisive recourse: it can have a word with the management ...

Consumerist capitalism needs the power industry; it oven
needs its continuous and sizeable expansion. The State
which.administers that system never runs on the basis of
one-capitalist-onc-vote, or even one-million-dollars-one
vote; always some animals in that particular jungle play

the role of the king of beasts. The Energy Company, more
than half nuclearised by the turn of the century, will
certainly supply a king or two, perhaps even a king of
kings. Such personages do not need to fear bankruptcy, or
even a missed dividend. If even the smaller predators like

Lockheed, Boeing or'Gruman can depend on sympathetic
intervention by the State in their hour of need, what will
be beyond the power of the Energy Company?
.18.

19

Indeed, nuclear power has already benefited crucially from
State support, and not only in the billions lavished on

research and development, whose results the corporations
simply take over. Another important parcel of "aid" has
been delivered by the US government plants enriching
uranium, ^he Westinghouse and GE reactors require fuel that

has passed through this-expensive process, and their success

in penetrating the market is due in no small measure to the
a'rtificiall^-low price assured by what amounts to a concealed
State subsidy; ah advantage which has not gone un-notiaed

by their competitors:

"Ned Franklin, chairman and managing director of
Britain's Nuclear Power Company ... maintains that
•the price of uranium enrichment is now fixed by
osse ntially political considerations. Enrichment is
dominated by the US, which supplies most of the
enrichment requirements of the western world.
According to people working in the US's nuclear
industry, the prevailing price of enrichment is about
half what it would be if the industry had to build
new facilities and operate them at a profit.

"The problem is that enrichment is subsidised by the
use of old plant that was paid for as part of the
weapons programme; enrichment plants are supplied
with subsidised electricity; and there is no charge
research and development."28
With such marks of favour already acquired, there seems

little-that the Energy Company needs to fear - unless, of
course, it confronts an enemy whom even the State must
treat with caution.

Creating the "objective facts"

The socialist movement has suffered for many generations
from the illusion that technology is value-free. Adopting
a misleading schema in which an essentially non-political
"base" (the forces of production) is to bo simply taken

over and endowed with a different "superstructure" (socialist

relations of production), it has failed to appreciate the
political content of that technological base.
Even Lonin is on record as succumbing to this error, when
he went so far as to laud the Taylor system (time and motion

study) and urge its adoption in the Soviet Union. It should
be noted that a question mark must now be put over the

"technological rationality" of the assembly-line method itself;
.19.

20 can it really bo justified even on the narrow criterion of
"stopping up production"? This most alienating of all
technological practices needs re-examination in the light
.of recent industrial experiments' (particularly in Sweden)

based on a self-managed working team, rather than a single

worker permanently assigned to one stultifying operation
on the. line.

That technology and the line

of development of technology,

areaalike political, is nowhere, more evident today than in
capitalism's nuclear project. It is illuminating to consider
the non-nuclear alternatives for power supply, the.ir un­

desirability from monopoly capital's viewpoint, and the way
that an apparently inevitable technological progress along
nuclear lines is actually the result of highly political
decisions.

A source of nuclear power has supplied mankind with the
overwhelming bulk of its energy throughout history; it

is the sun, a giant reactor successfully employing the

fusion process without pollution and without wasting
non-renewable fuel reserves (over a time scale of several
billions of years, at any rate),. Serious studies of the

world's energy problems almost invariably urge the
priority of research and development in the field of solar
power as the most attractive prospect for mankind.■
But it might be asked: how real is this prospect Of solar

power? Whafe are the technological data on its practicability
as a large-scale resource? How docs its level of. development
compare with other energy sources, and what is its promise
in the short term?
Questions such as those are posed at the wrong level;-they

seek as answers, a recital of "bare" technological data, not

themselves embodying politico-economic decisions, but

.supplying omobdying politico-economic decisions, but
supplying the value-free facts on which such decisions can
bo based. It is true that there are circumstances (very
restricted, and usually of little social interest) in
which such a dichotomy of fact and value has a relative

validity; but the present questions are not located in
a context even remotely appropriate to such a division.

.20.

21

Large-sclac nuclear reactors actually exist; nuclear power
moved out of the laboratory man'y decades ago, into the
province of the architect and the engineer. Large-scale

solar plants, on the contrary, remain in the anteroom of

research and development. Is this a "bare" technological
fact? Only in the most abstract sense; in the real world, the

genesis, understanding and future implications of this
"fact" must be sought in the .sphere of political economy.
For there- is no autonomous, independently evolving sphere
of "technological progress" which 'thus made nuclear pl nts

arrive before solar. Nuclear technology was developed inresponse to conscious decisions on the allocution of man­

power and funds -■ inspired originally by the search for
more destructive weapons, and later by the attractiveness

for monopoly capitalism of the peculiar qualities of

nuclear, power..
The failure to allocate corresponding resources to solar

power research was the complementary decision that helped
to create the "technological faetd" as they now exist. And
of course, similar remarks can be made about projects to

•tup the earth's subterranean heat (geothermal power), or

to utilize the tides.
Thus the facts arc purely technological only in abstraction,
inside a conceptual schema that isolates from its social

context an abstract history of "technological progress". In
the concrete world of things as they have been and as they
are, these facts are born already "dressed" in a political’ economic penumbra that-accompanies -them always, determines

their significance-and points to their future .possibilities.
This can be -seen very clearly, when we consider the prospects
of solar power vis-a-vis nuclear, over the next couple of
decades. The "facts11 involved here are being created, right

now, and a glance at US budgetary- allocations will show

us what -facts the Energy Company hopes to bring about: fur
every dollar spent this year on solar research, more than
eight dollars will be spent on one nuclear project alone 29
the breeder reactor.

It is not hard to understand why monopoly capital is so lukewarm
towards solar power. The latter lends itself admirably to
.21.

22 decentralisation, small installations, a minimum investment

of capital; these are fatal flaws from the vicwp_int - f the giant
corporation. The "technical" advantages - inexhaustible

energy supply,' absohcc of pollution, longevity of the
installation, low maintenance expenses - cannot compensate

for these inbuilt deficiencies ... It has been well said,
that solar power would fare very differently if only General

Electric could buy the sun!
The sad fact is, however, that solar leases arc not yet
o;en to takeover'bids; and so the corporations arc doing
the next best thing: planning to build their own sun ...
For there is some corporation interest in solar power,
Provided the inbuilt vices just mentioned can be eliminated,
and the project made- capital-intensive, large-scale-, highly

centralised. These are precisely the qualities of the
Satellite Solar Power Station, emanating from Arthur p. Little

Inc., Grumman, Raytheon and Textron. A giant satellite a
a kilometre across will absorb sunlight, convert it to

microwave radiation and beam it down to a sovcnr-kilometre

receiver on the Earth1s surface, generating from three to

15 times the out-put of a single large nuclear plant.
In principle, the solar power source can be a highly
flexible device, adaptable in size to meet a wide range

of demand and providing access to power for the most
isolated community. A minimum of capital investment can
provide a self-sufficient source for an indefinite period,

and one uniquely compatible with ecological requirements.

These features can hardly be recognized in the satellite
project, which achieves the near-impossible: a solar power
source demanding on enormous capital investment, suitable

for insertion into only the very largest national electricity
grids, taking no advantage of solar radiation's great
suitability for direct heating of homes and work-places,

and delivering, with its giant receiving antennae, an
insult to the environment on a new and monstrous scale.
We do monopoly capital•an injustice, then, if we evaluate

its nuclear, porgramme as nothing more than a technological
project. Quito apart’from its inherent hazards to humanity,

.22.

23
its adoption would then become .incomprehensible in view
of the serious doubts as to nett energy production, security

of investment, 'reliability of fuel supply and costc-mpetitiveness.

But actually it must bo seen as a project in a much wider

sense: namely, as a social project, predicated upon a
definite social structure and aiming to develop that
structure in a definite direction.

The social structure concerned is that of capitalism in
its consumerist phase, where a widening gap - between a
potential for self-managing fulfilment, and a reality of
hierarchical repression - is papered over with a policy of

consumerist concessions. Destruction of the environment is
implicit in such a society; this connection has been analysed
in some detail elsewhere, and will not be further discussed
,
31
here.

The power needs of such a society are vast and ever
increasing, and it indeed faces a 'crisis' in the prospect
of exhaustion of oil reserves, combined with a severe
pollution problem from coal-burning power sources. But,

for reasons which will be clear from the discussion above,
the giant corporations which dominate its technic&l develop­
ment

can hardly be enthusiastic about the rational lines

of solution advocated even by its own exports: elimination
of wasteful energy consumption, reduction in the growth of

the electrical power industry, development of alternative .
sources such as solar, geothermal and tidal power.
It is true that nuclear power, too, has its disadvantages -

it may, for example, Weaken the fabric of social control
by the destructive or blackmailing opportunities it

creates for dissident groups. But in lending itself to
centralisation, 1 expansion, and domination by a few industrial
giants, it accords well with the dynamic of constymorist

capitalism - which would be hard put to accomodate policies

of

energy conservation dnd the strangling of growth.

Of course, the system will have to adjust itself to the

pccularities of this new power source. The Energy Company
may have to distort market and pricing mechanisms more

.23.

- 24

•

grotesquely still, to nudge alohg the consumption of nuclear -

generated electricity and the purchase of nuclear reactors.
Massive and direct State intervention may bo required to ensure

the industry's future, with the perhaps grudging consent, or

even against the opposition, of industrialists in other
sectors. And measures of social discipline will almost certainly
be called for, restricting civil rights and limiting the
activities of protest movements, to provide the safeguards

needed once society depends for- its life-blood - electrical '
power - on one or two thousand incredibly poisonous sources,
Such expectations may well appear repugnant, but they cannot
bo dubbed fantastic; they are solidly based on existing

values and addumptions, those which demand the c.nstant
expanse n

-f the commodity market and, to an even greater

extent, • f electricity output.

But these values and assumptions do not go unchallenged,
and there is nothing fatalistically inevitable about the
scenario sketched ab-ve. We have been 1 eking at the

political economy of capitalism today; but a different
political ec.nomy is also shaping itself, already in

c nflict with its older rival and by no means invariably
vanquished. We must now lo k at the forces behind this

alternative view, take note

-f their accomplishments up to

present and estimate their possibilities in the future.
2lhe_P£litical_Eccn-_my_cf Contestation

Opposition to the construction of nuclear power plants has
developed,, over the last five years into a world-wide
campaign of.significant scope and impact. Despite the power
of the corporative forc.es committed to the nuclear programme,

the journals of the nuclear industry overtly and repeatedly
express the fears roused in them by the achievements and
potential of their opponents.

"Things can't got worse or can they?' was the gloomy title
. f an editorial in Nuclear News (April 1975), which went on:
"The likelihood :>f a nuclear moratorium, either
national or in one on more states, is difficult
to assess. Judged from the discussion of it among
observers of the Washington DC scene, and fr..m the
amount .f activity on the state level, the situation
is not encouraging for the light-water reactor
industry, and is much worse fur the breeder reactor."
.24.

- 25 -

A writer in Nuclear Engineering International (July 1974,
P.579) raised a similar possibility: "However unjustified,
public opposition to nuclear energy may rise to such levels

that forecast installation programmes have to bo scrapped.."

Superficially, some of the nuclear industry's major troubles
seem unconnected with the anti-nuclear opposition. We have

seen how, in early 1975, about 60 percent of the nuclear
plants on order had been deferred or cancelled - a severe
blow to the

Administration1s nuclear plans forming part

of "Project Independence". This setback is usually attri­
buted to the "cash squeeze" of the time, which made Wall
Street reluctant to lend the electrical utilities the
capital with which to purchase reactors.
It is true that some orders fur "conventional" power
stations were likewise affected; but even so, the finance

houses do not seem too enthusiastic about the economic
future of nuclear-generated electricity. Nor are they
clone in their, doubts.

Robert F.Gilkeson, chairman of the Edison Electric'institute
was reported as saying at the April 1975 American Power
Conference that "it is impossible in present circumstances

to build a power plant that will yield a satisfactory
32
return on investment."
After analysing the poor perfor­
mance of the older reactors, David Ccmoy doubts if the

bunking community will be willing.to finance the nuclear
programme, and suggests that General Electric, Westinghouse
and other nuclear firms may "join Lockheed, Boeing and
Grumman on the rolls of corporations bailed out of costly

technological misadventure by the taxpayers."

It might seem that here, at any rate, wo have unearthed
some "bare" technological facts which, despite all their
contortions and figure-juggling, the nuclear corporations
cannot conceal. Nuclear power is just too costly, and
that's that ... Or is it?. Let us investigate a little

more deeply:

Nuclear power statins are usually situated well away
from the densely populate.?, areas in which the electricity ■

is actually consumed. This entails a two-fold economic
penalty, us Hohenemscr points out:

,25.

26- First, that part of the energy released which is not
c -averted into electricity becomes pure waste, since the
consumers are not sufficiently near to allow this energy
to-bo .used far residential and commercial heating and
cooling. Thus the very promising concept of a "total energy

system" cannot be realised, and the surplus energy becomes
waste heat whose disposal is a problem. But the energy thus

wasted is more than double the.electrical energy utilized.
Secondly, the additional', distance over which electricity

must be transmitted means additional investment in .

transmission lines, and additional losses in- energy.

Furthermore, conservative operating procedures are adopted
to prevent possible accidents; operating costs rise because

of the need to protect workers from radiation. As Hohenemser
sums it up; "The accident risk, though small, leads tc largo
economic penalties."
It will be apparent that these economic penalties cannot be

regarded as solely economic in origin. The pressures which
force the nuclear station to be sited remotely,/ ®r t© adopt

stringent and costly precautions,, depend intimately on the

level of popular suspicion of nuclear power, and of legalpolitical activity based upon that suspicion.
Thus -it is difficult to interpret .these economic difficulties

of nuclear power as pure "technological data". But further
analysis makes the point emerge oven more sharply;

Perhaps the most important single factor telling against
the ec-momic future of nuclear power is the continuing escalation
in capital cost of the nuclear plants, as compared to coal­
burning plants. The reasons for this escalation have been

darefully analysed in Technology Review (February 1975)' by

Bupp (Harvard) and Dorian, Donsimoni and Treitol (MIT).
They find that total cost is strongly'correlated with the

length >.f the licensing period - i.e. the time elapsed
before the plant is licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission

(ADC) tc enter int~ operation.. Under US law, citizens can
"intervene", on safety, environmental and other grounds, to
oppose the granting of the licence or secure its postpon­
ement,.
.26.

27 It is this intervention process, they show, which carries

the.reponsibility for prolongation of the licensing period
and the correlated rise in capital costs:

The American administrative and judicial processes
afford -- critics ample opportunity to impede the
rate of reactor commercilaisation. The principle
consequence has been dramatic cost increases. .The
extreme critics' of nuclear power have been at least
partially successful in their efforts to force a
downward re-evalu-tiun of the social value of reactor
technology.
•
"...The issue here is not merely technical or econo­
mical.. but is inherently politicals Present trends in
nuclear reactor costs can be interpreted as the economic \
result of a fundamental debate on nuclear power within
the US community. Beyond its economic effects, the real
issue of this debate is the social acceptability of
nuclear power ..."

(it should perhaps be recalled that critics cf nuclear
power arc not free to hold up construction at will; they
must show that the particular.project fails to satisfy
environmental requirements- existing radiation-release
standards, AEG regulations ...And it is precisely this kind

■ f deficiency that they have been able to establish, time
and again.)
Perhaps the second most ominous trend, for nuclcar-ppwer

c mpetitivoness, is that of declining capacity factor
(efficiency) as plants grow older. A detailed study of
the reasons for this decline is still in progress, but
some contributing.factors arc already apparent, which are

associated with the readioactive dangers in a nuclear
plant and the public consciousness of them. For instance,
the discovery in September 197^

of cracks in.the cooling

pipes c-f a US reactor resulted in the

shutting-down (for

inspection) of all reactors of th.e same type; this would

hardly have been done in the case of conventional- power
stations. Nor would it have been done, in all,probability,

if the public wore less inclined to associate danger with
the ’word "nuclear".

Unprecedented maintenance difficulties can arise in nuclear
reactors; the simple welding -.f a- crack becomes a largescale operation in which hundreds of workers have to be

deployed, when the crack-occurs in a region of sueh high

radioactivity that each worker can remain there f<ur no

linger than a few minutes ._. Here again, the long campaign

28 -

which forced the ABC to tighten up its radiation standards,
and the heightened public awareness which resulted, should.
not be overlooked as a relevant factor.
Wo see, then, that the Energy Company has not got the field

to itself; there are other political choices and actions
which arc significantly affecting the "bare economic facts"

of nuclear power production. And of course, their effect on

the political decisions in this field io even more noticeable
as shown, for example, by the severe reduction in the

Swedish nuclear programme for the next decade (from 14
reactors to two) already mentioned above.
We will not go on to list the successes of the anti­
nuclear campaign in such other countries as Japan; the
above is enough to show that significant effects can be

achieved. This is all the more remarkable, being given
that most of the radical loft, in most of these struggles,
have followed a 'policy of more-or-loss benevolent abstention.
It should be said, in conclusion, that the anti-nuclear
movement is likely to find its path much thornier in the

future. The year 1975 must be recorded as the year of the
great backlash, when the nuclear industry geared,itself
up on an international scale to launch a well-organised.
counter-offensive. .

In Washington, a pro-nuclear rally was scheduled for the
middle of May - "The.first time that the industry, which

has traditionally avoided direct action on its own behalf,
has set out to make itself hoard", according to a supporter.

This rally was to unite representatives of the Atomic

Industrial Forum, the non-profit utilities, the National

Association of Electric Companies (investor-owned utilities)
and the national rural electrical co-operative association.33

In April, the European Nuclear Society met in Paris, at
a- conference reported as though it were a similar
propagandist rally.34 Westinghouse assigned a team of

propagandist in Pittsburgh to the job of "rebutting"
35
environmentalist objections to nuclear power stations.
The Atomic Energy Commission in Australia - a country
with no commercial reactors - ran an internal study course
.28.

- 29 -

for its staff, slanted towards the justification of

nuclear power* (The export of uranium is a current issue

in Australia.)
In launching this propaganda offensive on a - global scale,
the corporations tacitly acknowledge both the importance
of the nuclear development for the immediate future of

consumerist capitalism, and their appreciation of the
strength of mass suspicion in its regard. It is vital
that the left show an equal appreciation of those factors,

participating wholeheartedly in the anti-nuclear campaign
and strengthening its connection with the overall struggle

against an irrational social system.
The left is hampered in fulfilling this role by the mis­
leading theory (among others discussed further on) that
the technological sphere evolves autonomously, independent

■of political action. The philosophical defects in this view
have been surveyed above; after considering the particular

case of the nuclear power industry, we can sec how woefully

it fails to explain the facts and the dynamic of this major
component of capitalist planning in the decades to come.
Of course, the traditional marxist view never entirely

overlooked this phenomenon; but it was usually content
with a more mention of the.existence of "reciprocal interactior.

or of the "mutual independence" of the various sectors of

the social "totality". The analysis itself usually proceeded

in a strictly one-way direction, with the political
exercising little if any direct influence on the tech­
nological or economic.

It would be wrong to claim that this method has -now lost

all validity; but it is apparent that, in the ‘case of nuclear
power, it.does-not give even a good first approximation to
the truth. It is difficult to conceive of this holding
good . aly for one special and exceptional case, when that
case looms- so large in terms’ of economic significance and
investment allocation. Are wo not rather looking at a
paradigm of capitalism's development-in this present phase,

with deep lessons for the left and its programme of

radical reconstruction?

.29.

30

Whatever. the misc .nceptions of some of its practitioners,
marxism could never have been properly interpreted as. a'
variety of economic determinism, in which technological

development exerted a one-way influence on the remaining

structures of society. Marxism separated itself decisively

from such theories by its standpoint of-class analysis,
so that the technological sphere can be effective only when

mediated through the prevailing class interests.

The interests of the capitalist class arc not to be con­

ceived as simply the-making of a fust buck. They include
also the preservation of a structure of industry which
will enable the capitalist system to continue; and it is
precisely this continuance of the centralised, large-scale,
over-expanding economy, based on a market cf "created demand

which the environmental crises today put in serious doubt.

In this situation, the larger investment decisions must

bo seen as political decisions, in which the longer-term
interests of the system must take precedence over narrowly
conceived "economic" interests. But as political acts,
they become vulnerable to the attacks of political

opponents - a vulnerability which the outstandingly
irrational nuclear industry knows only too well, as it
nurses its wounds and lashes back.

Thus, in intervening in struggles over the shape of the

economy the left should not be hampered by any lingering
compunctions, perhaps based onrecollection of the
"Luddite" period, of the ."utopian machine-wreckers"
(recollections which arc revealed as obsolete by the - facts

above, and which were generally inaccurate historically

in any ease)..Otherwise, they will be leaving unchallenged
some of the most significant political decisions ;of the
giant corporations, currying immediate threats to the world
ef today and even sowing the seeds of disaster for
humanity’s whole future.
£-2i2Ex£sion:_;^JJSSRjand_the_2Third_Worldd

The analysis above is focused on the advanced capitalist
countries, and should not be extrapolated beyond them.

The other major sectors of the world merit a separate
if briefer discussion.

31

With a total list of only 25 plants, including those under

construction or on order, the nuclear programme of the
USSR is insignificant in comparison to that of the USA,
which is some 15 times greater in power output. Indeed,

Franco’s alone outstrips the Soviet's in capacity (by
about 50 percent).

This, lesser level of development is not to be explained
by an initiaX-tochnological^dag —- the. fir st. Soviet nuclear
station'opened in 1958, ahead of.every other country in

the world save one (Britain).
Nor does it stem from any idoologicaj/uversion to nuclear

power. Official Soviet doctrine sees no problem in the

inherent centralized nature of nuclear power; no problem
in the superhuman standards demanded for safe operation
in the long term: no problem in the disposal of radio­
active wastes.
Indeed, the absence of genuine public discussion on the
issues involved in nuclear power has allowed the Soviet

nuclear industry to "solve" its disposal problems with a
breathtaking lightmindedness: high-level radioactive
wastes are simply pumped under pressure into deep permeable

zones. Thus they are irretrievable; in insecure liquid
erm; and moreover (because of the high pressure of the

injection), a threat to the stability of the whole region;
disposal methods with these objectionable features would
37

never be permitted in the USA or Europe,

In explaining the Soviet tardiness in nuclear development,
one- cannot overlook the abundance of its coal, oil and
hydropower resources. But the absence of private owner­
ship also seems relevant here, saving the USSR from some
of the more spectacularly irrational features of capita­
lism's technological policies. At least its power supply
will not be shaped by the imperial adventures of an

Energy Company.
The situation of nuclear power in the Third World is of
direct relevance to the controversy in the industrially
advanced capitalist countries. For defenders of nuclear
.31.

- 32

power there often rest their case on the needs of Third
World countries; short of coul>J faced with rising oil
prices, and yet starved of energy for their economic
take-off, their only hope, allegedly, is. the power of
the atom.
This argument is cither cynical or simply ignorant. A
United Nations analysis has revealed the true situation,

referring first to the Third World's.

" ...very poor infrastructure of technology and non­
availability of trained manpower to handle the reactors
and other nuclear plants. The probability of nuclear
accidents and c jnsequently of dangers to human environ­
ment are bound to be far greater in these countries.
Further it is doubtful whether these countries could
afford to spend-an additional $3-4 billion towards
the foreign exchange cost of nuclear facilities during
the next 25 years which will be the years of financial
stress in these countries arising from pressure of
population and scarcity of food. Moreover, the small
size of the national electric power grids can integrate
..nly small nuclear power plants which are -at present
not being manufactured ..."
This last point is at present vital; the loading cor­
porations are simply not interested in building reactors
small enough to fit Third World needs. And they appear to

remain adamant despite pleas by nuclear protagonists in

the specialist literature, and oven by leading figures at
the September 1974 conference of the International Atomic
39

Energy Authority.

Evidently they prefer.to fight one battle at a time.
Once the developed "heartland" has been conquered for

nuclear power, it may be time to think 'z the outskirts.

The people of the Third World have no interest in speeding
up the process, of their "nuclearisation"; the UN comments

above show this clearly enough. Financially^ the higher
capital cost of nuclear plants would deepen their
dependence' on the imperialist countries, who are skilled
in exacting a political price for "development loans".

Technologically, an important part of their industry
would bo in the hands of metropolitan experts for several
decades. Economically, even a medium-sized plant would

usually constitute by itself a high degree of concen­
tration of power supply, and favour o. centralisation of
industry and a grandiosity of construction squarely
32

- 33
opposed to the real needs of the bulk of the population.
(When the majority of the population have, no access to a

power point, the arrival of a nuclear plant can hardly
do otherwise than distort the economy further. What
benefits have flowed through to the mass of people' in those
underdeveloped countries already boasting nuclear stations Pakistan, India, Spain?)

The Role of the Left
In the campaign against nuclear power - as in most of the

campaigns on environmental issues - it has boon exceptional

tc find the political vanguards actually in the van. Those
with a pro-Moscow orientation have usually endorsed nuclear

power as wholeheartedly and irresponsibly as the Soviet
bureaucracy itself. Others have remained on the sidelines,
or grudgingly joined in at the rear, because■of.ideological■
suspicions about the movement’s purity in general, and its
compatibility with their programme in particular.
In,its most extreme form, this supicion loads to a dismissal

of the anti-nuclear struggle - indeed, of environmentalist
issues in general - as a trendy middle-class phenomenon
that does not interest the working class., and hence , is no'
concern of the true revolutionary, who will concentrate on

the real issue's: those-at the . point of production and in
the realm f State power.
Such a class characterisation ;.-f the environmentalist
movement has greater difficulty reconciling itself with

the facts now, than it might have had a few’ years ago;
a weakness m.re serious still, is the implied judgement
of an issue, not on its merits as a valid transitional
demand, but on its present level of working-class penetration.
It might be worth pointing out hew neatly this attitude

reverses the approach to social- problems that was typical
of Karl Marx. Absorbed above all else by.humanity1s need
for the overthrow of capitalism, Marx had an eagle eye -

whether as journalist or as theoretician - for movements
which contained the seed of revolution. Seeing the
revolutionary potential of the working class, he there­

after focused his theoretical and practical activity.on
the needs and development of the working class movment.

'

.33.

- 34 The attitude we are examining turns this upside down.

An attachment to the role of the working class - or rather,
to a particular selection from Marx's writings about it in

his day - serves it as a reason for ignoring what was
Marx's first concerns evidence of revolutionary potential

in any movements or strata in the contemporary world. If

such schools of thought turn a blind eye to the environ­
mental movement, their vision is not much keener when it

comes to the liberation movements of women, blacks or

gays. Eventually, after the pas.sage of time, some Galileo
may be able to persuade them to look through his telescope .
But they will need first to be be convinced that the sights
they will see can somehow (perhaps tortuously) be recon­
ciled with the true reality - which for them (as it never

was for Marx) is constituted by their doctrine.
A widespread climate of such opinionscan exert a damaging

influence - as it appears to have done even to a talented
and perceptive analyst such as Hans-Magnus Enzenberger.
His article, "A Critique of Political- Ecology", dissects

and exposes some of the best-publicised "doomsday ecolo­
gists", such as Ehrlich, in a study of considerable value.

But the reader will search in vain for any recommendation
that the left should participate in, and endeavour to

guide, mass movements to defend the environment - from
nuclear contamination or anything else.40

Despite Enzenberger's clear recognition of the possibility
of wnat he calls "ecological' rebellions" and "uncontrollable
riots"> he is uneasy about the "dangers" of participation
by the left, and can only recommend that " a long process
of clarification will be necessary ..."

By confining itself to the study and to a role of instruction

from afar, the left will indeed avoid the risk of being

"used" - just as an army is in no danger, of being tricked
and outmanoeuvred if it keeps clear of the battlefield.
But, specialising from environmental issues in general
to the nuclear question in particular, it must be asked

whether the ground should really be surrendered to the
enemy so easily.

.34.

- 35 -■
The hig-j-Q-^ical import -of -the--nucJLear~pov;er -programme-derives

from the current plight of modern capitalism: based firmly
on consumerist values and concessions, it sees the develop­
ment of that consumerism heading inexorably towards the des­

truction of the environment... The coming exhaustion of oil

reserves is one harbinger of tine crisis, and has prompted
a reckless acceleration.of the nuclear programmes, in an

attempt to ensure, at whatever cost, tha-c consumerist
capitalism will have available the' contra.Used sources of
power if needs.
The struggle over, nuclear power thus poses questions about

the very shape of society itself h as any intervention in .
this struggle quickly reveals;' For it is impossible to
adopt a purely negative stance, Attacking nuclear power
but proposing no alternative energy policy.
Many of the reformist .critics understand this well, and
offer programmes which envlsaije. the attainment of social

energy goals without rhe use of nuclear power, but which

usually involve sizeable reductions in energy consumption
by various methods of conservartlon\
But such a conservation policy wound represent-an extra­
ordinary historical ‘‘turn" by a . corlsumera-sf. capitalist

society, wedded as it is to Corrtinu^l expansion; a
society, moreover, in which the relative weight of -the

"Energy Company" grows day by day. Cpa sucn a society'
significantly restrict its energy consumpcion over a
whole business 'cyclo for example, in-a lime r> f-reccssinn.
will it throttle down on vitally ncoiepi expansion plans,
simply because they are energy-expensive': And what yzould
be the social and political rgverberStic:;/' of such energy­
conserving..poJLicj.es as were adopted??
These important questions usually get s-J?nt consideration
from moderate advocates of conservation.. In contrast,
those already convinced'of the need for esc;cal social
change are less inhibited, and will not pl-. / down the

severe strains which an energy crisis implies’ for

capitalism today.. But their own social project will not
escape a similar critique, unless it has at least the

.35.

- 36 basic outline of a solution..-to the-problem - unless it
can point to the satisfactions it envisages as replacing
the dubious rewards of the commodity culture.

One project which sketches such a solution is that of

self-managed socialism. The substitution of the principle
of self-management for the present dominant principle of

hierarchy

in every walk of life - a substitution possible

only if -the power of the capitalist is overthrown and

that of the bureaucrat severely limited at least - implies
on the level of the individual, the possibility of
changing the values one lives by. If new channels of self­

expression and autonomous action can be opened up in every

social sphere, beginning with the factory floor, it will
not be so crushing a catastrophe if beer must be brought
in bottles rather than in energy-expensive aluminium cans.

This point has been made in greater detail elsewhere.

41

It illustrates how the campaign against nuclear power must
be finally unconvincing, unless it is prepared to delineate

an alternative social path, a credible one that does not
lead to a poisoned world. A receptive atmosphere for such
an exposition is created by the striking irrationality of.
the nuclear programme, which must condemn by association

the system that gives rise to it, and encourage the
consideration of rational alternatives.

Footnotes s

1.

Discussed in The Closing Circle, by Barry Commoner,
Jonathan Cape 1972.

2.

"Nuclear Electric Power”, by David J.Rose, page 359.
science, 184 19 April 1974.

3.

Nuclear News, April 1975, p.80. (The ruling Swedish
Social Democrats subsequently lost the general election
in which their remaining plans for nuclear plants were
severely challenged.)

4.

Nuclear News, April 1975, p.33 (editorial)

5..

The best source here is Non-nuclear futures, by
Amory B.Lovins and John H.Price (Ballinger Publishing
Company, Cambridge Mass), October 1975, which contains
an encyclopaedic list of references.

6.

Nature, 253, p.385 (February 6, 1975, pditorial)

36.

,
—

----- -

’

_.

.

.

32^’,TY H^LTH CELL
326, VMain;IB|0.
Koram&nga7a-- ""’ **-'
. fiangafOre«56003-4
'

India - ._•-

____ -37 -■- -••• ........

.

-

’

-

.-•- ■■•

7.

Investir, March 24 197’5. Quoted, in Basque^ Le Nouvel
Observateur, April 21 1975, p.46.

8.

For the latter two incidents.- see respectively Environ­
ment, 16, October 1974, page 21, and Time, September
22, 1975 ("Frommes 'There is a Gun Pointed'1').

9.

"The Hidden Commitment of Nuclear Wastes", by
W.D.Rowe and W.F.Holcomb. Nuclear Technology, 24,
December 1974, p.286.

10.

"Plutonium Recycle: The Fateful Step", by J.G.Speth,
A.R.Tamplin and T.B. Cochran «■ Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, November 1974, page IP.

11.

Ibid., page 20.

12.

New Scientist, March 27, 1975, page 799.,

13.

A 1000 Megawatt (electrical) reactor requires about
4,500 tons of uranium over its lifetime. Thus a world
total of 2,000 reactors (one of the lower estimates)
by 2,000 AD would need some 9 millions tons; but the •
estimated world inventory extractable at less than
$39 a kilogram is 4 million tons. (See e.g."Wdrld
Uranium Resources", by L.G.Poole, Nuclear Engineering
International., February 1975,)

14.

See the discussion in Speth et.al (ref.10 above)

15.

See e.g. "A'Troublesome Brew", by Sheldon Novick,1
and "A Poor Buy", by T.B.Cochran et.al, both in
Environment, 17, June 1975.

16.

"The Deflation of Rancho Seco 2",by Jim Harding.
Reprinted from Not Man Apart (undated).

17.

Alternatives au nucleaire- Presses universitaires de
Grenoble, .ebruary 1975, The figure cited follows
from Annexe 3, page 89, on utilising the findings on
capital; cost from ref.18 below, and those on
capacity factor from ref.19 below.

18.

"The Economics of Nuclear Power", by I.C.Bupp and
J.C.Derian et.al. Technology Review. February 1975.;

19.

"Will idle Capacity Kill Nuclear Power?" by D.D.Comey.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1974.

20.

In Part 2 ("Dynamic Energy Analysis and Nuclear Power")
of Non-nuclear Futures, by A.B.Lovins and J.H.Price.
Ballinger (Cambridge Mass)., 1975.

21.
22.

23.

Nuclear Engineering International, February 1975, page 73.

Le Nouvel Observateur, April 28, 1975, page 86.
"The World Energy Market",- by B.C.Netschert, Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, October 1971.

24.

New Scientist, August 17, 1972, page 334.

25.

Nuclear Engineering International.- September 1974,
Page 741„

.37.

38 26.

Nuclear Engineering International, May 1975, page 451.-

27.

"The Failsafe Risk", by Kurt H.Hokenemser. Environment
17, January/February 1975.

28.

New Scientist, June 26, 1975, Page 710.

29.

"A Poor Buy", op.cit., page 12.

30.

The Case for ^olar Energy, by Peter E.Glaser.■ Arthur
D.Little Inc,, Cambridge, Mass.1972.

31.

"The Ecological Crisis-of Consumerism", by Alan
Roberts, International, September 1973: "Crise Ecologique
et Soviete'de Consommation", Sous le Drapeau du
Socialisme, nos.60 and 61, 1973.
I

32.

Nuclear Engineering International, May ' 1975, p.447.

33.

Nuclear Engineering International, April 1975, p.301.

34.

"The Nuclear Backlash", by Michael Kenward. New
Scientist, May 1975.

35.

Nuclear Enginnering International, September 1974,
. p.743.

36.

"World List of Nuclear Power Plants", Nuclear News,
August 1975, p.63.

37.

"Radioactive Waste Management in Selected Foreign
Countries"', by H.M.Parker. Nuclear Technology, 24,
December 1974, page 307.

38.

"Review of the impact of production and use of energy
A
on the environment and the role of UNEP", by the
WUnited Nations Environment Programme, no.75-40793, 1975.

39.

See Nuclear Engineering Internationals "Market con­
siderations of medium/small nuclear power reactors",
by J.Greason -(page 37), and "The case for develop­
ing small power reactors", by G.Webb (page 39),
both January 1974; "IAEA General Conference asks why
no small reactors for developing countries?"

40.

"A Critique of Political Ecology", by Hans-Magnus
Enzensberger, New Left Review No.84, March-April 1974.

41.

"Consumerism" and the Ecological Crisis, by Alan
Roberts, Spokesman Pamphlet No.43, 1974.

M
I\

the

&

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
47/1,(FirstHoor)St. Marks Road
SAN GALORE - 560 001

final

THE FIEUICAL CONSEdUlNCES OF NUCLEAR WAR
—P S KAFIATH
Physicians for social Responsibility (India)

ARIWENTS ANO HEALTH
The worldwide military expenditure of over 600,000 million

'

dollars annually, over ono million per minute, is greater
than the total income of the poorer ona half of the world's

people, Huch of this rapidly increasing spending is due to
arms purchases by developing countries where infant mortality

rates are eight times as high and life expectancy half ss
long as in the rich countries. Ten million people are killed

by water related diseases and 50 million more will die
because of malnutrition. Four hours of world arms spendings

are equivalent to the world Health Organization's inadequate

annual budget of 250 million dollars J two days of arms spending

would fund immunisations for 750 million children. Ths WHO's
campaign to eradicate small pox took 10 years and 3300 million

- as much as the world spends evary five hours on arms. Saving

the amount used for twenty days of arms spending for each of
ths next 10 years would provide safe water for all the world’s

people,
A thermonuclear conflict in any form and on any scale will inevitably

lead to irreversible destruction of the environment and the death of hundreds

,2

2

of millions of people* There will be grave consequences for the

life and health of all countries of the world without exception*
Future generations would also be affected and thoir fate would

be determined in a world of fire, water and radiation. The

effects of nuclear attacks on the human population and the

environment have been described in detail in the publications of
the 'International Physicians for the Prevention of JJuclcar Liar fare'
IPPilU, fluch of what follows is borrowed or extrapolated from

these publications.

NUCLEAR id.XR t THE C0NSE4OCES
It is estimated that nuclear war is inevitable by the year

2000 - a bare 16 years from to-day* Tho fact that it has not yet
happened io meaningless for it need happen only once. And when it

docs it would constitute the ultimate human and environmental
disaster*

The consequences for a city like Bangalore would be disaeterous
if it be tho target of a nuclear strike even with weapons which

would now ba 20 years old. The blast) firo starms* and ionising
radiations from the detonation of only two nuclear weapons would

kill 1)052*000 people out of a projected population of 3 million.

Of those surviving the immediate explosion, approximately one million
would dis from the injuries they would receive* Of the estimated
6560 doctors. 4850 would be killed. 1070 would be injured and only

640 will bo ablo to function normally. This would mean approximately
1700 acutely injured persons to each functioning physician. If each
... ....3

3

physician spends only 10 minutes on the diagnosis and treatment

of each victim and worked for 20 hours a day, it would take 14 days

for every injured person to be seen for oven the first time*

The assessments arv conservative for they de not explore
unpredictable longer range effects* They exclude even natural

consequences that are inevitables long-term climatic changes,
degradation of the stratospheric crons layer, radioisotopes contamination
of food and crop failures resulting from altered insect ecology,
Asang those exposed in utero, teratogenicity end mental

deficiency will most surely occur, manifesting in future generations

deformed and mentally retarded children. Survivors would also face
the overwhelming challenge of water arid food contaminated by

infectious organisms, which, together with the damage to their loans
systems, would lead to the spread of infectious diseases in epidemic

proportions, ifithout antibiotics fatalities would ba high* In addition,
failure to meet minimal total energy needs and poor access to food

with high quality protein would have a serious long term effect.

Without protection from exposure to the extremes of heat, cold and other
environmental hazards, basic requirements for survival would balacking.
Crowding vxsuld potentiate the spread of airborne, enteric aid parasitic
infections. Regressive individual and group

behaviour and deleterious

effects on mental health could bo ejected.

With the loss of supporting infrastructure after a nuclear war,
there could be no effective public health response to counter epidemics,

.4

4

to immunize the population, and to address onvironmintal and sanitary

hazards. The physician would lack the means to relievo pain or to
provide adequate surgical or medical intervention.

In sum, the survivors of a nuclear war would face polluted
water, inadequate food supplies, and all of the problems of infection
without adequate health care or support services.
NUCLEAR MAR ; THE 'SOLUTIONS*

The only medical solution is prevention. Physicians vnuld always
be willing to assist in planning for the medical management of
technological and natural disasters such as floods, fire and earthquakes

However, thurt is no effective defence for nuclear war. Civil war

plans lead the public into an illusion of survivability. Given ths
ethical considerations against giving false and damaging hopes to

patients, phyoicisna should sneak out as a matter of conscience against
such illusions as nuclear civil war defence. Even a sophisticated,
prohibitively expensive shelter can provide possibility of immediate
biological survival for only a few. Moreover, theso would create

new problems inherent in a shelter situation — inadequate ventilation,
illumination, water, food, and uacte disposal, complicated by the

spread of infectious diseases and the proliferation of psychological
problems and thoir intensification by over-crowding. Taking into

account the extremely high nurtjer of bounded, burned and irradiated}
the disruption of communication systems} the unavailability of food

and water} ths loss of medical facilities, personnel and supplies}
>5

5

and the persistence of radiation, civil defence would be totally
ineffective in probating population survival in the event of nuclear

war* The survitorc of the nucisar age unuld comprise a diseased and

faltering remnant, scattered in a devastated land. Striking everyone

and everything, the nuclear storm would spare neither hospitals nor

medical personnel. Those of us responsible for health protection
and medical care would be unable tc provide any effective medical
assistance.

iVUCLFAR WAR 1 EFFECTS ON THE BIOSPHERE
Human existence depends upon a great complexity of fragile

ecological and social interactions, among them the production,
storage, and distribution of food, of energy, and of water. Damage
to the human environment by a nuclear war would disrupt not only oui'
agricultural systems, but also the less directly managed terrestrial
and marine eewsystene, These impacts on humankind, although difficult

to quantify or even to predict fully, would in some respects dwarf ths
direct health inpacts*

The inevitably grave human losses that would result from a nuclear
war, together with far-reaching radioactive contamination, large scale

crop fires and forest fires, heavy losses among livestock and wildlife
global debilitation of marine resources, widespread destruction of

energy, irrigation, and transportation systems, extensive soil erosion
and desertification, and other environmental and social impacts, would

lead to the destruction of our civilization.

6

The massive self-propagating wildfires associated with a nuclear
war would engulf cities, fuel depots, forests etc., and thereby
generate huge amount of scat, tho light scattering and absorbing

aerosol. Recent studies suggest that this pall of shioke might block
out rare than 90% of tho solar radiation ano substantially lower surface

temperatures throughout the northern hemisphere for weeks if not months.
Crop losses would be catastrophic.

Thu damage to various species of plants and animals from ionizing
radition likeuiso could lead to serious agricultural problems and
important ecological imbalances. Radioactive contaminationof ■plants,
animals and food products may make them unsuitable for human consumption.

Ths likely depletion of tho stratospheric ozone layer would permit an
enhanced flux of damaging ultraviolet radiation to reach the ground for
a period of at least several years with a resulting increase in known

UV offectsj sunburns, eye damage, impairment of the immune system, and

other adverse consequences to humans, lifestock and udldlifej and also to
the death of some crops end other vegetation.

In conclusion, such an all-out exchange would eclipse all ecological
catastrophes of recorded history. Coming gen rations would inherit a
violated biosphere, an earth poisoned by radiation. The long-term
environmental effects of tho nuclear blasts would also afflict children

of the future. Indeed, given that is known,and even more important, all

that is still unknown about the effects of multiple nuclear explosions,
there is the risk that human life on our planet uculd cease to be.

7

Nuclear war would destroy in a single stroke achievements of
thousands of years of human effort.
Since physicians uauld have no remedy for the forweabls

medical consequences of a nuclear war. the only effective action
is prevention.

A NUCLEAH WAR AND INDIA

Talk of a nuclear holocaust usually fails to
invoke a sense of doom in India. This is because
there is a general feeling that the war till be
fought between ths Great Powers only, and that

too. in Europej and oven if we do have a nuclear

war it is only an alternative to dying of hunger.
These are Just illusions. A nuclear war anywhere

in the world will involve India. Prevention of all
wars and a stop to armaments will not only ensure

that we do not die of a nuclear war* but will also

not die of hunger and communicable diseases. If

the money spent on our sophisticated arms imports

is used for the supplies of clean drinking water

for the next ten years there would probably be
no water borne diseases in India. In fact, it is
foolish to think just in terms of India when a
nuclear conflict is concerned. If India must survive

a nuclear war then the entire world must survive or
we all die together. Only then this is fully realized
can us impress upon our leaders and military
strategists of the consequences of nuclear war.

further reading
1.

W.H.O. (1984): Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services

2.

New England Journal of Medicine (1981)
304:726-729 (torch 19)
305:1226-1232 (November 12)

3* American Journal of Public Health (1980) s 70 (9):958~61
4* IPPNU (1932): Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions of Nuclear hhr

(W.H. Freeman & Co,)

□ • Handouts of International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War (Inc). 225 Longwood Avenue, Boson Massachusetts 02115, USA.

"tjfe shall require a substantially now

manner of thinking if mankind is to
survive."
- Albert Einstein

INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR (IPPNU)

IPPfja la a Federation of Regional and National Physicians
groups working together to apply their medical expertise to

tha problem of preventing nuclear war end controlling ths nuclear
arms race.

The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), India, is
the Indian organisation coordinating the activities op this

movement in our country. For further information on IPPNW
and PSR (India), write to Dr K Balakrishnan, Brinduvan,
Pattathan, Quilon (Kerala) and or Or P S Kamath, St John’s

Nodical College Hospital, Bangalore 560034 (Karnataka).
A call from IPPNb/PSR to be signed by all those friends

—medical and nan-medical—is modified and included here.

Please sign, tear off and send it to one of tho above addressee
to show your solidarity with the movement.
The IPPNW has suggested (June 1563) the following addition

to the Hippocratic Oathi
"As a physician of the 20th century, I recognise .hat

nuclear weapons have presented my profession with a

challenge of unprecedented proportions, and that a nuclear
uar ixxjld bo the final epidemic for humankind. I will do

all in my power to work for the prevention of nuclear uar,11

The Fourth Congress of IPPNU io on June 4-8, 1984 in Heliair,ki

Finland (theraet Physicians insist: Nuclear War can be prevented).

A

call for m emu to the mucllar arhs race

bsc

As physicians and those interested in health,

ue wish to express

our professional concern over the unprecedented threat to life and health

posed by nuclear weapons, a threat that hangs over hundreds of millions
of people. The increasing accumulation of destructive power and the

development of oven more so-ihisticated ueaons greatly increase the
risk of nuclear war.
If even a single nuclear weapon is exploded over one of our

major cities* hundreds of thousands till be killed. If many nuclear

weapons are exploded,

radioactive fallout and disturbance of the

biosphere will cams suffering end death - particularly from
starvation, radiation illness, Infectious disease end cancer - without
regard to national boundaries. The remaining medical facilities and

personnel till be inadequate to help the wounded. An all out nuclear war

would end our present civilisation.
The cost of the arms race is not only the vast sums being divertfri
to armamento in a world where tens of thousands of human brings die each

day of treatable diseases. The coat io also in the great poychological
damage that is being don®, particularly to young

people and children uho

fear they will have no futures.

Ub recognize that to reach agreements to end the nuclear arms
race and avert the introduction of nuclaar weapons into any conflict

represents a major political task. k!e regard such agreements as

crucial and urgent since the throat of nuclear war is the greatest
...2

2

challenge! to htalth and euruivol that humanity has ever Paced* As
physicians and health workers* we believe a nucl.nr war would hs
the Pinal epidemic.

■SoQ: 7Z6-7i<^

CMc-r-c.^ nj '“7S /

C^cXec^- Arne,
<f

Jcrc^n-^txi erf HiRu^
^rJcsvejnA>e^>/ <?'to/

3o 5 ' /
^RR^cR'Cc-\

^^CX.

e <!>

PrRpR:™o

C^~> d-

j Gf
Vol-

<if

s^vi' -rerr <»

of

^o 11 47S. ccs-4.1 ty

f^n

dor !<! &?>

Peo<.c-e.

/D

( UM-5^c£^ <=-^> b/uJ^c- cJeopcr-vo, UjH-0
(4t>~2e^c^o^ Pk^oiCxo

&->->
Of’C^^Ker-,

C-J^'V-

C^->e^

/-J-e<x/^

/-/•<?o. iii^

Se»^'

L-d^yvc^

2a 5

A-cr>->^ cajoocL

I'

- w'n ^ij5
I

7) 7
7^/^x-

LfC/'Scoiy Ippi^

ee-o

/

l4-cr^)^Y-

/^./ZcrtxA /^-e.
3.

A/ LA<r Le c~^

Grc^p
l''tt>cb.'c&i

^cIj!c^

3uPt“R>> /t^

i^p^e.ct^D

h>o-T.c-*cA^> — ’dp

<z->^-> (23

($o I^S

A% /ctb (

^0^

^'^*ow»6c-v^ (

A^c,

CUa'

tvJm(H</>

Z2p^Xwv

()mC^

(^

. ( /Ut

bd-A&i

e^t,

\ajmM.

(LaX'w^i

S

two

'nkuvOwv^

<iiv^-

h

21

&<vL

<4'A^

/At

M;

^Uac^JL

lM<Z\j

Jjkl.

^wvbtwl .

UAA^zfL

( <iZ'

uMk?

O-^cC^

h^cC^

A^a>

'l&WJ

'I^JL.

wJuJc

^w

CUc

Jxcdzu^yZ

/vvlL
jX

c&frw

^wdj^l

[Zr

,

/XL

^wJe.

cut

to-v

YMA^tc

CUu

^o/z^Z"^

(;

t/A^UtzZv?

bi.K^

A XfA,k.

t

^L
A,w
^1

ou4.

c^C^j-y ka^JjZ^-

uvU-WcXv

/AZ^zu**

^k-

.

ifil.

(PIaX)^I>£^1

(c^b^

/t

vru^vv^uv^^xX.

ASH/CvvxC.

-^y^t-^viACx^v

o^|

A0«zX

/<?, /“?%O

&(vfr

M^iMoo

/a^r^cev)^
rV

/zhZe4

^LCO

vuA.^v

tLCA’X

.^{au^
^^Vt6uZ*»^/,

On,

0.1^

O^i. ■

^awZ_ M .^Lo
h0 0

-MA-fc

^JL'

dSjCU-■^uIaAtyv
t( S

•vnu-feiv

&t

6^~z//-v<^vCv^vC

Q'<LU.C\jL^

jz<
**
£f~^i£a

,^r

*’*'

^1£m

4 t

Jo

JVijjM

A

US

6 ItT-

£4C£<^&,

w'«Zc2u?

cbtnsfetf

/Vo-cXCvfifKLt

<^

ti-ie.

dUx-VM*-jX<<

.IxX^V^tU^

3-

&

■'-n.u&A.C

CTlC

TuZc

0

‘ cu^Aww

^(f

j 'Q

(£wa,IlZ^<j

I^JwCviA,^

-vnfj2uA.il

nv<~c(j^i

I&jjc
‘vZ-Cvht/W^

i^L^id^

Cqi^Ja/

'

J^jV^bVl^j

(A^uAMz^
A,V^ll

(_^TvlZdL

6

ttvKLe^
ft,U^

|2kcL

U-vJ^ t
ivl

ftoo

(/z-i/VvviMa/

eMjl-

hu-u-

If

^C

b<v^

'v^~'

kii'

(^£

^iMbJz

<^/'^~

j2u>

Uni-

tvv^^wJ1

'[‘'i'l .

'I

wZtU.V.vUn,

li-dli^- i

(JvjC

bM.

a.

^vt

e
7/v7 ^|£«w<-

Nuc’ear bulletin No. 1

?^WJWITY HrALTH cat
BANGA Q . Seppos

ftAn/ Hocr)3t- Marks Hoad
i ke

The Worldwide Threat Of
Nuclear Technology.

HEALTH AND SOCIETY GROUP

Introduction
In the West, particularly within the last few years, a fresh aware­

ness is steadily growing of the dangers posed by nuclear technology.
The seed of awareness has yet to germinate ;n I idia.

At first glance

it may seem that India is so overwhelmed by the basic and immediate

problems of poverty that these issues are of secondary importance.

Also, some will try to justify the existence of the Indian atomic bomb
in reference to the conceived threat from Pakistan and the development
of nuclear reactors in reference to pressing power shortages such as

Calcutta Is experiencing every day.

This article is the first of a series. Our aim is to bring the question
of nuclear technology to the forefront.

It is in fact extremely relevant

to India today for the following reasons :

1.

Expenditure on nuclear technology, both military, and for power,

represent huge sums of money which could be positively used to
promote economic and social development.

2.

The nature of nuclear technology is such that it poses a threat to

the whole of mankind and not simply to certain people or places.

3.

In possessing both nuclear weapons and power stations India has

a responsibility along with other nuclear nations to find a way out of

the nuclear nightmare.

4.

The nuclear business is controlled by the highly

indnstrialised

states and their multinational corporations and therefore in following

the nuclear path, India is enhancing her neo-colonial status.
We hope that the information given will be widely read and

distributed.

September, 1981

The Worldwide Threat of Nuclear Technology.
“The atom bomb has changed everything except our mode of

thinking.’’

—Einstein.

When America tested an atomic bomb on the population of

Japan on the morning of 6th August 1945 the Atomic Era began.
It could be the last era of civilization.

What happened on that

day could be repeated on a much vaster scale threatening the lives

of men, women and children everywhere.
Hiroshima.

The atomic bomb which fell on Hiroshima weighed about two
kilograms and was little larger than a cricket ball.

approximately 50% of the population; 140,000
instantly.

There

was

first

It killed

people

died

a searing flash of light brighter

and hotter than a thousand suns.

At 1,000 yards the surface

of granite melted and all life was incinerated.
“Suddenly a glaring whitish, pinkish light appeared in the

sky accompanied by an unnatural tremor which was followed
almost immediately by a wave of suffocating heat and a wind

which swept away everything in its path.

Within a few ■ seconds

the thousands of people in the streets in the centre of the town

were scorched by a wave of searing heal. Many were killed instant­
ly others lay writhing on the ground screaming in agony from the

intolerable pain of their burns. Everything standing upright in the
way of the blast—walls, houses, factories and other buildings, was
annihilated...Hiroshima bad ceased to exist.’’
—Japanese journalist.

Fires sprang up in all directions and were swept by tornado
winds into a single firestorm which raged for six hours burning
everything combustible within two kilometres. Survivors overcome

by the intolerable heat and raging thirst ran in panic to the rivers

and drank the poisoned water.

Within a month they too died.

Apart from their gruesome and repulsive injuries the total and

absolute destruction disorientated

even active survivors and

destroyed their will and capacity for living . Not only human lives
on an unprecedented scale but all services, hospitals, fire stations,

factories, transport and every environmental factor that makes life

liveable were gone in seconds.
Beyond the area of total destruction, radiation sickness from

the radioactive fallout leading to vomiting, bleeding and convuls­
ions killed many more within days.

Today they are still dying at

the rate of two thousand a year from leukaemia and other forms

of cancer. The incidence of abortion and malformed offspring as a
result of genetic damage from the fallout incrased.
Nuclear Weapons today.

The Hiroshima bomb had a destructive force of 20,000 tons

of TNT.

Today bombs are commonly 1 megaton or 11,000,000

tons of TNT, that is fifty times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
Fusion bombs of up to 65 megatons have been produced.

The explosion of a megaton bomb will cause the buildings
to collapse in an area of about 100 square miles when the blast
arrives.

Within 300 square miles firestorms will develop.

Soon

after the explosion an area of 50 miles by 10 miles wide will be
contaminated with enough radiation to give a quickly lethal dose
to anyone in the open.

Eventually an area of over 4500 square

miles will be contaminated.

The nuclear arms race

“As a military man who has given half a century of active

service I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no mili­
tary purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons Their
existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which

they have generated.”—Mountbatten, 6 weeks before his death.
In their efforts to produce more and more lethal weapons the

two

superpowers have amassed enough

nuclear

weapons

to

destroy every city in the world several times over. They number

over 50,000.

If the Americans loose 40% of their present stock every man,
woman, animal and insect in the U. S* S. R. would be dead.

The

country would be a radioactive desert. And the other 60% would
do no Russian enemy harm ; you cannot hurt a Russian who is

already dead. The fallout from.the 40% would go up to 40,000 ft.

and, caught by the upper winds would go, if the wind was from
the] west to China and Japan, and if the wind was from the east to

Britain, the U.S and

Canada.

In all

probability the Russians

would have retaliated in kind and a war would escalate in which
the country initiating the action would be destroyed along with
the enemy and the whole of human civilization would be put in

jeopardy within a matter of minutes.

“Hundreds of thousands of burned and otherwise wounded
people would not have any medical care as we now conceive cf it ;

no morphine for pain, no emergency surgecy, no antibiotics, no
dressings, no skilled nursing, and little or no food or water.

Delayed radioactive fallout would render large areas of land
uninhabitable for prolonged periods of t:me, making it impossible
to produce the food upon which the survival of whole populations

would depend.

The earth will be seared, the skies heavy with

lethal concen­

trations of radioactive pai tides, and no response to medical needs

can be expected from medicine.”
—from the proceedings of the First Congress of the Inter­

national Physicians for the prevention of Nuclear war.

Inspite of the horror of nuclear war, there is constant readi-ness to launch an attack.

Crisis in 1962.

One nearly did occur during the Cuba

The instability and unreliability of the policy of

‘deterrence”, of possessing nuclear weapons in order to deter an
enemy from attacking, was shown then when we came within a

hair’s breadth of nuclear war all over a single Soviet ship cross­
ing an arbitary line America had drawn around Cuba.

Bomber

fleets are on 24 hour alert, some are always airbourne with armed
nuclear war heads, and tens of thousands of nuclear missiles are

poised to strike.

Each member of a missile crew is provided

with a pistol and given instructions to shoot anyone who appears

likely either to fire the missiles without authorisation or not to
fire them if authorised.
Accidents

On November 9, 1979 all the American early warning systems
around the world went on alert for six minutes.

Three squadrons

of planes took off armed with nuclear weapons.

Twice again

on June 3 and 6, 1980 two computer errors nearly led us into a

nuclear war.

The false alerts were traced to a defective compo­

nent worth 46 cents.

Over 100 near accidents have been recorded

in the past 30 years.

There is a proposal to by-pass radar operators, the President
and launching personnel by a piece of wire. Within two years the

technologists at the Pentagon will have finished developing a

[

5

]

system called ‘Launch-On-Warning. ’

That means that when the

reconnaissance Satellite detects something in Russia—maybe its a

missile going off, may be it's ar accident, may be it’s nothing-

it sends a message back to a computer and then to all the missiles

in America which go off within three minutes.
be no chance to check for false alerts.

Then the e will

There is no human

input or intervention.

Accidental war has, so far,

been avoided but accidents

involving nuclear weapons have not.

On 23 January 1961 a B-52 bomber carrying two 24 megaton

nuclear bombs crashed near Goldsboro, North Carolina, U S.
According to Dr. Ralph Lapp, former head of the U. S Office

of Naval Research, one bomb was removed from the wreckage,
the other from a livid near by where it had fallen without explo­

ding.

When the recovery team examined this second bomb,

however, they discovered that five of the six safety interlocks
had been triggered

prevented

by

the crash.

the explosion of a

Oh 17 January 1961

Only one single switch had

24-megaton

nuclear

bomb.

another B-52 this time carrying four 20-25

megaton hydrogen bombs crashed near Palomares, Spain.

One

landed undamaged but the conventional detonating devices on two

others exploded scattering plutonium over a wide area.

This

necessitated the removal of 1,750 tons of radioactive soil and
vegetation.

( It was buried in Barnwell, S. Carolina where the

rain will leach the plutonium into the Savannah River. The fourth
bomb fell over the Mediterranean and was only recovered after an

intensive three iponth long underwater search.

Many more accidents are covered up in secrecy.

Apart from accidents there have been losses of nuclear mate­
In 1978 the Nuclear Regulatory Committee in theU. S.

rials.

announced

that over

Plutonium is

a ton of plutonium

used to make bombs.

was “missing .

Even 99'9% control of

American nuclear weapons inventory, which is far greater than in

fact exists, would still leave fifteen warheads

unaccounted for.

One of these is enough to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Fallout from tests.

There have been over 1, 200 nuclear tests since 1945.

It is

reasonable to believe that already as many people have been killed
from the fallout around the globe from the testing of nuclear
weapons as were killed by the two bombs dropped on Japan.

In

1954 a radioactive cloud drifted over some Pacific islands and a

Japanese fishing trawler well outside the testing area.

Many

islanders sustained burns and permanent abnormalities and all

the crew came down with radiation sickness. One of them died.

In 1969 Dr. Sternglass, Professor of Radiation Physics at the
University of Pittsburgh, delivered a paper stating that according
to his studies some 4C0, 000 infants less than one year old had
probably died as a result of nuclear fallout between 1950 and

1965.
The most lethal radioactive element plutonium-239 according
to Dr. John Gofman former Assistant Director of the AEC
( Atomic Energy Commission ) Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,

is so deadly that between

116,000 to 1,000,000 cancer deaths

will occur from its fallout in the U. S. alone.

Thinking the unthinkable.
As the stocks of weapons have grown to exceed by far the

number that could be justified as a deterrent, new concepts of
nuclear war have had to be developed to warrant further expans­

ion of nuclear forces.

The competition has moved towards the

production of smaller size with more punch for the pound and
much greater accuracy.

Missiles can carry strategic nuclear weapons 6, 000 miles in

Fired from the other .side of the world,

less than 30 minutes.

they can hit within a few hundred feet of the target.

Now the idea that nuclear war could be deterred by the

horror of it is giving way to a different official concept that these
weapons can be perfected to fight against the enemy’s weapons
and destroy

them.

Instead

of “deterrence” and

“assured

destruction”, nuclear war is to have a more thinkable image,
“counter

force.”

It

is

highly

inprobable

that

all

the

enemy's-forces could be wiped out ; even one submarine left after

destroying all other weapons simultaneously would be enough
to inflict completely unacceptable damage on the attacker.

And

yet this concept, more dangerous still, provides rationale for the

actual use of these weapons in war.
Governmentsjn the West are preparing the public to accept
the possibility of nuclear war and creating the cruel illusion that

it may be possible to survive it by promoting laughable civil defence
publicity.

Around the country in Britain, anl other countries,

secret Government bunkers are hidden, “regional seats of Govern­
ment” in the event of nuclear war.

[

8

]

Proliferation and the arms trade.
Six nations are known to possess nuclear weapons : U. S.,

U. S. S. R, Britain, France, China and India.

Eighteen other

countries have them stationned on their soil or provide bases for

ships or planes that transport them.

South Africa and Israel

almost certainly have the capacity to produce

nuclear weapons

also.

In the shadow of the U. S.—U. S. S. R. arms race local rivals
are engaged in contests of their own.

The nuclear arms spiral

has had consequences for beyond the boundaries of the U. S ,

Europe and the Soviet Union.

For the nuclear arms spiral has

been accompanied by an equally spiralling conventional arms race.
Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have sought to arm other countries
to the same degree as they continue to arm themselves.

1968 and 1975 arms exports of the U. S. rose

over

Between

1,200% and

have climbed even faster since then.
The cost.

The money required to provide adequate, food, water, educat­
ion, health and housing for everyone in the world has been esti­

mated at 17 billion dollars a year.

It is a huge sum of money...

about as much as the world spends on arms every two weeks.

The amount of money spent on arms and armies throughout
the world is difficult to conceive of.

It is :

Ten thousand million rupees per day.

In today’s world :
* 500 million people are starving to death.

not have clean water to drink.

2 billion people do

Water-related diseases kill

approximately 10 million people every year.

I ? 1

Yet two governments in three spend more on the military than
on health.

* The training of military personnel in the U.S. alone costs
twice as

much

per

year as the education budget for the

300,000,000 schoolage children in S. Asia.

* Research on new weapons receives eight times as much public
money as research on new sources of energy.

* Close to 50% of all the world’s scientists are in some way
involved in military research and development.

* In two days the world spends on arms the equivalent of a year’s
budget for the United Nations and its specialised agencies.

* The world’s military expenditures are today greater than the
gross national product of all Africa and South Asia combined.

The developed countries have been very successful in creating
markets for their arms in the developing world.

The percentage

of the national budget of developing countries spent on arms has
risen steeply over the last few years. Military expenditure exceeds

expenditure on health in developed countries ; it is often three
times as much in developing countries.

Developing countries

totalled 5% of world military expenses in 1960, in 1977 it was 18%.
Inflation and unemployment.
The diversion of resources away from economic development

and urgent social needs is all too glaringly obvious.

This “per­

manent war economy” has also effects in bidden ways, not easily

reducible to numbers and therefore often ignored,

Military

spending is an important cause of inflation and unemployment.

Military spending overheats the civilian economy by generating

10

[

]

more spendable income than goods and services to absorb it.

It

depresses investment which in turn thwarts economic growth and

prolongs

inflationnary

pressures.

Comparison

of

military

expenditure of the developed countries and their manufacturing

productivity shows an inverse relation between the two.

The

highest rates of military spending are associated with relatively

low growth of productivity, the lowest rates of military spending
with high gains in productivity.
Official calculations for the U. S. economy indicate that for

the same expenditure of funds up to twice as many people can be

employed in schools, health services, building homes and transport
systems as through military budgets.
The road to destruction.

Between 1960 and 1980 there have been 83 wars and interven­
tions.

With the superpowers often supplying the weaponry for

these conflicts the chance of their involvement escalating to direct
confrontation increases.

And,

as the countries involved

in

conflict seek more and more lethal weapons, this leads ultimately
to the desire for nuclear weapons for themselves.

powers wish to retain a monopoly in

The super­

their nuclear arsenals but

the means for other countries to make their own bombs are not
hard to come by. Wherever

there are nuclear power stations

operating there is both the material and the technology to con­

struct nuclear bombs.

Both technologies for nuclear bombs or the production of
power are based on

uranium atoms

the fissioning of uranium, the splitting of

into sub-atomic particles

releasing

energy.

Nuclear power reactors produce fairly large quantities of a by­
product, plutonium, from which nuclear weapons are pro uced.

I

11

]

A power plant may produce 500 pounds of plutonium in a year.

A bomb requires only 10-20

pounds.

Therefore any nation

possessing a reactor could theoretically make 20-40 atomic bombs
annually.

It is not by chance that the entire U. S. nuclear

weapons programme is run by the Department of Energy.
India very effectively demonstrated the link between nuclear

power and nuclear bombs in May 1974.

Using plutonium extra­

cted from an experimental reactor bought from Canada “for
peaceful purposes’’, India built and detonated the subcontinent’s

first homemade nuclear bomb.

College students have succeeded in designing functional
bombs from documents available publicly.

The designs call for

metal fixtures bought at local hardware stores and an amount of

plutonium that can easily be concealed in a shopping bag. ,
Today there are 565 nuclear power stations in 39 countries.

By the year 1985, it has been calculated, 40 countries will be in
a position to manufacture atomic bombs given the political will

to do so.

The possibility of making nuclear weapons from nuclear

A

power is by no means its only danger.

terms nuclear reactors,

Even taken on their own

indeed all aspects of the nuclear fuel

cycle, are seen to be as devastating as the nuclear weapons used

against Japan. The only difference between nuclear weapons
and nuclear reactors is that one goes off with a huge blast
while

the other releases its' radioactivity slowly, quietly, over

time.

But the effects are the same.: environmental damage and

human death and mutation.

[

12

]

Information compiled by Janet Aitken from :
1.

“From Hiroshima to Harrisburg’’ by Jim Garrison.

2.

“Nuclear Madness” by Dr. Helen Caldicott.

3.

“World Military and Social Expenditures 1980” by Ruth

Leger Sivard.

4.

‘‘Atomic bombs and human beings” by Arthur Booth,

5.

“The effects of a nuclear explosion ” by Andrew Utting.

6.

“What nuclear war

would mean” Speech by Philip Noel-

Baker in March 1980.

7.

Speech made on 11 th May 1979 on

presentation of Louise

Weisse Foundation Peace Prize by Earl Mountbatten.

8.

Proceedings of the First Congress

of the International Phy­

sicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, March 1981.
#

#

*

*

In preparation :

Nuclear bulletin 2:
threat of all time.”

“Radiation—the greatest public health

Published by : Health and Society group.

Address : M. Ganguli, C/O

Bimalendu Das. P. 0. Jag dishpur. Via, Madhupur ( S, P.) 815353

Bihar. Printed at Pratyaya Press, 24/1, Creek Row. Calcutta-14
Rs. 0-75

Nuclear Bulletin No. 2

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
MJ/lftFlrst FloorlSt. Marks Road

BANGAi n?»P -CCAnm—

RADIATION
The Greatest Public Health Threat
Of All Time

Health And Society Group.

Introduction
It is difficult to exaggerate the danger posed by radiation ;
it is difficult to imagine something that could present a greater
Yet, we cannot perceive its presence

throat to life on earth.

through our senses and its effects are insidious.

It is or.ly

when the full reality of its nature has penetrated our consci­
ousness, our imagination and our understanding that we rea­

lise the extent of the danger we are facing.

There are many

reasons why this understanding has failed to reach the vast
majority of people.
1
Relatively few people in the world have witnessed the
immediate effects of high dose radiation.

For most people

Hiroshima is a far off place and what happened there a past

event. But for those who live there or have visited since 1945
it is a constant reality. Besides Hiroshima, other fatalities
from high dose radiation have taken place within the confines
of nuclear power stations or nuclear weapons factories. The
relatives of the thousands of people around the world who have

died of the long-term effects of lower doses of radiation or
the parents of deformed babies, are not usually able to trace
the cause of their grief to a source of radiatiou.
2)
The Atomic Age began only 36 years ago and consi­
derable uncertainty still exists concerning the' long-term effects
of radiation. The latency period of cancer is 12 to 40 years
and genetic mutations do not often manifest themselves for
generations so we have barely began to experience the effects

radiation can have on us.
3)
Once radiation has leaked into the environment it is
impossible to control. Since we are dependent on the environ­

ment for our food, water, air, we cannot avoid contamination.
There is no protection and no effective treatment. Radiation
can persist in the environment of hundreds of thonsands of

years.

When the full horror of this dawns on us there are

many who close their minds to it : they do not want to know.
4)

Another reaction to the horror is that this is a com­

plicated subject and it is for the experts.

Often associated

with this attitude is a misplaced faith in the ability of science
and technology to come up with a solution. The “wonders”
of science have engendered a feeling that man can conquer

nature whereas, in reality, our survival depends . on our co­
operation with nature.
5)

Lastly, and most important of all, there are very

powerful vested-interests at work in government and industry

who do not want us to know and who publish misleading in­
formation and suppress sources of reliable fact.
We have enumerated here some of the obstacles in the
way of informing people about the dangers of radiation. They

are obstacles we have to overcome if we and our children are

to survive. This bulletin is produced in the hope that it will
help to spread awareness and in the faith that it is up to
ordinary people to make their voice heard against those who
are gambling with our destiny.

December 1981.

Radiation

“If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food
we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with
enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard
for greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.”

—Dr. Helen Caldicott in
‘‘Nuclear Madress.”

What is Radiation ?

You can’t feel it, see it, smell it
or taste it, but it can kill you.

All matter is made up of atoms.

Some atoms are unstable

or radioactive, that is, they spontaneously emit particles and
energy (radiation) and go on doing so until they have changed
to a stable form. This process is known as radioactive decay.

The rate at which radioactive elements decay is measured in
terms of ‘half-life’, that is, the time in which half the material

originally present will decay.

In this time, the emission of

radioactivity will also fall by half. Some elements decay
rapidly, Iodine-131, for example, has a half-life of only 8
days, while some have very long.half-lives, for example Pluto­

nium-239 has a half-life of 24,400 years. Strontium-90 has
a half-life of 28 years. Starting with 1 pound of Strontuim-90,
in 28 years there will" be | pound of radioactive material ;
in 28 more years there will be J pound and so on. In
general 10 half-lives need to elapse before a radioactive element

can be considered not to be dangerous.
In the course of radioactive decay atoms give off 3 major
forms of radiation - alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha radiation
is a stream of (relatively) slow-moving heavy particles which
do not have much penetrating power. They do not usually

penetrate the skin.

However they can enter the body by

ingestion in food or liquids or can be inhaled into the lungs.

When this happens all the destructive energy of the alpha par­
ticles acts directly on soft body tissue and the biological
damage is much greater than any other form of radiation.
Beta radiation is composed of particles several thousand

times smaller than alpha particles. It can penetrate a 6" block
of wood and so can pass through the skin to damage body
tissue.

But, as alpha radiation, it causes most serious and

irreparable damage when ingested or inhaled.

Gamma radiation is similar to X-rays and has the greatest
penetrating power.

It can penetrate concrete more than one

metre thick.
Once released into the air, waterways or the sea radio­

active elements do not disperse themselves evenly but are
taken up by living organisms. There they accumulate and are
concentrated. For example, Caesium-137 is concentrated in
fish to levels 1000 times those found in the river as a whole.

Strontuim - 90 results in far higher concentration in cows and
their milk than is found in the grass. The radioactivity does
not die with the death of the organism or animal. It is passed
on to those consuming the contaminated product and accumu­
lates there .
How radiation harms us.

Body cells have their own specific electrical charge in order
to function normally. All forms of radiation harm us by chang­
ing the normal electrical charge of an atom within our body
cells. The structure of the cells is disrupted and the chemical

balance needed to maintain proper funotionning of the cell is
altered. Sometimes the cells are killed outright or rendered
incapable of cell division ; sometimes the damage is repaired ;
sometimes the cell nucleus and its store of genetic information
is damaged but the cell survives and multiplies in its altered
form over a number of years and forms a group of cells that
is eventually diagnosed as cancer. When the cell affected is a
sperm or egg cell it can give rise to seriously damaged offspring
in the next or subsequent generations.

Different organs and tissues in the body absorb different

radioactive elements. For example Strontium-90 chemically
resembles calcium and is absorbed by our bones and can cause
bone cancer and leukaemia. Iodine-131 concentrates in the

thyroid gland to cause cancer.

Cesium-137 concentrates in

muscle tissue and the ova of females. The risk is much greater
for the very old and very young. Children are much more

susceptible than adults and infants and the unborn are the
most susceptible of all with, their rapidly dividing cells and
immature bodily defence systems.
Plutonium
Plutonium-239 is the most lethal carcinogen ^Cancer­

producing substance) known.

It is not found in nature ; it is

man made. Single particles weighing one millionth of a gram,
so small that they can only be seen under a microscope can
cause cancer of the lung if inhaled. (When exposed to air it
ignites spontaneously to produce particles of plutonium dioxide

which can be inhaled.) The toxicity of Plutonium can only
be understood by comparison. Potassium cyanide, pellets of

which have been used in gas chambers to kill convicted crimi­
nals within minutes, is generally thought to be one of the most
toxic substances available for use in capital punishment. The

single particle of Plutonium just described, however, is 20,000
times deadlier than a whole pellet of potassuim cyanide. Ten

pounds of Plutonium evenly distributed amongst every person
in the world, would give them all a high probability of dying
from cancer. Apart from causing cancer, it is concentrated by
the testicles and ovaries, where it will inevitably cause genetic
mutations which will be passed on to future generations. Each

operating nuclear reactor produces between 400 and 600
pounds of Plutonium each year in its normal operations. It
is the essential ingredient in the construction of nuckar

weapons.
The degree of damage camsed by radiation depends on the
type, the intensity and exposure time.

The amount of biolo­

gically damaging energy contained in radiation received by an
organism is expressed in rems. A very high dose of radiation

say 3,000 rems or more, causes acute encephalopathic syn­
drome.

Within 48 hours of exposure the brain cells swell and

cause increased pressure inside the skull leading to delirium,
fever, loss of muscle control and death. Such will be the effect
of the ‘ neutron bomb” which the Americans plan to produce.

A dose of 600 rems produces acute fatal radiation sickness.

AU actively dividing' cells are killed and henee hair falls out,
skin is sloughed off in big ulcers, vomiting and diarrhoea
occur and then white bloed cells and platelets die and victims
succumb of infection and / of massive haemorrhage.
Lower doses of radiation cause leukaemia 5 years after ex­
posure, cancer 12—40 years later and genetic diseases and ab-

normalites in future generations'. There is also a growing
body of evidence indicating that radiation produces a genera­
lised ageing effect on the body. It accelerates the breakdown
of the body and undermines resistance to disease. Data indi­
cates that the amount of radiation received from one heavy
abdominal X-ray is equivalent, roughly, to one year of aging.
Sources of radiation.
Natural “background” radiation comes from cosmic rays
from outer space and from certain radioactive rock strata.

Areas high in natural background radiation show a higher inci­
dence of health problems, for example, in Kerala there is an
abnormally high level of radioactive Thorium in the soil belie­
ved to be responsible for a high incidence of mongolism and

mental retardation there.
Man has so far added an extra 50 percent to the natural

background radiation we receive. Whereas cosmic rays are
made up of gamma-like rays, man-made radiation contains
more alpha and beta particles which, after ingestion in the

body, are much more dangerous;
One source of man-made radiation is from medical X-rays.
These have saved thousands of lives when used to diagnose

and treat diseases.

We are now more aware of their dangers

than in the past. Mass radiography programmes once so po­
pular are now no longer used. It has been concluded that

mass X-ray screening for breast concer resulted in approx-

8

imately 5 percent more cancers than they detected.

Dr. Ali­

ce Stewart found that one diagnostic X-ray to the pregnan
abdomen increases the risk of leukaemia in the offspring by 40
percent. In the West pregnant women are seldom X-rayed.
Even more importantly, man-made radiation comes from
the testing and fall-out of nuclear weapons. Numerous stu­
dies have shown health effects. For example, in St. George,

Utah, U.S. child leukaemia deaths rose by 250 percent follow­
ing the 1951 Nevada tests.

John Wayne, the American filmstar, died of
cancer this year. He was one of a film team that
shot a film in the Nevada desert. Since then mem­
bers of the team are, one by one, dying of cancer.
In Alberta, Canada, the Ministry of Health noted in 1962
a significant increase in stillbirths and birth defects following

the U.S.S R. tests in 1958. Study concluded that each
radioactive atom was 10 million to this 100 million times more
toxic to developing embryos than molecule of even something
as devastating as Thalidomide.
*
As well as producing energy, nuclear reactors create
large quantities of radioactive materials.

Leaks of radio­

activity into the environment occur, indeed some ‘‘routine”
releases of radioactive waste and gas are allowed for in nor­
mal operations.

Such releases occur at every stage from the

mining of the raw material, Uranium, through to processing
and storage of the highly radioactive waste products. The
Australian Atomic Energy Commission found an incidence of
leukaemia

and cancer amongst white Australian uranium

miners 6 times the expected norm.

These considerable health

risks not only effect those working but also those living near­
by mining areas and nuclear facilities and also transport

routes.
•

Thalidomide, taken by pregnant women during the 1960’s,

resulted in the birth of hundreds of grossly defromed
children.
9

Around the Big Rock Point reactor on Lake
Michigan, child leukaemia rates were found to be 4
times greater than the rest of the Michigan State.
A study by the Bremen Institute for Biological
Safety on the population around the Linger reactor
in W. Germany, found that 10 years prior to the
operation of the plant there were 30 leukaemia
.In the 10 years after nuclear operations began
ideathsj (1968-78), the same population suffered 230
deaths from leukaemia, 170 of these were children
under 15 years old.
Many of the radioactive elements in nuclear wastes remain
potentially dangerous for hundreds or even thousands of years.
We still have no safe way to store them in isolation from the
environment for this length of time.

Meanwhile they accu­
mulate leaving a problem for future generations. Some waste
For example 6000 curies (a curie is a measure of
the amount of radiation given off by a substance) of Plutonium
may be legally dumped in the Irish sea each year. As a result,
is dumped.

the level of radiation in the Irish Sea shows a ten-fold increase.
Accidents
Far from being as improbable as the nuclear industry

would like us to believe, accidents in nuclear power reactors
are a very common event.

In the U,S. in 1976 every 2J days there was a
reported failure of containment isolation at a
nuclear reactor ; a reported failure of main cooling
occurred 116 times that year ; failure of reactor
protection 82 times ; failures of other core and con­
tainment cooling systems 528 times. Altogether,
there was one failure every seventeen hours...
10

This incredible state of affairs becomes more credible when
one learns of the design and construction faults, the cracks
and corrosion of materials and radioactive leaks combined with
sheer carelessness.

Two reactor pressure vessels at San Onofre,
California were found to be installed backwards.
Safety instruments at Zion, Illinois, were
wrongly wired.
A 3000 gallon radioactive waste tank is found
to be connected with the plant’s drinking water
system...... etc.
The picture is similar in other countries. By the late
1960’s nuclear plants in Britain, the U. S., the U. S. S. R.,
Canada and Switzerland had all experienced major accidents.
Carrying out repairs is an extremely hazardous task in which
workers risk their lives and some have been killed. Sometimes
repairs are impossible and the whole plant is filled with con­
crete and entombed as happened after the immense fire in
windscale, Britain in 1957.

The most serious accident that can occur at a nuclear
reactor results from the loss of coolant in the reactor vessel.

The nuclear fuel in the core then heats up to such a degree
that it melts forming a mass of white-hot radio-activity.
This is called a meltdown. If emergency measures fail, as they
frequently have, or are wrongly managed, the core begins to
melt and collapse within 30 to 60 seconds. No one knows
what would follow nor what, if anything, could be done. It is
conceivable that it will melt its way through the floor and

foundations and begin burrowing its way into the earth.
Hence the name ‘ China Syndrome.” At Harrisburg. U. S., in
March 1979 a meltdown was only narrowly avoided and the
dangers are not over yet. The plant now contains thousands
of gallons of contaminated water and radioactive gas which
no one knows how to deal with.

11

In 1958 a huge explosion occurred at a plant in the S.Urals,
U.S.S.R.

Hundreds of square miles of land were so heavily

contaminated that entire villages were wiped out by death
and evacuation.

It is now a waste land devoid of life.

The

map of the area has been redrawn.

Any dose of radiation is an overdose

Until 1960 the view was prevalent that there is a thres­
hold level of exposure to radiation below which no harm can
result. Nuclear reactors were built on the basis of this theory.
They cannot operate without it for, as we have seen, radioac­
tive releases are routine. But the view that low doses of
radiation are safe has long since been abandoned.
The truth is that there is no safe dose of radiation because

it takes only one radio-active atom, one cell and one gene to

initiate the cancer or mutation cycle.

Any exposure at all

therefore constitutes a serious gamble with the mechanisms of
life. It is important to realise that the effects of radiation

build-up from one exposure to another.

Successive doses of

radiation add on to the damage done by the previous dose.
The biological effects of receiving separate small amounts of
radiation over time may be the same as receiving a large dose

all at once.
The nuclear authorities have been obliged to progressively
lower the permitted levels of exposure to radiation for workers

in industry :
1925

52 rem / year

1934
1950

36
15

1957

5

5 rems is the equivalent of severalh undred chest X-rays.

The public can at present legally receive 0’5 rem, the equiva­
lent of 17 chest X-rays.

Even these levels are considered by some experts to be
far too high.

12

A study at the Hanford Atomic Works in the U.S.A.
involving 25,000 men and women over a period of
29 years concluded that the dose required to double
a worker’s risk of cancer was well below the permi­
tted 5 rems a year. Less than 1 rem is the doubling
dose for bone marrow cancer.
The cover-up
The reason that the nuclear authorities are not concerned

with this evidence is quite simple—they are more interested in

porfits than in health. They therefore try to suppress studies
relating to the dangers of radiation. They do this by cutting
off funding as in the case of Dr. Thomas Mancuso, physician
and professor in the Public Health Department of the Univer­

sity of Pittsburg, U.S., and Dr. Irwin Bross and Dr. E. J.
Sternglass, Professor of Radiation Physics. They also engage
in personal attacks on these scientists quite out of keeping
with the rational and objective assessment of evidence that
should be the basis of scientific judgements. Information about
accidents is suppressed and the damage done is disregarded.
At the same time the data used to support the nuclear indus­
try’s arguments is unsatisfactory. For example it does not
take account of the long latency periods of cancers and fails
to recognise evidence to other blood diseases and damage to
immune systems apart from cancer. The nuclear authorities
arguments have been based on highly suspect experiments.

The A.E.C. ( Atomic Energy Commission. It was
replaced due to charges of corruption by the N.R.C.,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission but with no appre­
ciable change of staff,) studies were conducted to
determine whether food crops would take up dan­
gerous levels of radioactivity from the soil. Before
beginning the experiments, A.E.C. scientists made
preparatory tests on a variety of soils choosing for
their experiments' those soils which absorbed, the
13

least amount of rediation. Furthermore, as it was
then wellknown that plants have difficulty assimi­
lating radiation until they are acted upon by soil
bacteria, the scientists cooked their soil in ovens,
thus killing its bacteria. Finally the A.E.C. experi­
menters added the radioactive substances to the soil
just shortly before the plants were harvested, there
by avoiding the normal condition of plants growing
from seed in contaminated soil. Not surprisingly,
their conclusions showed hardly any radioactivity
getting into the plants.
While continuing to assure the public that nuclear power
is safe, neither government, nor nuclear industry nor insurance
companies have been willing to insure the utility companies
owning the nuclear reactors for the amount that would be
necessary to be paid out in damages when an accident occurs.

Safety inspections by the N.R.C. in the U.S. are generally
Daily respon­

confined to spot checks a few days each year.

sibility for plant inspection and radiation monitoring rests
with the company. Such an arrangement is similar to allow­

ing restaurant owners to inspect the cleanliness of their own
kitchens. The fact is that the agencies appointed to regulate

the nuclear industry in reality act to promote it. Falsifying
records concerning the radiation exposure of workers, for ex­
ample, is a common practice :

“We had these film badges we wore to indicate
exposure. Every few days they'd take up the badges
and send them off to the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (also run by the company) for analysis.
One day a few of us men laid our badges on a smo­
king chunk of uranium for eight hours and turned
it in. We never heard from it. They took urine
samples from us every ten days. Once somebody
dropped a small chunk of uranium in the urine
sample. Nothing was ever said about it.”
14

This worker from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, died in March
1980. His official death certificate asserts death from heart
failure. But he had a 30 pound cancerous tumour spread
around his spinal column.
The I.C.R.P. < International Commission on Radiological
Protection) is now recommending an increase in permissible
dose levels of between 2 to 8 times ! In their latest publica­
tion (No 26> they make the extraordinary statement : “Me­
dical surveillance has no part to play in confirming the effecti­

veness of a radiological protection programme.”
Ultimately the question of radiation should be a public de­
bate about social and political issues as well as technical and
scientific ones; about men and women deciding whether they
are prepared to believe in the experts’ latest assessment of the

risk.and whether, even if they believe it, they are prepared to
take that risk.

Information compiled bsf Janet Aitken from :

1)

“From Hiroshima to Harrisburg” by ^Jim Garrison.

2)
3)

“Nuclear Madness” by Ur. Helen Caldicott.
“The Big Risk, 'Nuclear Power” by Michael Flood.

4)

“Radiation your health at risk” published by the Radia­

tion and Health Information Service.
»

*

#

t
Available :
Nuclear bulletin 1 :
b

B

“The Worldwide Threat of Nuclear
Technology.” Rs. 0.75.

In preparation :
Nuclear bulletin 3 : “The only way out of the nuclear
nightmare” by George Kennan.
Rs. 0.50.

15

Rs. 0'75

Published by Health and Society group Address M. Ganguli
C/o Bimalendu Das, P.O. Jagdishpur Via Madhupur (S. P.)
815353 Bihar. Priented at Omi Press, 75, Pataldanga Street
Calcutta-700009. Phone : 35-0366

\0D
COMMON. ;V HEALTH CELL
$7/1,(First FioorlSt. Marks Ro
BANGALORE-560 001

The only way out of the
nuclear nightmare
By George Kennan

HEALTH AND SOCIETY GROUP

This is the text of the speech given by George Kennan
on May 19, 1981 when receiving the Albert Einstein
Peace Prize in Washington. He is Professor emeritus at the

Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and a former US
ambassador to the Soviet Union (1952-3) and Yugoslavia
(1961-3).

t)

WHAT can we do ?
Adequate words are lacking to express the full seriousness of

our present situation.

It is not just that the US is for the

moment on a collision course politically with the Soviet Union,
and that the process of rational communication between the

two governments seems to have broken down completely ; it
is also—and even more importantly - the fact that the ulti­
mate sanction behind the conflicting policies of these two
governments is a type and volume of weaponry which could

not possibly be used without utter disaster for us all.
For over thirty years wise and farseeing people have been
warning us about the futility of any war fought with nuclear

weapons and about the dangers involved in their cultivation.

Some of the first of these voices to be raised were those of

great scientist, including outstandingly that of Albert Einstein
himself. But there has been no lack of others. Every president

of the United- States from Dwight Eisenhower to Jimmy

Carter, has tried to remind us that there could be no such
So have
a great many other eminent persons.

thing as victory in a war fought with such weapons.

When one looks back today over the history of these
warnings, one has the impression that something has now
been lost of the sense of urgency, the hopes, and the excite­

ment that initially inspired them so many years ago. One
senses even on the part of those who today most acutely
perceive the problem and are inwardly most exercised about
it, a certain discouragement, when it comes .to the question
of raising the subject again.

So much has already been said.
What good would it
Look at the record. Over all these years the

The danger is so obvious.

What is to be gained by reiteration ?

now do ?

competition in the development of nuclear

weaponry has

proceeded steadily, relentlessly, without the faintest regard

3

fur all these warning voices. We have gone on pilling weapon
upon weapon, missile upon missile, new levels of destructive­
ness upon old ones. We have done this helplessly, almost
involuntarily : like the victims of some sort of hypnotism, like
men in a dream, like lemmings heading for the sea, like the

children of Hamelin marching blindly along behind their Pied
Piper.

And the result is that today wo have achieved, we and
the Russians together, in the creation of these devices and
their means of deliver, levels of redundancy of such grotesque
dimensions as to defy rational understanding.

I say redundancy. I know of no better way to describe
it. But actually, the word is too mild. It implies that there
could be levels of these weapons that would not be redundant.
Personally, I doubt that there could.

I question whether

these devices are really weapons at all. A true weapon is at
best something with which you endeavour to affect the be­
haviour of another society by influencing the minds, the
calculations, the intentions, of the men that control it ; it is
something with which you destroy indiscriminately the lives,
the substance, the hopes, the culture, the civilization, of
another people. What a confession of intellectual poverty it

would be —what a bankruptcy of intelligent statesmanship—if
we had to admit that such blind, senseless acts of des­
truction were the best use we could make what we have come
to view as the leading elements of our military strength 1
To my mind, the nuclear bomb is the most useless weapon
ever invented. It can be employed to no rational purpose.
It is not even an effective defence against itself. It is only

something with which, in a moment of petulance o r panic,
you commit such fearful acts of destruction as no sane person
would ever wish to have upon his conscience.
There are those who will agree, with a sigh, to much of
of what I have just said, but will point to the need for some­
thing called deterrence. This is, of course, a concept which
attributes to others—to others, who like ourselves, were born
of women, walk on two legs, and love their children, to

human beings, in short—the most fiendish and inhuman of
tendencies. But all right : accepting for the sake of argument

the profound iniquity of these adversaries, no one could deny,
I think that the present Soviet and American arsenals, presen­
ting over a million times the destructive power of the Hiro­
shima bomb,
are simply fantastically redundant to the
purpose in question.
If the same relative proportions were to be preserved,
something well less than twenty percent of these stocks would
surely suffice for the most sanguine concepts of deterrence,

whether as between the two nuclear superpowers or with rela­
tion to any of those other governments that have been so illadvised as to enter upon the nuclear path. Whatever their

suspicions of each other there can be no excuse on the part of
these two governments for holding, poised against each other
and poised in a sense against the whole northern hemisphere,
quantities of these weapons so vastly in excess of any rational
and demonstrable requirements.

How have we got ourselves into this dangerous mess ? Let
us not confuse the question by blaming it all on our Soviet

adversaries.

They have, of course, their share of the blame,

and not least in their cavalier dismissal of the Baiuch Plan, so

many years ago.

They too have made their mistakes, and I

should be the last to deny it. But we must remember that
it has been we Americans who, at almost every step of the
road, have taken the lead in the development of this sort of

weaponry

It was we who first produced and tested such a

device ; we who were the first to raise its destructiveness to a
new level with the hydrogen bomb ; we who introduced the
multiple warhead ; we who have declined every proposal for
the renunciation of the principle of ‘ first use” ; and we alone,
so help us God, who have used the weapon in anger against
others, and against tens of thousands of helpless non-comba­
tants at that.
I know that reasons were offered for some of these things.
I know that others might have taken this sort of a lead had

we not done so.

But let us not, in the face of this record, so

lose ourselves in self-righteousness and hypocrisy as to forget
our own measure of complicity in creating

the situation we

face today.
What is it then, if not our own will, and if not the
supposed wickedness of our opponents, that has brought us to

this pass ?

The answer, I think, is clear. It is primarily the inner
momentum, the independent momentum, of the weapon race
itself—the compulsions that arise and take charge of great

powers when they enter upon a competition with each other
in the building up of major armaments of any sort.

Is it possible to break out of this charmed and vicious
circle ?

It is sobering to recognise that' no one, at least to

my knowledge, has yet done so. But no one, for that matter
has ever been faced with such great catastrophe, such un­

alterable catastrophe, at the end of the line.

Others in earlier

decades, could befuddle themselves with dreams of something

called ‘ victory”;.

We, per haps'fortunately, are denied this

seductive prospect.

We have to break out of the circle.

We

have no other choice.
How are we to do it ?
I must confess that I see no possibility of doing this by

means of discussions along the lines of the negotiations that
have been in progress, off and one, over this past decade,

under the acronym of SALT.

I regret, to be sure, that the

most recent SALT agreement has not been ratified.

I regret

it, because if the benefits to be expected from that agreement

were slight, its disadvantages were even slighter ; and it had a
symbolic

value which should

not

have been so lightly

sacrificed.

But I have, I repeat, no illusion that negotiations on the
SALT pattern—negotiations, that is, in which each side is

obsessed with the chimera of relative advantage and strives
only to retain a maximum of the weaponry for itself while
putting its opponent to the maximum disadvantage-I have
no illusion that such negotiations could ever be adequate to

get us out of this hole.

They are not a way of escape from

the weapons race, they are an integral part of it.
Whoever does not understand that when

it comes to

nuclear weapons, the whole concept of relative advantage is
illusory—whoever does not understand that when you are

. talking about absurd and preposterous quantities of overkill
the relative sizes of arsenals have no serious meaning—
whoever does not understand that the danger lies not in the
possibility that someone else might have more missiles and

warehead than we do but in the very existence of these un­
conscionable quantities of highly poisonous oxplosives, and
their existence, above all, in hands as weak and shaky and
undependable as those of ourselves or our adversaries or any
other human beings : whoever does not understand these
things is never going to guide us out of this increasingly dark
and menacing forest of bewilderments into which we have all
wandered.
I can see no way out of this dilemma other than by a bold
and sweeping departure—a departure that would cut surgi­
cally through the exaggerated anxieties, the selfengendered
nightmares, and the sophisticated’ mathematics of destruction
in which we have all been entangled over these recent years

and would permit us to move, with courage and decision, to
ihe heart of the problem.
President Reagan recently said, and 1 think very wisely,

that he would ‘‘negotiate as long as necessary to reduce the

numbers of nucler weapons to a point where neither side
threatens the survival of the other.”

Now that is, of course,

precisely the thought to which these present observations of

mine are addressed.

But I wonder whether the negotiations

would really have to be at such great length ?
What I would like to see the President do, after due con­

sultation with the Congress, would be to propose to the Soviet
government on immediate across-the-boards

reduction

by

fifty percent of the nuclear arsenals now being maintained by
the two superpowers—a reduction affecting in equal measure
all forms of the weapon, strategic, medium range, and tacti­

cal

as well as all means of their delivery—all this to be

implemented at once and without further, wrangling among
the experts, and to be subject to such national means of veri­
fication as now lie at the disposal of the two powers
Whether the balance of reduction would be precisely

even—-whether it could be construed to favour statistically
one side or the other—would not be the question.

Once we

start thinking that way, we would be back on the same old
fateful track that has brought us where we are today.

What­

ever the precise results of such a reduction, there would still
be plenty of overkill left—so much so that if this first opera­

tion were successful, I would then like to see a second one

put in hand to rid us of at least two-thirds of what would
be left.
Now I have, of course, no idea of the scientific aspects of
such an operation ; but I can imagine that serious problems
might be presented by the task of removing, and disposing
safely of, the radio active contents of the many thousands of

warheads that would have to be dismantled.

Should this be

the case, I would like to see the President couple his appeal
for a 50 percent reduction with the proposal that there be
established a joint Soviet-American scientific committee,
under the chairmanship of a distinguished neutral figure, to
study jointly and in all humility the problem not only of the
safe disposal of these wastes but also the question of how

they could be utilised in such a way as to make a positive

contribution to human life, either in the two countries them
selves or-perhaps preferably—elsewhere. In such a joint
scientific venture we might both atone for some of our past
follies and lay the foundation
relationship.

for a

more

constructive

It will be said : this proposal whatever its merits, deals
with only a part of the problem.

This is perfectly true.

Behind it there wouid still lurk the serious political diffe­
rences that now divide us from

the

Soviet government

Behind it would still lie problems recently treated, and still
to be treated, in the SALT forum. Behind it would still lie
the great question of the acceptability of war itself, any war
8

even a conventional one. as a means of solving problems
among great industrial powers.
What has been suggested here would not prejudice the
continued treatment of these questions just as today, in

whatever forums and ur.der whatever

safeguards the two

powers find necessary. The conflicts and arguments over these

questions could all still proceed to the heart’s content of all
those who view them with such passionate commitment.

The

stakes would simply be smaller ; and that would be a great
relief to all of us.
What I have suggested is, of course, only a beginning. But
a beginning has to be made somewhere ; and if it has to be

made, it is best that it should be made where the dangers are

the greatest, and their necessity the last. If a step of this
nature could be successfully taken, people might find the heart

to tackle with greater confidence and determination the many
problems that would still remain.
It will be argued that there would be risks involved.
Possibly so. I do not see them. I do not deny the possibility.
But if there are, so what ? Is it possible to conceive of any
dangers greater than those that lie at the end of the collision
'course on which we are now embarked ’ And if not, why
choose the greater—why choose, in fact, the greatest—of all
risks, in the hopes of avoiding the lesser ones I
Wo are confronted here with two courses. At the end of

the one lies hope—faint hope, if you will—uncertain hope,
hope surrounded with dangers, If you insist. At the end of
the other lies, so far as I am able to see, nd hope at all.

Can there be-in the light of of our duty not just to ourselves
(for we are all going to die sooner or later) but of our duty to
our own kind, our duty to the continuity of the generations,
our duty to the great experiment of civilised life on this rare
and rich and marvellous planet—can there bo, in the light of
these claims on our loyalty, any question as to which cause

we should adopt I
In the final week of his life, Albert Einstein signed the
the last of the collective appeals against the development of

nuclear weapons that he was ever to sign. He was dead before

it appeared. It was an appeal drafted, I gather, by Bertrand
Russell. I had my differences with Russell at the time, as I

do now in retrospect ; but I would like to quote one sentence
from the final paragraph of the statement, ont only because it

was the last one Einstein ever signed, but because it sums up,

I think, all that I have to say on the subject. It read as follows
“We appeal, as human beings to human beings : Remem­
ber your humanity, and forget the rest”.

Published by M. Ganguli C/o Bimalendra Das, P.O.—Jagdishpur,
Via—Madhupur 815353, Bihar. Printed at Omi Press 75 Pataldanga
Street Calcutta-700 009.

Rs. 0'50

COMM

37/1, (fl ..
Nuclear Bulletin No. 4

'i'-A'.-li) CEL®,
■ -jrksRo®^
-UvOOl

The Insanity Of Nuclear
Power

Health And Society Group

Introduction

Nuclear power is not just a topic for “experts”.
It is not just a question of radioactive isotopes. It
touches our lives and our future and has implica­
tions far beyond the technical. In this bulletin, I
have aimed at explaining the case against nuclear
power from the point of view of health, economics,
its relevancy to our energy requirements and its
connection with nuclear weapons. Most of the re­
sources at my disposal are of Western origin That
does not mean that they are not relevant here. On
the contrary the arguments, if anything, gain
strength in the Indian context : the risks to health
may be greater especially in the absence of an in­
formed public; the economic condition of India plus
the abundant potential for the development of alter­
native resources, make the pursuit of such a centra­
lised, capital intensive and unreliable source ofenergy a nonsense. As for the connection with
nuclear weapons, India demonstrated this with the
explosion of a bomb in 1974. It is hoped to bring
out a bulletin specifically on nuclear power in India
in future.
September 1982.

The Insanity Of Nuclear Power
Many people’s idea of nuclear power stations is that they
produce electricity, (and more of that means “development”),
that they are an example of sophisticated technology (and that

is synonymous with ‘‘progress’’), that they are clean (no dirty
smoke), safe (a few technical problems to be sorted out in
time), cheap (after the initial outlay) and unlimited (coal won’t

last forever). In contrast to the horror of nuclear war,
war, nuclear power is seen as a socially useful application
of modern scientific know-how and technology. However,
when we break through the propaganda of the nuclear indus­
try and its allies, the reality we find is very different. Nuclear
reactors do not only produce electricity ; they produce pluto­

nium which is one of, if not the most lethal substances known.

It is used for making nuclear weapons and it is this which
makes nuclear power and nuclear weapons interdependent and
inseparable. The promotion of nuclear power, far from being
a diversion of resources to peaceiul purposes, is the direct
pathway to nuclear arms. Nuclear power can only be called
“safe” by those who are exceedingly ignorant or exceedingly
callous, andean only be called “cheap” by those whose account­

ing and economics do not stand up to rational and independent
scrutiny.

Nuclear power represents a huge squandering of

the earth’s resources and, apart from contributing to the dan­
ger of nuclear war, nuclear power is in its own right, as dan­
gerous as nuclear warfare. .

THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Nuclear power is not jiist a question of building nuclear

reactors. It is a whole chain of complicated links known as
the nuclear fuel cycle. All along the way there are hazards to
’

.

3

public health but it is the worker in the nuclear industry
who is most directly threatened. This is especially true in the

mines.
Mining
The nuclear fuel cycle begins with the mining of uranium
ore. It is the most dangerous form of mining. In- addition
to the usual risks, miners are exposed to radiation in the form

of radon gas.

According to the U.S. Public Health Service,
studies of uranium miners in the U.S. indicate
that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 of them can
expect to die of lung cancer while a study of
100 Navajo miners in New Mexico indicates
that the ultimate mortality from lung cancer ,
amongst them is likely to be above 50%, (al­
though otherwise lung cancer amongst the
Navajo tribe is virtually unknown.)
Even with new ventilation systems in the mines, cancer
amongst uranium miners will still be well .above the national

average. In the French colonies of Gabon and Niger and in S.
Africa and Namibia where proper ventilation is often not
ensured, conditions are worse.

Milling
The purpose of the uranium mill is to extract the uranium

from the ore. The end product is ‘•yellowcake”.
The
left-overs are called ‘ tailings” and are radioactive. Over the
years hundreds of millions of tons of these have accumulated.

These tailings are blown overland, contaminating wide areas or
else they are stored in “tailing ponds”. Radioactive effluent
has been leaking, for example, through the dams of tailing
ponds at Rum Jungle in Australia poisonning Finnis River
and contaminating over 100 square. kilometres of floodplain

and these leaks are expected to continue for another 100
years. In Colorado U.S. tailings were used in buildings until it

was found that there was an increase in congenital defects in

newborn babies and many of the buildings demonstrated high
radiation levels.

According to Dr. Walter H. Johnson, former
Associate Director of the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in testimony before the Atomic
Safety Licencing Board, on 21 September 1977,
the loss of life among future citizens from each
year’s commitment to the nuclear fuel cycle is
28,000 from the mill tailings alone. This N.R.C.
estimate means that by the year 2000, the
annual commitment to milling uranium will
mean 200,000 deaths in the U.S.
Uranium enrichment

Reactors use uranium fuel that is from 2?—4% uranium—
235, yet only 0 7% of naturally occurring uranium is uranium
235.

So it has to be “enriched” so that the uranium—235

content increases. The enrichment process is extremely expen­

sive, enrichment plants are huge and consume vast amounts
of energy. An enrichment plant uses' as much electricity
as a city of half a million people. The radioactive emissions

and effects of the tailings in the enrichment stage are similar
to those at the milling stage. 0.007% of all the uranium is
released directly into the environment either as a gas or liquid

effluent. Allowable radiation dosages for employees and those

living nearby are high.
<

Fuel fabrication

When the uranium has been enriched to its desired percen­

tage level of uranium—235, it is shipped to a fuel fabrication
plant where the uranium is converted into small pellets which
are placed into 12 ft. long by | inch wide tubing.

These are

thp fuel rods, 36,000 to 50,000 of which go to make up the
reactor core of each nuclear power station. During the fabric­
ation, workers are exposed to the dangers of low-level gamma

radiation emitted from the enriched fuel.

.

5

Nuclear reactors
The fuel rods of the core of the nuclear reactor are surro­
unded by water (or gas depending on the type of reactor), and

are ready to undergo fission. The nucleus of the uranim—235
atom breaks into fragments, plus heat and one or more free

neutrons.

The neutrons released by the splintering of each

nucleus in turn break up the nuclei of other atoms.

When

each free neutron absorbed by a uranium nucleus is replaced
by a free neutron released by another fissionning atom, the

reactor goes ’ critical” and the chain reaction becomes selfControl rods which absorb fast-moving neutrons
regulate the speed of the process. Fission releases a tremen­
dous amount of heat. The coolant surrounding the coreacts
sustaining.

both to cool the reactor core and to transmit the heat to boil
The boiling water produces steam which turns a tur­

water.

bine (as in a conventional power station) and generates elec­
tricity. Nuclear fission is thus a very sophisticated and

expensive method of boiling water, analagous to frying an

egg with a forest fire. Only a small part of the heat pro­
duced is used, the excess heat (about 66%) is discarded into
the environment damaging the ecological balance.
Uranium fission also throws off hundreds of radioactive iso­
topes—all carcinogenic and mutagenic, with half-lives ranging
from several seconds to 24,400 years and longer.

Each large nuclear reactor of 10U0 megawatt
capacity contains as much radioactivity as
would be released if 1,000 Hiroshima bombs
were .simultaneously exploded. A release of a
fraction of this can do serious environmental
and human damage.
Reactors are constructed with multiple barriers in order to

isolate and contain as much of this radioactive release as possi­

ble.

The principle barriers are the fuel cladding around the

uranium pellets, the covering around the reactor itself and the
containment building in which the reactor is placed.

Yet

penetration of these barriers can and does occur. With all the

stresses of heat and reactor operation, splits and holes are
made allowing radioactivity to escape into the coolant. So
inevitable are these fracturings of the fuel rods that 1% of
their radioactivity is allowed to be released into the coolant.
Studies in different countries have correlated the increased
radioactivity in the vicinity of nuclear reactors resulting from
allowed releases”, with increased cancer and leukaemia rates.
Studies have also shown rising strontium—90 levels in milk,
just one source of radiation.

Two things become clear :
1.
The actual releases into the environment occurring
are often considerably higher than admitted by the nuclear
industry, and
2.
What are stated to be harmless doses of radiation
are in fact not harmless at all.
In February 1976 3 men with 56 years of coinbined.work
experience at all levels of the nuclear industry resigned from
secure and well-paying positions as nuclear engineers at Gene­
ral Electric in U.S. They wrote :
‘‘Ike resigned because we could no longer justify devoting

our life energies to the continued development and expansion
of nuclear power—a system we believe to be so dangerous
that it now threatens the very existence of life on this

planet."

During their long testimony, these men claimed

among other things that the defects and deficiences in just the

design of nuclear reactors alone, created severe safety hazards
and that the combined deficiences ''in the design, construc­
tion and operation of a nuclear powpr station makes a nucle­
ar accident, in our opinion, a certain event."

Reprocessing
After a certain time, (about one year depending on the
type of reactor), the uranium —235 inside the fuel rods has all
been fissionned.

The fuel rods must be removed.

They are

usually reprocessed to extract uranium and plutonium. This
is an extremely hazardous and messy business. All the opera­
tions must be carried out by remote control behind heavy

shielding. Technical failures at these plants are commonplace.

Hardly an hour passes without a repair needed somewhere.

Apart from internal contamination of workers, considerable
quantities of radioactive materials in both gaseous and liquid
form are released into the external environment. Reprocessing
is such a difficult and risky business that it has more or less

been abandonned in the U.S. Some people haven’t given up
though. Reprocessing plants are planned in Britain, Germany,

India and Japan.
Transportation
Transportation of nuclear materials is an essential aspect

of the nuclear fuel cycle. Most shipments move on regular
commerce routes and in regular, conventional transport vehicles. They are subject to the same transport hazards as non­
radioactive cargo including accident and theft. In some cases

|

careful design of containersis insisted on, in some cases not.
Between 1971 to ’75. 36 accidents occurred in the U.S. involv­

ing radioactive materials that resulted in the release of excess
radiation levels into the atmosphere.

On October 31,1977, residents of MeluniFrance,
discovered a concrete-encased drum bearing a
radioactive-waste symbol in the middle of the
city’s marketplace. The drum had fallen from
a passing truck. The local council was less than
satisfied by French Atomic Energy Commission
assurances that checks for radiation leaks had
proved “totally negative”.
Waste disposal

No solution has yet been found to the problem of waste

disposal.

Due to the immense time it takes for high-level

waste to cool down and become harmless, no final resting-place
has been found as no method can be guaranteed to be com­

pletely safe. Reprocessing of one ton of fuel produces approxi­

mately 5 cubic metres of high-level waste which is both ther­

mally hot and intensely radioactive and requires continual
cooling. There are.tens of thousands of tons of waste so toxic
that fractions of an ounce cankill or mutilate over thousands of

8

£

years.

This high-level waste is accumulated and put in tem­

porary storage. Carbon-steel tanks cannot last more than 25
years, newer stainless steel tanks more than 50’ years.

In the U.S. in 1973 more that 400,000 gallons
of high-level radioactive waste seeped away
from one storage facility at Hanford on the
Columba River before the leak was discovered.
There was also a big leak from Windscale’s storage tanks

in U.K. in 1976. Low-level waste is routinely discharged into
the surroundings, buried in the ground (for example contam­
inated plant equipment, clothing), or dumped in the sea (for
example, between 1946 and 1970, the U.S. encased 47,500
55-gallon drums of low-level waste in concrete-lined steel
drums and dumped them into the Pacific Ocean. One third of
these drums are now leaking radioactivity into major fishing

grounds.)
Every nuclear power station will eventually end up on the
radioactive garbage heap because a plant can operate only 20
to 30 years before it becomes too radioactive to repair or
maintain. It will become a radioactive mausoleum for hun­

dreds of thousands of years.
Technologists have offered a number of ingenious proposals
ranging from solidification of high-level waste in glass con­
tainers and burial in salt formations, to lowering waste into

ocean trenches, burying it under Antarctic ice, or launching

rockets loaded with it into.the sun. None of these techniques
have been proven to be practical or safe. In the words of
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Hannes Alfven—“1/ a problem

is too difficult to solve, one cannot claim its solved by pointing

to all the efforts made to solve it”.

Faith in technology to

come up with a solution is similar to a doctor reassuring a
patient suffering from terminal cancer by saying : ‘Don’t

worry, my medical training will enable me to discover a cure.

Even if unbreakable, corrosion-resistant containers could be
designed, any storage site on earth would have to be kept

9

under constant surveillance by incorruptible guards, adminis­
tered by moral politicians living in a stable, warless society
and left undisturbed by earthquakes, natural disasters and
other acts of God for no less than half a million years.

ACCIDENTS
As we have seen “routine releases’’ occur all the time du­

ring the nuclear fuel cycle. “Abnormal releases” due to
accidents are common also. Four points need to be stressed :
1. Firstly, that accidents are a frequent occurrence in
nuclear power stations. Why are accidents so common ? A '
nuclear reactor is immensely complicated made up of millions

of parts which must be made, assembled and operated with
little room for error. The design of a nuclear power station
is extremely complex, its construction very difficult. Various
aspects of plant management are in the hands of specialists
who do not necessarily understand the work of—or even
communicate with—other speciality groups. No one indivi' dual or group coordinates the complete process of building
and operating a reactor. Nuclear power stations operate under

many untested, theoretical principles.

Certain safety systems

are built on the shaky test results of computer models.

Many

components are made of metals susceptible to failure from
contact with the nuclear environment.

leaks are common.

Corrosion, cracks and

The combination of these technical factors

and the “human factor” have resulted in a fatal mixture on

several occasions. This was expressed by one-of the engineers

resigning from General Electric when he wrote : “ We cannot
design to cover the human error, and 1 am convinced that
the safety of nuclear reactors hangs on the human factor."
The truth of this was born out at Harrisburg where “the

accident was initiated by mechanical malfunctions in the plant
and made much worse by a combination of human errors in
responding to it.” (The report of the President’s Commission).

The human factor has shown itself up in sheer carelessness,

for example : in one reactor a 7 hour fire knocked out emer­

10

gency cooling, closed down another and damaged hundreds of
cables. The cause ? A candle handled carelessly by an
It has shown itself up in the pursuit of profit at
the expense of safety and in ignorance : The N.R.O. Chairman
during the Harrisburg accident said : “ We are operating
electrician.

almost totally in the blind. (Pennsylvanian Governor
Richard Thornburgh ’s) information is ambiguous, mine is
nonexistent and—I don’t know, its like a couple of blind
men staggering around making decisions.”
2.

Secondly, unlike in other industrial accidents where

the toll of fatalities is quickly apparent, the effects of acci­
dents in nuclear power stations often take a long time to
manifest themselves. The effects of radiation exposure are
often latent. During the Harrisburg accident, one set of.

readings for radioactive release was greater than 1000 rems
per hour. (U.S. federal safety standards set 170 millirems per
year as average human exposure.) It is expected that the
people of Harrisburg will suffer a high rise in leukaemia deaths

from 1984 onwards.

3.
Thirdly, a major accident (for example a “meltdown ’,
see nuclear bulletin No. 2) is potentially far more dangerous
than any other kind of industrial accident

Various estimates

have been given of the possible number of casualties in the

event of a major disaster. The A.E.C.’s Rasmussen report of
1975 came to the conclusion :
3,300 quick deaths,

45 000 cancer cases.
5,100 genetic defects.
The report has been demolished by a number of qualified
critics, for example, the U.S. Environmental
Agency put the death toll 10 times higher.

4.

Protection

Fourthly, the nuclear establishment is constantly at

pains to hush up and minimise any accidents that do occur.
During an accident in the Enrico Eermi 1 plant, south of
Detroit in October 1966, an alert went out to all local police
and civil defence authorities to prepare for emergency evacua­
tion of Detroit and other centres. So, at least, insist some of

those who received the alert. Official records now show no
evidence of an alert ; the only way to reconcile the conflicting
stories is to presume that a directive was subsequently issued
to expunge all trace of it After the accident at Harrisburg,
Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, commented : ‘ For political
reasons the mass evacuation that should, have been carried

out was not because it would, have shown 150 million people
watching television a picture of half a million people flee­
ing from a potential disaster. That picture would have

terminated the nuclear industry there and then.”
The only possible conclusion from the foregoing is that the
nuclear industry is more concerned to protect its investments
and profits than to promote the safety and well-being of its

employees and the public.

“TOO CHEAP TO METER...”
There was a time when it was believed that nuclear power
would be ‘ too cheap to meter”. In practice, however, nuclear
power has proved both expensive and inefficient.
The expense involved in building a nuclear reactor is

large :

The cost of installing nuclear power is close to
twice that for coalfired generation of electricity.
(ref. Charles Komanofi,independent consultant
in energy economics, quoted in “The costs of
nuclear power.”)
In the past nuclear energy could only be presented as com­
petitive with traditional forms of electricity generation when

fuel and labour costs were low offsetting the initial outlay.
In fact, however, both cost of construction and cost of fuel

have soared.

Costs of construction have soared when one

unsafe practice after another has been exposed and forced re­

actor builders to make extensive changes to their original

designs.

Costs of fuel have risen as the mining companies

curtailled production to push up the price of uranium ore (it
increased 400J& in 4 years).

The nuclear industry has employed various methods in an
attempt to present nuclear power as an economically viable
proposition. These attempts are nothing more nor less than
statistical manipulation and faulty accounting techniques.
The cost of nuclear power has been consistently underestimated.
The data, for example, of the Central Electricity ■ Generating
Board in the U.K., fails to produce figures which would enable
one to make meaningful comparisons with other forms of elec­
city generation. Their figures for the cost of generating electri­
city with nuclear power :—
—do not usually include the full cost of capital.
—never include the major costs of research

and

development,
— have not always included interest charges during cons­
truction, or interest charges on stored fuel.
— they are based on notional operating capacities which are
always an overstatement of the actual operating performances
of nuclear power stations.
—the C.E.G.B. consistently understates the cost of fuel in
relation to coal.
—either excludes the costs of decommissionning nuclear
power stations and the disposal of waste or adds notional

figures which understate the likely cost.

(The maximum life

of a reactor is around 30 years. It is as yet unknown how
much it would cost to decommission a reactor but some esti­
mates indicate the cost will be comparable to the original

construction costs.)
The most thorough study so far of nuclear power costs in
the U.S. by Charles Komanoff demonstrates tbat producing elec­

tricity from nuclear reactors is at least 25% more expensive
than coal.
Nuclear power has never been subject to conventional eco­
nomic tests.

The development of nuclear power would not

have been possible without huge amounts of government

13

money. Government grants and subsidies to the nuclear
industry, both direct and indirect, have kept costs artificially
low and guaranteed company profits. In other words, the

taxpayer’s money has ensured that the nuclear industry stay
in business when by any normal reckonning it was an eco­
nomic disaster.
INEFFICIENCY AND UNRELIABILITY

“Their unreliability is becoming one of their most depen­
dable factors”—Wall Street Journal
Inspite of the huge financial and political backing for the
nuclear industry, it has failed to produce the goods. More
than a quarter of a century after the first power-producing
nuclear plant was built, nuclear power production still accounts
for less than 10% of electricity production in most countries

that possess nuclear plants.
Nuclear power stations in the U.S. run at about 60% capa­

city.

Given the huge capital outlay this is very poor perfor­

mance. In 1979, the large Pressurised Water Reactors in the
U.S. produced less than 50% of their designed output. The
Harrisburg reactor was in full operation for a mere 5 weeks
before the accident which put it totally out of action. The

cost of those 5 weeks of electricity including current estima­
tes of cleaning up could be as high as 2 billion dollars. In

West Germany, up to half of all reactors have been out of
order at any one time. In the U.K., the Advanced Gas-cooled
Reactor was developed at a cost of between £8,700 and
£11,100 million.‘‘The only return on this investment spread so

far over 15 years has been the intermittent output of electri­
city from the two of the five stations which have worked,whose
4 reactors have averaged roughly 30% of their design capa­
city since 1976”. (Duncan Burn quoted in “The costs of nuclear
power”.) Ln Switzerland a reactor core blew up after two years

and the reactor had to be scrapped.

In Sweden a reactor

couldn’t be made to work at all and was refitted to run on oil.
This poor operating record is due to the inability of the

nuclear industry to deal with the technical problems inherent

14

i

in nuclear engineering and technology.

In a nuclear reactor

the repair of a mere pipe, a simple task under ordinary condi­
tions, often requires the plant to be shut down. Some time
ago, a pipe failed on a reactor north of New York City, As a
result the plant was rendered inoperable for 6 months and
1700 certified welders were needed to repair the damage. It
was necessary to hire that many because within a few minutes
each worker would receive the dose of radiation deemed allo­

wable for a 3 to 6 month period.

When dangerous faults are

detected this can lead to all reactors of the same type being

closed for inspection.

The notion that nuclear is a superior

technology simply does not correspond to the facts.

DO WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER ?
Another argument of the pro-nuclear lobby is that we

need nuclear power.

The mainstay of this argument is that

we need more energy and that other sources of energy—coal

and oil — are limited in supply.
In answer to this it should first be clear that nuclear power
only produces electricity and electricity is but a part of our

energy requirement. How big a part ? Electricity can, tech­
nically, be used for many purposes, but it is not always the
best (i.e. most economical and socially relevant') form of ener­

gy : it depends on what the. energy is used for. (In many
cases electricity costs twice as much to deliver as to generate.)

Electricity, if looked at economically even in industrialised
countries, makes up only about one tenth of total energy needs
(for example for lighting, electronics, public transport and
certain mechanical processess). The other nine tenths are best

taken care of by other forms of energy. Besides, even if we
did disregard the economics and push ahead with more nuclear
power stations :—
—nuclear power cannot abolish the need for oil : it has
been demonstrated that even if all the oil-fired power stations

were replaced immediately by nuclear, it would only reduce
oil consumption in the Western industrialised countries
by 12X-

15

—even with a full-scale nuclear programme including 1,000

Fsat-breeder Reactors in the world, nuclear power could not

increase its contribution beyond 10% of the world’s energy
needs.

Why ?
Uranium reserves, unlike oil and coal, are very limited.
(Barry Commoner in “The poverty of power”, estimates that

in 1974 the U.S. had sufficient reserves of petroleum to meet
total U.S. needs at current levels of usage for 50 to 60 years.
A report by the U.N. Economic Committee for Europe estima­
tes proven measured reserves of coal could last another 215
years.) Naturally occurring nuclear fuel if simply used once

will maintain a full-scale nuclear programme for only a few
decades at the most. It is here that the Fast-breeder Reactor
is meant to come in. They are not run on uranium but oh
plutonium (produced in other reactors). In theory they can
produce more plutonium than they burn by “breeding” pluto­
nium in a zone around the core. This plutonium can be ex­
tracted and used to fuel more Fast-breeder reactors.
Although the technology of Fast-breeders has been under
development for over 30 years, there are as yet no commercial
Fast-breeders in the world (with the possible exception of the

U.S.S.R.).
A Fast-breeder requires a great deal of plutonium—at least

3 tons. The supply of this plutonium depends on production
in conventional reactors (the only source), which in turn dep­
ends on the supply of uranium.

Supposing enough plutonium

can be made out of existing reserves of uranium to fuel 1 000
Fast-breeders in the world, even then nuclear power would
only supply 10% of the world’s energy needs by the year 2005.

When these Fast-breeders are running, it takes a long time
for a Fast-breeder to produce plutonium in the amounts required to fuel another Fast-breeder. It takes not years but deca­

des (30 to 60 years.)
Fast-breeders are particularly hazardous.

An expanded

“plutonium economy” means that vast amounts of plutonium

16

will be produced and transported. A mere | kg. of plutonium
finely divided and inhaled could cause 21 billion cases of lung

cancer. A lump half the size of a tennis ball can wreck a
small city. Once out of control, a fission reaction in a Breeder
could cause not only a meltdown but also a full fledged nuclear
explosion. In addition, Breeders are cooled with liquid sodium
(rather than water), a substance that ignites spontaneously

when exposed to air and is therefore highly dangerous in its
own right. It was probably this that caused a Breeder explo­
sion at Shevenko, U.S S.R. in 1974.

WHY NUCLEAR POWER ?
in the last analysis there is no such thing as the civil
atom or the military atom.”—Sir John Hill, ex-chairman of
A.E.A. in ATOM. 1979.

To most people the immensity of the problem of waste
disposal alone would put the whole idea of nuclear power in

question.

Add to this all the other risks involved in all

aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, especially reprocessing plus
the obvious economic disadvantages of nuclear power, then the

reason why nuclear power has been developed at all requires
to be further investigated.

There are some secondary, though nonetheless important
reasons. In the West these include political considerations :
the coal miners have been getting increasingly organised and

militant ; uranium reserves are in ‘‘safe” places like the U.S.,
Canada, Australia and S. Africa.
The primary reason for the development of nuclear power is
that it was in the interests of the military.

The ‘‘first nuclear

power station” at Calder Hall in the U.K., opened with great
ceremony in 1956 was, in fact, not primarily built to produce

electricity but was designed and built to produce weaponsgrade plutonium.

This was not just true of Calder Hall.

All

the first large reactors were operated exclusively to generate

neutrons and turn uranium-238 into plutonium-239 for nuclear
weapons.

They generated electricity only as a by-produot.

17

Nuclear power has never lost its associatian with nuclear

weapons.
It is true that plutonium is better obtained directly from
a reactor geared solely to the production of military grade plu­
tonium (a “plutonium pile”). But, by changing the fuel in a

‘‘civilian reactor” more frequently, weapons-grade plutonium
is made available. (Besides, in 1977, the Americans detonated
a bomb made from reactor-grade plutonium showing that this
is possible.) This may be a less efficient method of producing
plutonium but it has some very distinct advantages :
It is economically advantageous. The “civilian reactor” is

a preferable route for producing plutonium because it can also
produce electricity which improves the economics.
It is politically advantageous.

It is politically preferable

because, whereas the building of a plutonium pile would signal
to the world that the country concerned was intent on making
nuclear weapons, the presence of nuclear reactors, (although
they may be used for the purpose of obtaining plutonium for
nuclear weapons), cannot be said to be such an obvious threat

to other countries.
It is technically advantageous. “Civilian reactors” can be
easily bought from abroad along with subsides and technical
training and advice.
Statistics about plutonium are obscured in secrecy.

But

evidence available strongly suggests that plutonium, for exam­
ple from Britain’s ‘‘civilian reactors”, is being diverted to the

military.

1.

There are three arguments which support this

Calculations about the quantities of plutonium from

purpose-built plutonium piles show that there has not been
enough to fulfil military requirements.
2.

At certain times, the Central Electricity Generating

Board has been instructed by the government to modify nucle­

ar reactor designs to make them more suitable as plutonium
suppliers to the military.
3.

There is an unexplained difference between the amount

of plutonium produced in the U.K, and the amount in stock.
All that needs to be said about the so-called saie-guards

which are meant to deter civilian reactors being used for mili
tary purposes, is that they are useless.
Thanks to its military birthright, nuclear power has never
had to face the critical scrutiny accorded to other technologi­

4

cal innovations. Secrecy was and is still a striking aspect not
only of the military side of nuclear power, but also of the civi­
lian side. There has been no open debate. Huge amounts of
money (at least 200 billion dollars in U.S.) are now tied up in
the nuclear industry which it is determined to protect. Yet,
due to its.own inherent problems and to public opposition,
nuclear programmes in the West and in Japan are far less
ambitious than they used to be. After the floodtide of advance
between 1964 and 74, the nuclear industry in the U.S. has
gone into severe decline. New plant orders were 41 in 1973,
20 in ’74 and nil in ’78. According to a report in the U.S.
journal “Business Week’’ (25 12.78), “ ..within ten years, the
U.S. nuclear industry is apt to contract dramatically and

it may collapse altogether.” (It is interesting that this decline
preceded the increase in oil prices which should have given it

a big advantage, and preceded the Harrisburg accident.)
How then is the nuclear industry to protect
investment ?
1.
By supplying plutonium to the military.

its

This as we

have seen, has always been an important aspect of nuclear

power.

The nuclear power industry has a vested interest in

an escalating arms race.
2.
Through export and pushing sales abroad.

.

Both U.S.
and European reactor builders have tried to soften the econo­
mic blow by seeking reactor markets in the developing world.
The hazards to health are often even greater when important
changes and modifications made in domestic nuclear plants
are not included in ones sold abroad, and, changes in design

after purchase are not subject to safety checks.
Opposition to these sales is often presented by nuclear
power

advocates as

condemning developing countries to

continuing poverty.

But, if these nuclear enthusiasts were
seriously concerned about raising the standard of living in

19

these countries, the first step that they would advocate would
be an end to the current system of economic relations between
developed and developing countries which keeps the develop­
ing countries continually in debt. Nuclear power is no way

out of this situation, on the contrary, it makes it worse.
Those concerned to raise standards of living in developing
countries should be interested in creating energy relevant to
the needs of the people, to satisfy the basic -human needs of
heating, cooking, lighting and pumping. Nuclear power is
particularly inappropriate for developing countries since it is
highly capital intensive and requires large electrical grids
suitable only for highly centaalised electrical supply systems.
Alternate

energy programmes using renewable sources of

energy, for example solar and wind power, are more diverse
and flexible, quicker to build, encourage local production, .
are safe and non-polluting, unlimite d
It is a classic

case of double-think among nuclear advocates to maintain
that technology will ’ find the answer to the disposal of
nuclear waste but that it cannot develop alternative sources
of energy for technical reasons. The reason why, up to now,
renewable sources of energy have not been developed on a
larger scale is due to the small amounts of funds allocated
for their development.

(In the U. K., for example, in 1981,

£170 million was allocated for research and development of
nuclear power and only £9 million on renew able sources.)

This state of affairs is likely to continue until more people
wake up to the perils and insanity of nuclear power.

Information compiled by Janet Ganguli from :-

20

1.

‘‘Nuclear Power for beginners” by S. Croall and K.
Sempler.

2.

‘‘We all live on Three Mile Island” by Greg Adamson.

3.

‘‘Nuclear Power” by Walter C. Patterson.

4.

“From Hiroshima to Harrisburg” by Jim Garrison.

5.

“Atoms for War” by Howard Clark.

6.
7.

‘‘The costs of nuclear power” by Colin Sweet.
“Nuclear Madness’’ by Helen Caldicott.

S.

‘ The Big Risk” by Michael Flood.

Available :
Nuclear bulletin 1 : “The Worldwide Threat of Nuclear Tech­
nology.” Rs. 0.75.

Nuclear bulletin 2 : “Radiation : the greatest public health
threat of all time.” Rs. 0.75.
Nuclear bulletin 3 : “The only way out of the nuclear night­

mare” by George Kennan.”

Rs. 0.50.

In Preparation

Nuclear bulletin 5 : “Karen Silkwood : victim of the nuclear
police state.”
Nuclear bulletin 6 : “A History of the anti-Nuclear Move­
ment.”

21

IP2'-

Nuclear Bulletin No. 5

HEALTH CEU

* BAIM^« o.k-sso
Marl(sRoat?
001

KAREN SILKWOOD:
Victim Of The Nuclear
Police State

Health And Society Gtouji

INTRODUCTION
Nuclear power is dangerous. Plutonium, which it produces,

Whereas nuclear weapons are kept under the guard
of the military, nuclear power stations, though just as dange­

is deadly.

rous as nuclear weapons, are not kept under military surveillence. The threat of theft, loss and sabotage of nuclear mate­
rials is very real. The danger of nuclear power to the workers

in the nuclear industry and to the public as a whole, has given

rise to widespread opposition.

The nuclear establishment is

well aware of the threat to it from these two sources : poten­
tial terrorism and public opposition and it is taking counterac­
tive measures. These measures amount to an erosion of civil
liberties.
From the beginnings of nuclear power and its development

with out any form of open debate and decision-making, the
pursuit of nuclear power has run contrary to democratic free­
doms. As nuclear power has progressed so too has its effects on

democracy taken more concrete form.

The workforce in the

nuclear industry has been the first to suffer.

The risks they

face exist beyond their control and often beyond their aware­
ness when they are kept deliberately in ignorance by the man­
agement. The right of labour to organise itself in its own

defence is curtailled. In Australia industrial action in the
nuclear industry is already outlawed. Under the Official Secerets Act in the U.K. the government and the nuclear industry
is allowed to keep nuclear installations cloaked in secrecy and

the employees are forbidden to communicate anything about

their work. Apart from this, special atomic police forces exist
today in several countries.
Britain has gone the farthest in officially curtaining civil

liberties in the name of protecting the ‘‘plutonium economy”,
and has set up a nation-wide guard force of constables under

the direct control of the atomic authorities and which is not

2

directly accountable to any government minister.

This guard

force has privileges in relation to carrying weapons not gran­
ted to any other police unit. The duty of this force is not
only to guard plutonium, but to keep tabs on “dissenting
political groups”. According to the Sixth Report of the Royal

Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1976 : ‘‘An effective

security organisation could not be merely passive, simply re­

acting to events.

It would need to have an active role-.-that
is. to infiltrate potentially dangerous organisations, monitor

the activities of nuclear employees and members of the public

and, generally, carry out clandestine operations. It would also
need to have powers of search and powers to clear whole areas
in an emergency. Such operations might need to be conducted
on a scale greatly exceeding what would otherwise be required

on grounds of national security in democratic countries. The
fear is expressed that adequate security against nuclear threats
will be obtained only at the price of gradual but inexorable

infringements of personal freedom.”
The story of Karen Silk wood illustrates how nuclear power
not only threatens our health and our future, but also our

personal freedom.
The following extract about Karen Silkwood from Jim

Garrison’s book “From Hiroshima to Harrisburg” is reprinted
with the kind permission of the SCM Press, London. We are
publishing this bulletin to commemorate the anniversary of
her death on 13th November*.

November 1982.

This bulletin has been co-sponsored by THE COMMIT­
TEE FOR A SANE NUCLEAR POLICY COSNUP).

M-120, Greater Kailash-I

New Delhi-110048.

Karen Silkwood :
Victim of the nuclear police state
In early 1972, Karen Silkwood, a 26-year-old mother of
three children, went to work for the Kerr-McGee (KM)
Nuclear Facility in a little Oklahoma town named Cimarron.
Trained in physics and a firm believer in the benefits of nu­
clear power, she was hired as a laboratory technician to test
the quality of the plutonium fuel being produced at the plant.
KM had been awarded a multi-million dollar contract to pro­
duce the plutonium fuel rods for an experimental plutonium-

fired Fast-Flux Breeder Reactor being built by the Westing­
house Corporation near Richmond, Washington.
Once working, Karen became quickly involved in the

efforts of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union (OCAW) to organize the workers into a local branch of

the OCAW. The main reason for organizing was worker com­
plaints about the lack of regard for their health and safety.

Many were put on the plutonium production lines without
any training at all, the physical plant leaked highly radio­
active materials out on to the floor, contaminating dozens of
workers at a time ; and KM management, in order to meet
production quotas, ordered workers to stand in contaminated
areas and to continue working while clean-up crews attempted
to decontaminate the area around them.
By the begining of 1973, the situation had deteriorated to
the point where the OCAW, which had by then won union

status, brought the workers out on strike. Non-union workers
were brought in, however, and, completely untrained, were
put to work on the plutonium production lines.

KM was

going to prove that no union could ‘break’ the tough oil-men
of the KM Corporation.

KM proved too big to beat, and by the late spring of

1973. the union was forced to return to work under a weaker
contract than the one they had before the strike. Seizing this
initiative, during the summer of 1973 KM began a campaign

to ‘de-certify’ the OCAW as the union authorized to repre<

sent the workers in the 1974 re-negotiation of their contract.
As part of this decertification campaign, KM issued formal
written orders forbidding the workers to discuss working
conditions with anyone outside the plant, claiming that such
discussions ‘compromised the security’ of the nuclear installa­

tion. Workers were also specifically forbidden to talk to
anyone from the news media
When some uranium pellets
were found scattered around the plant, KM management
seized upon the opportunity to force workers to undergo liedetector tests.
They were subjected to questions about
their union support ; their contacts with union organizers ;
their sex lives, their use of drugs, and whether or not they

had ever made any ‘anti-Kerr-McGee’ remarks to anyone from
the news media.
Those who refused to take these tests were either fired or
transferred to the wet ceramic division of the plant, an area
with an extremely high incidence of radioactive contamination
and were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) as ‘suspects’ in the uranium pellet scattering incident.
In July 1974, the Corporation forced the ‘de-certification’
election—and narrowly lost. OCAW thus was assured of the
right to represent the workers in the new contract negotiations
scheduled to legin on 13 November 1974. In August, Karen
Silkwood (along with Jack Tice and Gerald Brewer) was elec­
ted to be a union negotiator. By December of 1974, Brewer
had been fired, Tice had been transferred to the wet ceramic
area, and Silkwood was dead.
The following is an account of the events leading up to
her death.
When Silkwood was elected to be one of the union repre­

sentatives, her area of responsibility was the issue of health
and safety
The union had been crushed in its first strike
over the health and safety issue back in 1972, and she was

determined not to have it happen again She interviewed all
the workers who had ever reported KM violations of the
health and safety rules ; she memorized the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) regulations promulgated to safeguard the
health of the workers, and she couducted her own health and
safety inspections of the plant during her free time, compiling
a long list of violations she herself noticed.
Knowing what the health and safety regulations were and

seeing the violations of these rules by KM, Silkwood flew
back to Washington, DC, in September 1074 and testified

behind closed doors before the AEC. asserting that KM was
guilty of violating some forty different health and safety

regulations. The response of the AEC was to tell Silkwood
and the OCAW that they would have to further ‘document’
these accusations before it would act in any way.
On 27 September 1974, during her stay in Washington,
Silkwood first informed the OCAW that KM was not only
guilty of gross violations of health and safety regulations but

was seriously violating quality control standards as well. She
told Tony Mozzochi, Vice President of the Union, and Steve
Wodka, Mozzochi’s assistant, that she could get documented

proof that KM officials were knowingly ‘doctoring’, with
magic marker, the safty inspection X-rays which, by AEC
regulation, had to be taken of each plutonium fuel rod to in­
sure that it was not leaking radiation through faulty welding.

Tony Mozzochi was later to testify in federal court that these
charges by Silkwood ‘were the most serious charges I have

heard in my trade union experience’.

The AEC demanded

perfectly welded fuel rods because, if defective, they could
cause a disturbance in the flow of the liquid sodium used to

cool the reactor core of the fast breeder.

If the sodium is

blocked from reaching the portion of the fuel it is meant to

cool, the fuel tods can overheat, leading to accidental releases

of radioactivity. Under worst-case conditions,faulty fuel rods
can lead to a meltdown of the reactor itself.

Karen was instructed by Mozzochi and Wodka to return
to her job in Oklahoma and secure copies of the ‘doctored’

6

X-rays along with as much documentation as possible of the
forty other charges she had made of KM health and safety

violations
Karen returned to Oklahoma on 1 October 1974, and spent
the entire mouth working at the plant by day and by night
surreptitiously entering KM executive offices and laboratory
facilities in order to photocopy internal KM documents pro­

ving her accusations made before the A EC. By the end of
October, she had conclusive documentary proof of the validity

of twenty-five of her forty charges.

On 1 November, she

finally secured copies of two, separate/magic-marker-doctored ’

fuel rod safety inspection X-rays, doctored by one Scott Dot-

ter, the special laboratory technician who the KM executives

had specifically assigned to conduct the final safety inspection
X-raying of the fuel rods. Silkwood discovered that not only

was he doctoring up the X rays indicating faulty welds, but
that the mere number of the fuel rods he ‘cleared’ each week

was itself a direct violation of AEC regulation requiring that
no one inspector be allowed to give the final clearance on over
a certain percentage of the fuel rods leaving the plant.
On 2 November Karen telephoned Wodka in Washington
and informed him that she had secured the documentary proof
for twenty-five of the forty charges against KM and that she
‘had gotten the goods on Kerr-McGee’ : on the ‘other matter’

which they had discussed.

Since the union negotiations were

coming up on the 13th, Wodka advised Silkwood to ‘lay low’

until a few days before the negotiations were to start.

At

this time he would fly out to Oklahoma with Dave Burnham,

an investigative reporter of the New York Times.

Karen

would then turn over to Wodka and Burnham all of her docu­

mentary evidence sustaining her charges, including her charge

of wilful falsification of quality control reports.

The plan was

that Burnham would write up these charges and print them in
the New York Times during the first week of the contract
negotiations.
Unknown to Silkwood and Wodka, KM executive officials
were aware of her every move.

Nearly a month before, on
7

12 October, Oklahoma City Police Department Intelligence
Unit Photographer Bill Byler and his friend and unofficial
assistant, Steven Campbell, made contact with Silkwood while
she and a friend, Drew Stevens, were at a restaurant. They
‘d.soussed’ with Silkwood her status as an employee of the
KM Nuclear Facility ; her alleged ‘anti-nuclear’ attitudes
expressed in the form of her voiced concerns concerning KM

violations of worker health and safety regulations ; and her
activites as one of the elected OCAW negotiators for the forth­
coming contract negotiations. On 14 October, Byler discussed
the information he had gained from Silkwood with the Okla­
homa City Police Department Intelligence Unit Commander
Bob Hicks. Hicks told Byler to gather as much additional
information about Silkwood and her associates as he could and
to report that information to the Intelligence Unit Comman­
der as he obtained it. Hicks also gave to Byler the private
unlisted number of the Director of Security for the KM Cor­
poration, James Reading, instructing Byler to contact Reading
and convey to him all the information he had gathered on
Silkwood.

On 15 October, Byler telephoned Reading and

met with him on the same day. Both Reading and Hicks were

kept informed of all subsequent

information gathered on

Silkwood.
The next move Byler and Campbell made with regard to

Silkwood was to photograph pages of a confidential diary
Drew Stevens was keeping in which he was cataloguing theactivities of Karen and her efforts to stop the violations of
health and safety standards at the plant where they both
worked.

Copies of the photographs made were given to both
Within this same time-frame Karen’s

Hicks and Reading.

phone was tapped and all her telephone conversations moni­

tored.

Moreover, Byler, Campbell, Hicks and Reading began

to meet privately to discuss the possibility of finding some
possible criminal charges against Silkwood and her associates
—possibly relating to the paraphernalia Byler saw in Karen’s

apartment which he suspected was used to smoke marijuana.
After the 2 November telephone conversation with Wodka

8

in Washington, Karen took two days off from work. She
returned to work on 5 November and performed her usual

duties as a lab technician. This included working behind a
glass shield, through glove-box openings and rubber gloves, to
test various samples of fuel batches.
When she stopped to take her coffee break, she undertook
the standard safety check .of her person before leaving the
glove-bo c area. She registered radioactive contamination. She
immediately tailed for help and was taken to the decontami­

nation area where she was undressed and scrubbed with wire

4g brushes and treated with chemicals to remove the plutonium
from her skin.
The safety inspection team then inspected her glove box

but could find no radiation escaping from it ; nor was there

any radioactive contamination in any part of the room she had
been working in The KM Corporation was later to admit in
depositions that the contamination on Silkwood did not come

from that room. Nor did she receive the dosage from any
other part of the plant
After the long scrubbing and decontamination process,
Karen went home. She returned to work the next day and
again when she began her check-out from the glove-box area
she registered radioactive contamination. She was again rushed
to the decontamination area and put through the process of
attempting to remove the plutonium from her skin. This time.
however, she registered internal contamination of her nasal

passages.

She was ordered to go home and to return the first

4g thing in the morning to undergo a ‘sinus draining’ procedure

designed to lessen the continuing intake of plutonium into her
lungs—the part of the body most sensitive to the carcinogenic
effect to plutonium.

Once again the laboratory area in which she had been
working was inspected ; again it was entirely free from radia­

tion with the exception of a few places which she had touched
with her contaminated hands.
On the morning of 7 November Karen i eported directly to

the decontamination ared of, the plutonium facility for the

9

to conduct a criminal investigation against KM,

Olsen agreed

to work with Reading in the

During the

investigation

following few days, Olsen interviewed several OCAW workers
at the KM plant in a meeting set up by the Company and
personally attended by Reading.

At these meetings, the;

workers were asked whether they had any information they

wanted to give concerning KM harrassment of the OCAW.
When none of the workers came up with any incriminating

evidence, Olsen closed his investigation of charges of KM
harrassment of OCAW union workers.
Olsen then turned to investigating Silkwood’s radioactive^
contamination.

Instead of investigating the possibility of

KM contaminating her. however, a confidential

memorandum

sent by KM Security Chief Reading directly to Dean A.
McGee, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the. KM

Corporation

indicates that the ‘thrust’ of Olsen’s investiga­

tion was to discover ‘what were the means used by Silkwood

to remove plutonium from the Cimarron Facility, or if in
fact, the plutonium she was contaminated with came from
some other source’.

In March 1975, Olsen met with an undercover FBI domes­
tic surveillance operative Jacque Srouji who had been asked

by the FBI to write a book on nuclear power in order to
‘establish contacts in this area’. Olsen turned over his entire
Silkwood investigative file to Srouji for copying. He also

set up a secret meeting between srouji and Reading. Srouji
was later to state to a Congressional investigator that at this
meeting Reading informed her that he and his associates in thg_
Security Divison of KM had wiretapped Silkwood’s phone acd
had electronically ‘bugged’ her home prior to her contamina­
tion and death.

Srouji states that Reading even showed her

typed transcripts of the telephone calls monitored.
In the late Spring 1975, Olsen closed his investigation.

statmg that it was not possible to determine how the 400,000

disintegrations per minute of radioactive plutonium got on the
food in Silkwood’s apartment.

In his report on her death,

he accepted without question a report issued by the Oklahoma

14

State Highway Patrol stating that Karen had fallen asleep

at the wheel. With regard to the question of documents,
Olsen stated in his report that KM officials had said that
there could not have been any documents since her charges

against the company had not been true.
he never looked for any.

This being the case,

Within a few months of her death, therefore, the FBI
investigation of Karan Silkwood was closed. In response to
official inquiries by her parents, the National Organization
■^br Women, and theOCAW, FBI Inspector Al Connally res­
ponded that they ‘watched too much television’ if they
expected every case to be solved completely. Tn ane event’,
Connally said, ‘the FBI cannot discuss its investigations into

the case, because it is a “closed” case.
policy is not to discuss “closed” cases’.

And the FBI offical

Unsatisfied with this explanation, the Nationals Organiza­
tion for Women, the OCAW, the Environmental Policy
' Centre, Critical Mass, and various other interested orga­
nizations began to mobilize their constituencies to put pressure
on the Senate Committee on Government Operations to hold.

a public enquiry into what had really happenend. In November
1975. Senator Ribicoff, who chaired the Committee, agreed

to hold hearings to find out not only what had happened but
to determine how effectively the various federal agencies
inclu ding the FBI, had performed their duties.

As foon as the Senate hearings were announced, the KM
j^Juclear Facility was completely closed down and all of its

workers summarily fired.

The plant was put iuto ‘mothballs’,

to await the pending investigation. Suddenly, two weeks
before the investigations were to begin, Dean McGee flew to
Washington and met privately with Senator Metcalf, a highranking member of the Committee on Government Operations

who with Ribicoff was heading the enquiry. The only other
person present during this meeting was a' Mr Bennet, the
Washington representative of KM. No one knows what was

discussed at meeting. The results, however were dramatic. The
very next day, Senator Metcalf issued a press release anno-

The men jumped in their car and headed out of Oklahoma •
City along Route 74 towards Cresant.
Seven miles from Cresant, they came upon the red lights of
police cars and a gathering of spectators. Karen was dead. Her

body was gone. Her car had been taken away.
Telephone calls from David Burnham to the Oklahoma
State Highway Patrol revealed that Karen’s car had been

towed away by some private wrecking “service, not by the
State Highway Patrol, as was the usual procedure
An allnight search by Burnham, Wodka and Stevens failed to tuin
up where Karen’s car and her documents had been taken
Before searching for the car, the men went to the coroner’s,
viewed Karen’s mangled body, and telephoned her parents
in Nederland, Texas, telling them of their daughter's death.

The car had in fact been taken away from the accident by
a local wrecker service; Ted Seabring’s Ford. At 12:05 mid­
night, he was called by the Oklahoma State Highway Patrol
and directed to open up his garage in order for a group of KM
officials to check Silkwood’s car, ‘to inspect it for radiation’.
Four KM representatives came, dressed in radiation suits.
complete with face masks. Both Ted Seabring and his assis­
tant Kenneth Valiquet later asserted that these men took
documents from the car and began reading them aloud to one
another. Neither Seabring nor Valiquent recall whether these
men actually took the documents they were reading.
Later that morning, police officials came to the garage and
did take items from the car
After this visit, Seabring took

all the remaining items and packed them into a cardboard
box, which he sealed.

It was not until that afternoon, 14 November, that Burn­

ham, Wodka and Stevens finally located Karen’s car. After a
call to Karen’s parents, Seabring released Karen’s car and the
sealed box of items he had taken from the car to them.

Directly in the presence of Seabring, Burnham, Wodka and
Stevens opened the sealed box and examined its contents.
There was no manilla folder.

There were no documents.
Wodta immediately telephoned Tony Mozzochi, OCAW

12 '

,,

Vice President.

The Union decided immediately to hire the

best automobile crash reconstruction laboratory in . the Okla­
homa area to inspect the car and the crash scene in order to
reconstruct what had happened- Contracted for the job was
the Accident Reconstruction Laboratory in Dallas, Texas.
One of their top experts, A. O. Pipkin, flew to Oklahoma, ins­

pected and photographed Karen’s car ; inspected and photo­
graphed the accident scene ; and reviewed both the police
■ reports and the report of Seabring. On 19 iSovember, the

Accident Reconstruction Laboratory issued an official report
concluding that the physical evidence Pipkin had been able to
evaluate indicated that Silkwood had been struck in the left
rear side by another automobile travelling up behind her at

approximately 55 to 60 miles per hour. She had been knocked

off the road and her car had driven directly into a concrete
culvert. Karen had been killed instantly.
Ou 20 November, the OCAW filed a formal complaint with
the Justice Department in Washington, DC, demanding that
an investigation be conducted into Karen’s mysterious death as

well as into her mysterious contamination a week before her

death. On 21 November, KB I Headquarters in Washington
telexed the FBI office in Oklahoma City and ordered a fullscale investigation into the contamination and death of Karen
Silkwood and into charges of union harrassment by KM, FBI

agent Lawrence J. Olsen was assigned to the case.
Sworn depositions reveal that on the day he was assigned
to the case, Olsen met privately with James Reading, inform­

ing him that the FBI had ordered him to investigate KM
agents for possible criminal wrong-doing against Silkwood and
other members of the OCAW at their Cimarron Nuclear Faci­

lity.

At this meeting, Olsen explained to the chief of KM

security what type .of information might prove incriminating

to KM arid asked reading to set up an emergency meeting be­
tween Olsen and executive officials of KM as soon as possible.
This second secret meeting took place on 25 November.
Alter explaining to the KM officials what the federal statutes

were under which he had been ordered by FBI Washington

13

‘sinus draining’ procedure. Upon her first inspection, she was
found to be heavily contaminated around her face,neck, shoul­
ders, arms and hands. She had not been to the laboratory,
she had not been in any other part of the plant ; in fact the

only place she had been since she had been decontaminated

the day before was her home.

KM ordered Silkwood to fly immediately to Los Alamos,
New Mexico, to undergo a full week of special physical tests
to determine the extent of her internal contamination. It was
indeed unfortunate, they informed her, that she would have to
miss the contract negotiations she had been preparing for but
health and safety must come first.
On 8 November Karen was sent to Los Alamos, to a special
US government radiation laboratory where she was to be put
through a week-long battery of tests and examinations.
Once Silkwood was gone, a Special Inspection Team from

the KM Nuclear Facility descended upon her home to begin
what one of the team later described in sworn testimony as a
full scale search’ . Karen’s personal mail was read and all

tape recordings, personal diaries, notes, memoranda and other
documents having anything to do with either her work at KM
or her alleged use of marijuana were turned over to James
Reading, the Chief of KM security, not to the decontamina­
tion team.
During the search, the KM Special Investigation team was
joined by federal inspectors from the Region III office of the

AEC. On 8 November, the AEG inspectors opened up Karen’s
kitchen refrigerator and found that the bologna and cheese
she had been eating was radically contaminated with 400,000
disintegrations per minute of plutonium radiation. The
appartment was immediately sealed off, and all of its contents

taken, leaving only the.bare concrete walls- and floors. The
contents were sealed up in 55 gallon drums of the type used

by KM to dispose of its plutonium waste. These barrels and
their contents have never been seen again by anyone other
than KM and AEC officials.
On the night of 12 November, although Karen was sche-

10

duled for more tests, she gathered her belongings and flew
from Los Alamos back of Oklahoma. She telephoned Wodka
and told him that despite the loss of everything in her appartment she ‘still had the documents’ and that as far as she was

concerned the plan to meet Wodka and Burnham the next
evening was ‘still on’.
Karen spent the night of 12 November in Oklahoma City,
showing up at the KM facility, some 40 miles away, at 9 00
a.m. on the morning of 13 November for the contract negotia­

tions. She negotiated with Tice and Brewer during the day,
not mentioning the documentary evidence in health and safety
and wilful violation of quality-control regulations.
After the negotiations broke off in the late

\
afternoon,

Karen went with other union members to the Hub cafe in
She took one short break

Cresant for a de brieflng session.

from this meeting to telephone Drew Stevens to make sure he
was leaving his work early to go the Oklahoma City airport to

meet the planes on which Brunham and Wodka were arriving,
to make sure they got to the 8.00 p.m. meeting on time. After
this call, Karen went back to the de-briefing and confirmed to
a friend, Jean Jung, that she had documentation concerning

health and safety and quality control violations that would
‘get Kerr-McGee once and for all’. She also told Jean Jung

about'the meeting she was to shortly leave for with Wodka
and Burnham.

At about 7:10 p.m., Karen left the cafe, got into her 1973
Honda Civic with an inch-thick manila folder full of docu­

ments, and drove off down Route 74 toward Oklahoma City.

In Oklahoma City, Burnham

Wodka and Stephens sat

waiting for Karen in Burnham’s hotel room at the Holiday
Inn Northwest. Eight o’clock came and went. No Karen.
Eight-thirty came and went. No Karen.
The men then began to become concerned and attempted
to call the Hub cafe. They discovered, however, that Burn­
ham’s phone was ‘out of order’. Leaving the room, they
finally made contact at a pay phone and learned that Karen

had left the cafe shortly after 7:00 p.m.

11

uncing that the previously scheduled hearings into the Silk­
wood matter were permanently closed.’
One of the Congressional investigators for the now-closen
Senate hearings, Peter Stockton, took the case over to the

House of Representatives and got the House Sub Committee
on Energy and the Environment to agree to hold hearings
into the Silkwood matter in April 1975.
When the FBI was contacted to provide copies of its
Silkwood investigation file, it refused, citing its official policy
not to discuss ‘closed’ cases. The Chaii person in charge of
the enquiry, John Dingell, rejoiudeied by pointing to cases
where Congress had been explicitly authorized to obtain
copies of ‘closed’ FBI investigations, when such files were

deemed necessary by the <_ ongress for it to perform its res­
Upon receipt of this information, the FBI

ponsibilities.

immediately declared the Silkwood case ‘open’, refusing to

give to Dingell access to its files on the grounds that the
FBI had the right to refuse anyone, the files on an ‘on-going’
FBI investigation. When questioned by Dingell how the
status of the Si.kwood case had suddenly switched from
‘closed’ to ‘open’ the Deputy Director of the FBI, James
Adams, stated that the case had been re-opened ‘due to all
the inquiries being directed to the Bureau about it’.

Dingell held hearings anyway.

One of the witnesses was

Jacque Srouji who, according to FBI documents later obtained

through subpoena power, was sent to testify in order to blast

the OCAW and defame Karen Silkwoad. In her testimony,
she accused Silkwood of being 'mentally unstable’, of ‘desert­

ing her husband and three children’, and of ‘us ng marijuana’.

She further stated that in her opinion both the contamination
and the death of Silkwood had been deliberate and hinted
darkly that perhaps the group responsible was the OCAW,
which could have done it somehow to embarrass KM in con­

tract negotiations.

Under cross-examination, Srouji defended

her conclusions by stating that they

documents.

were based on FBI

This brought the proceedings to a halt,

for

if Srouji, introduced to the investigation as a journalist had

16

'

seen FBI files, why had these files been refused to the Con­

gress of the United States ?
Before the issue could be resolved, Dingell was ousted
as the Chairperson of the Committee in a coup d’etat engi­
neered by another member of Congress, Tom Steed, from the
fifth District of Oklahoma, the home district of the KM
Corporation’s international headquarters.
With this, hearings ceased, and Karen’s parents, until this

time waiting patiently for American justice to deal fairly with
the contamination and death of their daughter, contacted legal
counsel to file a federal lawsuit, designed to obtain justice

through the federal courts.
In Novgmbpr 1976, a three count suit was filed charging
first, that KM was legally liable for the plutonium contamina­
tion of Silkwood which occurred on 5,6, and 7 November 1974;
secondly that James Reading, Dean McGee, Reading’s assis­
tants, and the other members of the KM Bpard of Directors
participated in a wilful and intentional conspiracy to violate
the civil rights of Karen Silkwood in her efforts to organize a

lawful trq.de union at KM ; and that they then sought to cover

up these violations.

Four FBI agents, including Olsen and

Srouji. are named as co-copspirafrors in the cover-up.

The

third count charges these same people with an identical cons­

piracy of attempting to commit and then cover-up a depriva­

tion of the equal protection qf the laws and the right tp the
equal enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of all those
persons, of whom Silkwqod was one, who reported yiolatipns
of the federal Atomic Energy Act the KM Corporation.

The first cqunt finally came to trial in the Oklahoma Fede­
ral Court ip the spripg of 1979. Dr John pofman, known to
many as the ‘Father of Plutpniun’, because he was pnp of its
cpdiscoyprers, set the tone for the plaintiff’s case by testifying

that current government licences to operate nuqlear plants
conforming

inurder’.

to existing standards are ‘legalized permits to

Evidence from the past ten years, he said, shows

that federal standards for plutonipm are at least 480 times too
lenient and that Sjilkwopd was ‘married to lung cancer’ as a

result of her contamination.
Dr Edward Martell, an environmental radiochemist, also
testified that existing radiation exposure limits are ‘misleading

and inadequate and have not been reduced because of the
government's vested interest’ in nuclear power.

Dr Martell .

called federal standards both in the US and abroad ‘meanin­
gless’ because, contrary to official policy, there is no safe limit

for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation.
Dr Karl Morgan, often referred to as

the

‘father of

health physics’ for his role in the setting of acceptable stan­

dards for radiation releases in nuclear facilities, testified that

KM showed a ‘callous’ attitude towards the safety of its
workers.

He pointed out that the KM training manuals made

no mention of the fact that one could contract cancer from
radiation exposure, and that because of this refusal to recog­

nize the dangers of radiation both KM management and the
workers themselves were lax and in frequent violation of
safety regulations.
Former plant workers stated under oath that their training

had been so deficient that teenage workers often played at
seeing who could get ‘the hottest the fastest’. Workers said
that plutonium spills were often painted over instead of cle­
aned up, workers left the plant contaminated, and plant super­

visors were warned ahead of time of ‘surprise’ inspections by

the AEC.

There was also testimony stating that workers

used uranium for paperweights, threw it around the rooms at

each other, and even took uranium home

to show their

children.

One of the four plant supervisors, Jim Smith, branded the

KM Nuclear Facility.a ‘pigpen’, testifying that security was so
lax, workers could have thrown plutonium over the fence or

taken in past guards simply by telling them it was to be
thrown out as waste. Smith also told of numerous incidents

where workers were forced to stay in contaminated areas and
continue working in order to meet production quotas their

only protection being inadequate face respirators
The jury was convinced by the combined" testimony of

18

expert witnesses and former workers, and on 18 May 1979
awarded $ 10 5 - million in actual damages and S 500,000 in
personal injury damages to Silkwood’s three children. In charg­

ing the jury. Federal Judge Frank G. Theis directed them to
define ‘physical injury’ with regard to plutonium as ‘nonvisible

to bone, tissue or cells’.
The
implications of this are profound,for it establishes legally that
or nondetectable injury

plutonium is in fact a ‘dangerous material’ and causes ‘physi­

<'''1

cal injury’. This means, on the one hand, that nuclear materials are so dangerous that nuclear facilities are under special
restraint to prevent the escape of any of the material, whether

intentionally or otherwise ; on the other hand, it means that
workers and members of the public are now entitled to claim

damages due to the operation of nuclear facilities if they can

demonstrate that their sickness is attributable to radioactive
releases coming from the plant involved. In charging the jury,

therefore, Judge Theis stated that they did not have to find

that KM deliberately contaminated Silkwood ; the .mere fact

that plutonium had been allowed to ‘escape’ the plant was
sufficient to award damages.
In terms of the civil liberties violations of the case, the

situation is somewhat more complex.

Judge Theis'refused to

try these counts as he stated that as a union person, Silkwood
was not protected against wiretapping and electronic survei­

llance under the Civil Rights Act. This rulling is under appeal.
What has emerged in the course of the investigation is the

fact that the abridgment of Silkwood’s civil liberties was not

something unique with her.

Intentional harassment and

illegal electronic survelliance, illegal entry into the home in
search of documents, and active co-operation of the FBI is

not only the illegal acts themselves but in any cover-up re­

quired, are things that many anti-nuclear activities across the
US have been forced to undergo. What singles out Karen
Silkwood is the magnitude of what she uncovered about Kerr

McGee malpractice in the areas of worker health and safety
and the extra-ordinary measures Kerr McGee took to try to
silence her.

It seems clear that both her plutonium oontami-

19

nation and her fatal accident were deliberate attacks on her.
What needs to be remembered in assessing this state of

affairs is that plutonium, if it is to be used, must be protected
by police state methods. You cannot have something that can

be used for nuclear bombs and can damage and mutate human

life with the lethalness of millions of cancer doses per pound
in a free society. A plutonium economy and a free democracy
are a contradiction in terms.

This is a fact that has been
recognized by leadiag legal experts and politicians alike.
Writing in the Harvard Law Review. Russell Ayres stated

flatly that plutonium provides the first rational justification
for widespread intelligence gathering against the civilian popu­
lation’. The reason for this is that the threat of nuclear
terrorism justifies such encroachments on civil liberties for

’national security’ reasons. It is inevitable, therefore, Ayres
says, that ‘plutonium use would create pressures for infiltra­
tion into civic, political, environmental and professional groups
to a far greater extent than previously encountered and with
a greater impact on speech and associated rights’. Sir Brian

Flowers, in Britain, has come to similar conclusions. At
the conclusion of his environmental impact statement for the
plutonium economy in the United Kingdom, known as the

Flowers Report, he made it quite dear that Britain could not
have both plutonium and civil liberties. Rather, he said, to
adopt the plutonium economy would make ‘inevitable’ the ero­

sion of the freedoms that British people had fought for over
the centuries and come to assume as inalienable.
What happened to Karen Silkwood, therefore, is'something
that should not be seen as an abnormal violation of her person
and her freedom ; rather, it should be viewed as the logical
conclusion of what the adoption of the plutonium economy in

any country implies.

Even as there are certain psychological

implications inherent in the use and development of nuclear

weapons, then, and even as there are direct physical results on
both workers and public alike from the nuclear fuel cycle so
to the plutonium economy makes inevitable the, erosion of the
human rights in the society adopting such an economy.

20

Again, it should bo noted that these erosions are thus far
largely subtle and unnoticed, largely because there has not
yet been a large scale terrorist incident.
Jungk reminds us,

But, as Robert

The question arises when the more severe restrictions on
liberty that are expected from an increasing number of
atomic institutions will exceed the limits of people’s
patience and capacity for adaptation. Safety analysts
and risk assessors devote a great deal of attention to
possible technical ‘incidents’ and ‘blow-ups’, but obviously

i-

underrate the social ‘explosions’ that seem to be almost
inevitable as a side-effect of their efforts. Meanwhile
the very numerous studies of MCA (maximum credible
accidents) neglect the likelihood of MCSA (maximum
credible societal accidents) which increase from day to

day generated by the intolerable pressures of the ‘nuclear
state.’
What happened to Karen Silkwood was a maximum
credible societal accident. If the plutonium economy is
allowed to continue there will be others.

21

Nuclear Bulletin No. 6

community health cell
47/1,(First Floo.'ISt. Marks Road
BAWGAlO.IE-560 001

A Short History
of the
Anti-nuclear Movement

Health and Society Group

Introduction
The history of the anti-nuclear movement is the story

of. many ordinary people-and a

few extraordinary

people—involved in a struggle against

an immensely

powerful military-industrial-state complex in the name of

sanity and survival. The strength of the movement is
being increasingly felt on the political scene of the West.
As yet no equivalent movement has begun in India

although her leaders seem intent on aping the West and
following down its suicidal path. But we must not lose
heart and give way to a feeling of impotence. Some­
times, it has been said, in pointing out the contrasting
apathy in India, that in the West there is a huge ground­
swell of protest as if this has always been so.

It should

be remembered, however, that the massive rallies we
have heard about recently in many Western capitals,
have a long history behind them.

They had

small

beginnings when their participants were often derided
and labelled as cranks, and the growth of the movement
has not always been steady. It didnot just happen but
grew as the result of the combined efforts of many
individuals who distributed leaflets, argued on doorsteps,

gave talks, collected signatures for petitions, wrote to
the press, took part in demonstrations or risked their
freedom-and sometimes their lives—in order to spread
Those individuals who are aware of the
dangers we face must stand together and make their
voice heard. We shall overcome.

the message.

March 1983.

A SHORT HISTORY OF
THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT
“Some day, the demand for disarmament by hundreds of
millions will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that
no man, ho nation, can withstand it.”
—U. S. President Dwight Eisenhower.
“1 have absolutely no confidence in our political leaders to
do anything significant in the arms and disarmament field.
Instead, the onus now lies upon public opinion to bring about
a saner world.”
—Dr. Frank Barnaby, Director of SIPRI
( Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. ) 1981.

Competition between armed states is as old as
civilization. The great majority of people at any
time has accepted without question that war and
violence are at times justified. But there has
always, too, been a far smaller but deeply convin­
ced group for whom violence is not inevitable and
who have longed .for a world without war. The
pacifist tradition goes back far. It has often been
rooted in a religious outlook as for the Taoists in
China, the early Christians, the Buddhists. Along­
side opposition to war on moral and religious
grounds, the idea has grown up of resistence to
violence being in itself a powerful means of
change. This idea was developed in particular by
the American, Henry Thoreau, in his essay “Civil
Disobedience” (1848), and it can be seen to “culjni.nate in the life and work of Gandhi who, in turn,
has been a major inspiration to such people as
Martin Luther King in America and Albert Luthuli in South Africa.

3

The twentieth century pacifist’s stand against
war has not been easy. With the Fascism of the
second world war and the attempted extermination
of a race, the temptation to take part in warfare,
evil as it is, in order to destroy a seemingly
greater evil, was very strong. Many peace move­
ments became reduced in numbers as members
became convinced that even war itself might be
necessary in the face of Fascism.

However, the development of nuclear weapons
has totally changed the nature of war. With them
man has acquired the capacity for 'the destruction
not just of a single tribe or city, or even of an
race, but of the whole earth. Nuclear weapons are
so abhorrent and evil that it is not only the tradi­
tional pacifists who have come out against them
but a whole cross-section of people of varying moti­
vation and conviction. Bertrand Russell, for
example, said he ,was not an absolute pacifist but
advocated and supported the politics of peace
because it was the only prudent politics in an age
of potential total destruction.
The beginnings of protest.
When the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiro­
shima and Nagasaki in August 1945, there was
public concern but no public outcry. For most
people it seemed that the A. bombs had ended a
very bloody war and saved lives. (This, in fact, is
questionable as Japan, in all probability, was
already preparing to surrender). The effects of radi.
ation were not well-known until later.

The movement against nuclear weapons began
in the early 1950’s. It was at first directed against
the testing of nuclear weapons in particular. There
was small groups of concerned individuals, for the

most part pacifists (notably Quakers') also pro­
Soviet leftists as in the British Peace Committee.
At this time the U.S. had a monopoly on nuclear
weapons. In 1950 several peace and religious soci­
eties cooperated in a Hiroshima Day Commemo­
ration in Trafalgar Square in London attended by
about 3,000. Certain scientists were also among the
first to voice their concern. In fact most of the
leading scientists who worked on the first A. bombs
later regretted their participation. In 1955 11 pro­
minent scientists signed a manifesto calling upon
scientists throughout the world to work for peace
This was known as the Russell-Einstein manifesto
and it provided an impetus for an international
conference which is held every year and is known
as the Pugwash conference.

Protest becomes organised.
Soon the U.S.S.R. was producing her own nu­
clear bombs and Britain started testing hers in
1957. The decision to “go nuclear’” had been taken
by Prime Minister Attlee and his military advisors
in the late 40s’, without informing even the British
government. A groupin Britain around the news­
paper “Peace News” arranged for two Quakers,
Sheila and Harold Steele to make a direct personal
protest by trying to sail into the danger zone in
the Pacific. Although they were stuck in Japan,
the campaign was successful in creating widespread
publicity and showed the potential of individual
action. From it developed the "‘Committee for
Direct Action against Nuclear War”. Ideas of
Gandhian non-violent action playedan influential
part in their thinking. They were a group of
(1) “Quakers” is the term commonly used for members of
the Religious Society of Friends, a Christian group who
believe in the practical and social application of the Christian
faith and many of whom condemn war in all circumstances.

5

radical pacifists aiming at disarmament through
popular insistence, by mobilising local opposition
focussed on where the bombs and missiles were
made. They entered bases in order to obstruct
work and to talk to the workers about the implica­
tions of their work.
In America the Committee for Non-Violent
Action, (C.N.V.A.), began to organise a series of
spectacular civil disobedience actions. One of these,
a national demonstration was in Nevada during
nuclear bomb testing. Other protests by regional
C.N.V.A. groups included sit-ins at the Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory in California, home of the
PT. bomb, and demonstrations at Port Chicago,
the Navy’s munitions port. On numerous occasions
pacifists taking part in “Polaris Action” tried to
enter the docks where the submarines were being
constructed and to interfer with the launching by
paddling boats carrying peace messages into restric­
ted areas or actually trying to swim out to the
submarines and board them. One of the most
successful of C N.V.A.’s projects was the attempted
sailing of the “Golden Rule” into the nuclear bomb
testing area of the S. Pacific as the Steeles had
attempted to do a little while before. Apart from
this type of protest, there was a campaign of refu­
sal to pay federal tax and a residential community
was set up to serve as a place for non-violent
training and a sanctuary for draft-card burners
and deserters.

Also in America the committee for a Sane
Nuclear Policy (S.A.N.E.) a membership organisa­
tion was formed in 1957. It had an educational and
more moderate outlook.
Ca7pa7n f01’ Nuclear Disarma­
ment (C.N.D.) was also formed in 1957 and
launched publically on 17 February 1958. Its

6

immediate precursor was the National Committee
Abolition of Nucleai’ Weapons Tests
(N.C.A.N.W.T.) which was, in turn, a coordination
of numerous local groups which had come into
being during the previous years. In contrast to
the Direct Action Committee which was a small
group of “nobodies”, the C.N.D. leadership included
a glittering array of Britain’s progressive intellec­
tuals. C.N.D. was originally intended as a highlevel pressure group. However it quickly became a
mass movement. Certain external events effecting
the mood of the time help to explain how this came
about. The brutal crushing of the Hungarian
uprising in 1956 by the Soviet Union led to a mass
exodus from the Communist Party and created
much discussion amongst the Left and also created
a climate favourable to the formation of a nonaligned peace movement. Previous campaigners
had lacked a clear unifying policy. Now old and
new campaigners rallied behind the clear slogan :
“Ban the Bomb”. For the next 4-5 years C.N.D.
was to dominate the media. The Aldermaston
marches ( Aldermaston is a nuclear weapons
research establishment), taking place over ' the 4
days of Easter became, at this time, a regular
annual event and involved at their height at least
100,000 participants. Local demonstrations took
place all over Britain throughout the year and
received enormous media coverage.
The aim of unilateralism, that is the renun­
ciation by Britain of nuclear weapons,. was the
most significant new factor that C.N.D. brought
into the peace movement and it gave the campaign
a dynamic appeal. For many C.N.D’ers, though by
no means all, the main focus of the campaign was
the Labour Party. Fora while when in 1960 the
Labour Party conference voted in favour of unilate­
ralism, it seemed that success was in sight. But
this decision was soon overturned. The question of
7

unilateral disarmament has remained adevisive one
within the Labour Party.

The aim of disarmament through conventional
parliamentary politics was not shared by the D.A.C.
and there were soon those within C.N.D. also who
Were looking for more radical and aggressive
methods of protest. In 1960 the Committee of 100
was formed by Bertrand Russell. It was committed
to direct action though, unlike the D.A.C. which
was always small in numbers, its aim was mass
civil disobedience. In a way it amounted to. a com­
bination of the mass numbers of C.N.D. with the
tactics of the D.A.C Its supporters, apart from radi­
cal pacifists, included anarchists and Marxists and
some for whom obstruction to the state machinery
was more important than strict adherence to non­
violence. The activities of the C100 brought strong
retaliatary measures from the government with
many arrests and imprisonments (including Russell
aged 89), raiding of offices by the police etc. During
a demonstration in London on 17 September 1961,
1314 were arrested. The government used the
Official Secrets Act against the protestors. After a
demonstration at the Wethersfield base six protes­
tors were found guilty of actions “prejudical to the
interest and safety of the state” and were given 12
to 18 month sentences. One of the defendents
wrote : “Our offices are raided, our homes searched,
telephones tapped, our mail is read and police
spies are sent to our meetings. This is the measure
of our success. The government understands now
that we are serious. We are not conducting a pro­
test movement, but a resistence struggle against
the State machine and its ability to exterminate
millions of people.”
The C100 gained yvide media coverage. However
they overestimated the popularity of their cause :
increased militancy tended to lead to decreased
8

public support. It could be said they become more
concerned with methods than the message and so
failed to develop a coherent perspective and build a
broad political movement. This failure and the
divisions in their methods caused within the move^
ment may have been a factor in the decline of the
movement as a whole.

The decline of the movement in the late 1960’s.
But there were other reasons for this also. One
important one was the Cuba crisis of 1962. It
seemed that the crisis had shocked government into
an appreciation of the possibility of conflict esca­
lating into nuclear war and, as a result, the Hot­
line agreement (by which the leaders of the super­
powers could get into direct contact with each other)
was reached. Atmospheric tests were banned in
1963 and therefore the risks of radioactive pollution
decreased. The Non-po I iteration Treaty appeared
likely to restrict the number of countries that
would acquire nuclear weapons. In a "way the des­
perate urgency of the campaigners’ message
subsided. At the same time, the Vietnam war began
to claim more attention from the peace campaigners
both in America and Britain. The Labour Party
in Britain, when elected to power, failed to keep
its pledge to scrap the Polaris submarine and this
meant that Britain now had a new system of
missiles for the next 20 years. Many campaigners
by this time were disillusioned and weary and
looked for other outlets in issues, often relating to
the environment and community relations, that
they felt they could more directly effect. C.N.D.
became an organisation rather than a campa'gn
and the C100 finally wound up in 1968. They
played, however a very important role in educating
the pub' <■ and the politicians about the dangers of
nuclear war and in showing that the question of
9

nuclear weapons is not simply a political and
strategic one but a moral one.
The experience of the anti-Vietnam war move­
ment had a profound effect on American society
and by the time the war ended radical activity in
the U.S. had considerably broadened from opposi­
tion to war. racism and militarism to attempts and
experiments to build an alternative society and
search for positive values in building a peaceful
society. When the war ended the natural focus for
organising was lost and there was a possibility that
the peace movement would fragment and lose its
sense of direction. One of the early initiatives
which sought to maintain the momentum and
deepen the analysis of the peace makers was the B-l
bomber campaign which was a broad-based coalition
bringing different organisations together. The B-l
bomber was a more sophisticated version of the B-52
bomber and involved an enormous amount of
research and investment for its development and
production. A.n important aspect of the campaign
was to expose the danger of making whole areas
dependent on the war machine for their employ­
ment and to investigate the question of conversion
from military to peacetime industry.
The movement against nuclear power gains
momentum.
It would probably be true to say that the majo­
rity of people during the early days of the disarma­
ment campaign considered that nuclear power
could be a useful,application of nuclear technology.
However, the campaign against nuclear weapons
and weapons testing had heightened public
awareness about the dangers of radiation and this
new knowledge along with a growing understand­
ing of ecology which exposed man’s many harmful
effects on the environment, led to increasing fears
about the health aspects of nuclear power. Later
10

on, the inhernt problems eg. waste disposal and the
inefficiency and economic absurdity of nuclear
power became more and more starkly apparent.
Whereas the issue of nuclear weapons faded some­
what in the public eye by the early 70’s, the ques­
tion of nuclear power presented a very real and
present danger very near at home.
Early opposition to nuclear power in America
and W. Europe took the form of legal interven­
tions. Anti-nuclear lawyers took the Atomic
Energy Commission (A.E.C.) to court in efforts to
obstruct the granting of licences and the construc­
tion of nuclear power stations on particular sites.
Others, in particular women, helped to organise the
local community in support and to collect the
necessary funds. Mainly middle class and profe­
ssional people were involved in these activities and
invaluable work was donein uncovering, the blanket
of secrecy and collecting and publishing informa­
tion about the nuclear industry. By now the
nuclear industry was producing opponents among
the experts and scientists within the industry itself.
Their outspokeness added greatly to the strength
of the campaign.

These interventions were very expensive, com­
plex and technical and difficult for the average
citizen to understand. With hindsight it can be
said to have been a mistake to make legal challenges
the centre of the anti-nuclear strategy for it
assumed that the government would be neutral and.
play fair. It has been shown time and time again
that this is not the case. The goverment may be
foicel to reject an application to build a reactor on
a gi ological fault, but it will side-step the issue
when it relates to the future of the industry as a
whole. Justice Parker, at the time of the British
Wii dtcale inquiry, simply ruled that the question ’

11

By 1962, C.N.D. wasalready beginning to wane. With
the Test Ban Treaty the following year, the thaw in the
Cold War already melting imperceptibly into the beginings'of “Detente”. By the mid-sixties, when I went
on to university, C.N.D. and its concerns had ceased to
impinge greatly upon the average radical student con­
science. Mine was no exception. Our eyes turned away
from the tensions between the great power blocks
towards national struggles against imperialism, espe­
cially, of course, the war in Vietnam. And then, with'
the events of 1968, we were preoccupied with the
promise of socialism much closer at home. In the early
seventies, I wrote for far left papers...within that
milieu, we regarded C.N.D. with faint contempt, as
something passe and irrelevant, a bit like a cross
between the Fabians and the League Against Cruel
Sports. We were concerned with the real issues.

All that was a long time ago. Times change, and so
do one’s values. Like most of those who lived through
those days, I have been questionuing our ideologies and
trying to glimpse ‘‘beyond the fragments”...Today, I
am convinced that the nuclear arms race issue is that
upon which all other issues (and much else besides)
depend. Nuclear arms menace not just the nature of
the material conditions of our lives, but the continued
existence of those conditions themselves.

-Peter Fuller, writing in “Time Out", November 1980

Some 24 years ago, in what we social geologists call
the Pre-Aldermastonian Period, or the Age of the
Angries, there existed a group of middle-aged softies
called by the jaw breaking name of the National Cam­
paign Against Nuclear Weapons Tests, inconveniently
shortened to NCANWT. It was led by the admirable
Quaker Arthur Goss, and it recruited quite a lot of
distinguished sentimentalists and rebels and crusaders
and Christians and heathens and the like.
At the beginning of 1958, it occurred to us that to
campaign against the testing of the Bomb and not
against possessing it was to say the least illogical ;.so
one evening the softies assembled in the house of John
Collins Canon of St. Paul’s, and out df it was born the
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
We were a tidy bunch, as I recall, Bertrand Russell,
J. B. Priestly, Michael Foot, Kingsley Martin, A. J. P.
Taylor, & so on & so on, with of course the incomparable
Peggy Duff. Why I was included in this distinguished
company is obscure ; perhaps because I was the only one '
there, or even in the country, who had personally seen
three atom bombs go off, and had been greatly shocked
thereby, at least to the extent that I didn’t want to see
any more.
For years thereafter, every Easter we did this Aldermaston march. We first made the idiotic mistake of
marching to Aldermaston the Berkshire nuclear research
establishment, arriving after three days to find, naturally
nobody whatever there. Later we corrected that. We
became a very big demo indeed, but never as big as
last weekend’s...
You have to be in your 40’s even to remember a
world before the atom bomb. Most of these demonstra­
tors seemed to be in their 20’s and 30’s. It is true
there was the immortal Fenner Brockway, who at 93 is
marginally older than I and who in his early days was
doubtless campaigning against the use of the dreaded
crossbow. If there is an instinctive impulse that unites
the immortal old Fenner Brockway and my grandchil­
dren, and that brings 150,000 people from all over the
country to see and be seen in Hyde Park on a dismal
day, should not the world somehow pay heed I
—James Cameron writing in '-The Weekly Guardian"
8th November, 1981

13

of whether or not nuclear power should continue to
developed was beyond the terms of the inquiry
which would only consider what type of nuclear,
development was to be preferred. In this way the
interventions can claim some local successes but
could not bring a halt to the industry.

By around 1974 new tactics were being tried
with the aim of taking the case directly to the
people rather than relying on the courts. In the
spring of that year Sam Lovejoy toppled a SCO foot
utility weather lower in Montague, U.S. as an act
of civil disobedience against proposed nuclear
construction there.
In 1975 28,000 W. German, Swiss and French
nuclear opponents overran a site on the Rhine in
W. Germany.
This action inspired nuclear
opponents throughout the world.
By 1978t
the strength of the anti-nuclear .power movement
was being felt throughout Europe and America. In
America a major struggle took place around the
construction of the Seabrooke power station in New
Hamsphire. It had pieviously been the cause of
more than one hundred interventions. Now it was
the scene of a series of demonstrations and occupa­
tions and arrests. This local struggle drew the
attention of the whole of the U.S. The future of the
plant remains in doubt. A major 4 year campaign
also took place around the case of Karen Silkwood
involving anti-nuclear, feminist and labour acti­
vists. On 18th May 1979 Karen; Silkwood’s family
was awarded over 10 million dollars damages.1
Opi < sition ji ushroomed following the Harrishburg
accident in 1979 both in America and elsewhere.
1. Karen Silkwood was an employee of a nuclear power
plant in Oklahoma and was murdered in an attempt to
prevent her publicising gross safety violations and other
irregularities at her place of work.

14

Local interventionists had already begun to coordi­
nate their activities on a national scale. By now
organisations like Friends of the Earth had become
instruihental in developing a world-wide network
of activists.

Revival.
By the mid-70’s the movement against nuclear
weapons was reviving. After several years of
“detente”, relations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
began to deteriorate again. The U.S. pushed ahead
with an increased defence budget and the develop­
ment and production of still more lethal weapons :
Cruise missiles, Trident, the MX missile, and the
neutron bomb while the U.S S.R. installed SS-20
missiles targetted on Europe. The S.A.L.T. agree­
ments have broken down. The newly elected right­
wing governments in Britain and the U.S. are
now talking less in' terms of nuclear weapons as a
deterrent but have begun to plan for the possibility
of fighting and winning a “limited nuclear war”
in the “theatre” of‘ Europe. .The new weapons
being developed have a “first-strike” capability,
that is, they may be used to start a nuclear war
not simply to deter attack.
It is spine-chilling to realise how out of touch
with reality the world’s leaders can be. Many
experts agree that it is inconceivable that a nuclear
war could be limited and that anything like life as
we know it could survive. Yet details are being
'worked out about, for example, how the postal
service in the U.S. will be organised in response to
a nuclear war :

“In the event of a nuclear holocaust, the United
States postal service will suspend registered and
express mail, will continue to accept personal
letters, not exceeding 8ozs, and will ensure that
correspondence destroyed to prevent it failing into

15

enemy hands ‘will NOT be opened and examined’...
change of address cards will be given to those
fleeing the cities... As a concession in disaster areas
post cards will be accepted without s'amps.”
(from the Guardian, August 13, 1982)

There is a new emphasis on civil defence which
aims to instruct people how to survive a nuclear
war. This and the imminent threat of , war when
Pentagon computers falsely detected Soviet missile
attacks as occured more than once in 1980 have
brought the reality of nuclear war starkly home to
a lot of people.
The message of the anti-nuclear movement has
become more meaningful and immediate to many
people. People have a better idea of the cost of the
arms race than before and the question of nuclear
arms has become related to inflation and cuts in
social services and starvation in the Third World.
Nuclear weapons are killing NOW. This growing
awareness is partly due to a conscious effort on the
part of the anti-nuclear movement to relate to the
concerns of ordinary people and the concern, in
particular, for jobs. As Schumacher said : “call a
thing immoral, soul-destroying, a peril to peace —
so long as you have not shown it to be ‘uneco­
nomic’, you have not really questioned its right to
exist, grow and prosper.” The need to build a case
aginst nuclear power also on economic grounds as
well as safety and moral ones has been widely
recognised. In1 America Dr Gofman, a leading
nuclear opponent, pointed out that issues relating
to health and safety may be difficult for the public
to understand. An increase in an electricity
bill, however, is not difficult to understand.
The anti-nuclear movement was originally
mainly a middle class and morkl campaign, now

16

it is making a crucial breakthrough in the working
class. By the end of 1980, over 300 trade union
branches and regions and other bodies were affilia­
ted to (J.N.D. The participation of the unionists
in the fight against nuclear power was becoming
more apparent too, many pointing out how the
workers stand in the front line of the economic,
health and safety hazards of the nuclear industry.
In the struggle to end uranium mining in Austra­
lia, the unions have played a leading role. Urani­
um mining and transportation has been severely
disrupted by union bans. The vital role of the
unions in the fight against nuclear power has been
recognised by environmentalists, a group of whom
have published information relating job opportu­
nities and alternative forms of energy.
The movement today.
In Britain, in the light of the soaring support
for C.N.D., it was decided to call the first national
demonstration since 1974. This demonstration ful­
filled all expectations and on 26th \ October 1980
70,000 people marched to Trafalgar Square for a
100.000—strong rally against Cruise missiles and
Trident and for a cut in arms spending. In the
course of 1981, there was almost a ten-fold increase
in membership and local groups. By early ’82
150 local councils in England, including the
Greater London Council. Scotland and Wales had
declared themselves “nuclear-free zones”. Public
opinion polls confirmed this growth with around
402 backing the principle of British unilateral
disarmament. The Labour Party under the leader­
ship of Michael Eoot, a long-standing supporter of
C.N.D., passed a resolution at their Annual con­
ference in 1982 in favour of unilateralism.

C.N.D. is still a non-aligned, independent peace
campaign encorporating a wide coalition of many
17

shades of political and'religious opinions. In view-:
of Britain’s decline as a world power and the proli­
feration of ndclear powers since the formation ■ of C.N.D., :its vision of a clear lead by Britain fornuclear disarmament has been modified by arecognition of-the need-to wort simultaneously for-multi­
lateral agreements. C.N-D. is now more decentra-i
Used- and its strength lies in- hundreds of local
groups and its links with specialist groups withinthe campaign and external links- with- other orga­
nisations working towards similar ends such as;
European Nuclear Disarmament World Disarma­
ment Campaign, Friends'of the Earth. There -i»
now- less conflict- about different forms of protest
than in the early days. Civil disobedience - is seenas a tool' to be Used when the situation demands itThis could-be'for a major confrontation with theauthorities when- the new Cruise missiles'are intro­
duced into Britain in 1983. Preparations for this
confrontation have begun already -in the ;form of.
peoples’ peace' camps which - have been set up
outside the;military bases selected, for .the missiles,
for example’, Greenham. Common.
In W. Germany-, the last few years have seen
the phenomenal rise- of the “Greens”, a political
party committed tb an 'environmentalist policy - of
which their rejection of nuclear technology is a
very important part. It'is possible that : within a,
short time they will be in the position of holding
the'balance df power in the government; It remains
to be seen how they will be able to reconcile their
Coil tempt for the traditional parliamentary system;
(they believe that parliament is irrelevant to the
real needs of- the. people), and the-attem.pt to imple- •
ment.tbeir-ideas in an inevitably less “pure” form
,r through their position in parliament.
:
In the U.S., the 1 Freeze’’ campaign involving
aLcoalition of different organisations has spread

18

■

t

,

/

very rapidly, drawing support from .bothRepublican,
and.Democratic.Congressmen. Launched at GeOr;
getown University. in the spring of 1981, its purpose .
is to create a mass movement to pressurise the U.S.
and. the U..S.S-B. to adopt a mutual, freeze pn the
testing, production and deployment of nuclear wea­
pons. and of.missile* and new aircraft designed .pri­
marily to deliver, nuclear weapons. It is .seen as an
essential and practical first step towards lessening
the risk of nuclear, war and reducing nuclear.
arsenals. A1 total freeze can be verified more easily
than the complex bALT I and .11 and if it does not
succeed, the .U.S,. and U.S.S.R. will produce a new
“generation” of nuclear weapons at tremendous
expense and whose greater accuracy will make war
more likely.
., • ., - ...
, . .

The international movement against nuclear
yveapons.
“We are cooperating with . the powerful peace
movements in W. Europe and America, East and
West the non-aligned nations of the South. A great
world peace movement is beginning to emerge.-.’.” '
—Lord.Fenner Brockway, 15 August,. 1982.

. T?he War Id Disalm ament Campaign was laun­
ched by . Lord. Philip Noel-Baker and .Lord .Fenner
Brockway and 3,000 delegates representing a ..com­
prehensive cross-section of voluntary peace orga­
nisations in London in April 1980. It had the aim
of building UP worldwide public,pressure in support
of disarmament and .in .particular the. implementa­
tion of the Final Document of; the. First United
Nations Special^ Session ...op. Disarmament which
took place in 1978- .. The W.D.,C. was one of the
Organisations to present a petition sighed by milli­
ons all over the world at the Special Session
in 1982.
.

.19

Article 33 of the Final Document states the im­
portance of establishing nuclear-free zones as an
intermediate measure on the way to the ultimate
aim of “general and complete disarmament.” The
aim of European Nuclear Disarmament (E.N.D.) is
the creation of just such a nuclear-free zone in
Europe.
“We fought World War I in Europe, we fought World

War II in Europe and if you dummies let us, we’ll fight
World War III in Europe....”
— Hear. Admiral Gene La Rocque (

Former Pentagon strategic palmier
(Source : Towards the Nuclear Holocaust by Sir Martin Ryle)

The appeal for E.N.D. was launched on 28th
April 1980 largely in response to N.A.T.O.’s decision
in December 1979 to deploy Cruise and Pershing II
missiles in W. Europe. By the late ’70’s armory in
W. Europe included a destructive power fifty times
that of all the weapons used in World War II, the
Korean war and the war in Vietnam combined.
The new weapons are able to strike deep within
the Soviet Union and will be under the control of
the U.S.

The early draft of the appeal was written by
E. P. Thompson, the Marxist historian who is one
of the prime movers and powerful promoters of the
campaign. The appeal calls upon the two great
powers to withdraw all nuclear weapons from
European territory and urges the U.S.S.R. to halt
production of its SS20 missiles at the same time as
calling on the U.S. not to implement its decision to
develop and install Pershing II and Cruise missiles.
It calls for the removal of all nuclear air and sub­
marine bases, nuclear weapons research, develop­
ment and manufacturing institutions and nuclear
20

warheads themselves.. After circulation in Europe,
a new draft was prepared encorporating the ideas'of
correspondents in many different countries. The
response to the appeal has been extraordinary— it
has received an astonishing range of support. Very
quickly mass movements had grown up in Holland,
Belgium and Norway. The Dutch and Belgians
were able, in the swell of protest, to postpone the
implementation of the N.A.T.O. agreement to install
demonstrations in Cruise missiles in their
country. The massive Europe during October
and November 1981 were evidence of the grave
anxieties about the continuing arms build-up in
Europe. Support and publicity has spread rapidly in
Erance, Italy, Germany, Spain, Greece, Portugal
and elsewhere.

The movement for E.N.D. has made contacts
and’gained support in the Soviet Union also. This
is not the first time the Western peace movement
has penetrated into tne U.S.S.R. Back in December
I960, eleven pacifists left San Erancisco on a march
that would take them across the U.S..and Europe to
Moscow. After flying to London, the Americans
were joined’ by ■peace marchers from 9 other coun­
tries. In each country their message was : oppose
the militarism of your government, don’t join the'
army, stop the arms race. After 10 months and
6,000 miles of walking, a combined group of
Americans and Europeans reached Moscow and
demonstrated in Red Square.
More than 20 years later, in 1982, a group of
about 260 Scandinavian women gained the permis­
sion of the Soviet government and the coopera­
tion of the official Soviet Peace Committee to march
against nuclear weapons through Soviet cities. The
Soviet Peace Committee has 450 members, for the
most part citizens who have distinguished them­

21

selves in the field of space, exploration, acting,
science. There are over 100 committees in various
regions all of them led by prominent public figures
but so far as is known, reflecting only standard
anti-American views. It Clearly faces a dilemma
in relating to the W. European peace movement.
On the one hand it sees in it' the hope for an end to
the economically crippling arms race and reducing
the risk of war which, unlike the Americans, they
have experienced at home at first hand in living
memory. On the other hand they see in it the
danger of- encouraging dissension at home. The
latter was borne out by the hostility aroused by the
attempt on the part of the Scandinavian women to
make contacts with the 16 leaders of the unofficial
peace movement launched in the summer of 1982
in Moscow. These include two distinguished profe­
ssors who were sent to a detention cedtre for
alcoholics and . hooligans for 15 days while the
marchers were in town. -They are obviously regar­
ded as a threat and potential C.I.A. agents. It is
also true that the N.A..T.O. countries regard the
growing peace movements in their countries as a
threat and are taking measures to counteract them.
One traditional way is to present them as agents of
the Russians. In Britain Mrs. Thatcher recently
proposed spending £ 1 million of taxpayers money
on discrediting C.N.D. This is one measure of the
movement’s success.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power-the link.
It is now generally recognised among nuclear
disarmers that nuclear power and nuclear weapons
are two sides of the same coin, that nuclear power
adds, considerably to tt\e possibility of nuclear
weapons proliferation and therefore of their use.
The two campaigns-against nuclear weapons and
against nuclear power-have, m general, retained
their separate identity although there is much over22

lap of supporters and policy. In America in 1977
an organisation called Mobilisation for survival
was formed which calls for a halt both to nuclear
power and nuclear weapons. They organised the
first coordinated nationwide demonstrations against
nuclear power and nuclear weapons. In Britain in
November 1979 the Anti-Nuclear Campaign was set
up as an umbrella organisation. The movements
are establishing strong international links and are
gaining greatly in political significance.

The movement against nuclear technology has
broadened m the width of its support-and deepened
its perspective over the years. The anti-nuclear
struggle implies, after all. not simply the substitu­
tion of one form of energy by another, or of one
type of weapon by another, but it implies working
for economic and political and social change in
order to build a society where people do not seek to
dominate or abuse either nature or each other.
Within the movement. there are wide varieties of
opinion. In the width of the political and ideologi­
cal spectrum lies the movement’s strength but
also its weakness. There is continuing debate : how
can we create the widest possible platform of
support without diluting our message ? How can
we focus our attention on those areas of the world,
for example the Middle East, where conflict is most
likely to flare up into direct confrontation between
the superpowers and lead to nuclear war. without
A exposing the divisions within the movement ? Do
we try to proceed through the conventional elec­
toral process pr do we build up a movement from
the bottom to by-pass our corrupt and undemo­
cratic political system ? The way is not easy ; but
we have to succeed for it is on the success of this
movement that our survival depends.

(fa

Information compiled by Janet Ganguli from :
(1)

‘'Overkill” by John Cox.

(2)

‘‘From Protest to Resistence”, Peace News pamphlet

(3)

No. 2.
“The Power of the People”.

Ed. Robert Cooney and

Helen Miohalowski.

(4)
(5)

(6)
(7)

“No Nukes” by A. Gyngy.
“The Protest Makers” by R. Tailor and C. Pritchard.
“Protest and Survive” by E.P. Thompson and others.
, "We All Live on Three Mile Island”, by Greg Adamson.

Also available :
Nuclear Bulletin 1 : “The Worldwide Threat of Nuclear Tech.-

nology.
Nuclear Bulletin 2 : “Radiation : the Greatest Public Health

Threat of all Time*”
Nuclear Bullentin 3 : “The only

way out of the

Nuclear

Nightmare”, by G Kennan.

Nuclear Bulletin 4 : “The Insanity of Nuclear Power”.
Nuclear Bulletin 5 : “Karen Silkwood : Victim of the Nuclear
Police State.”

•24

.

0

Tell the leaders of the nations,
Make the whole wide world take heed,

Poison from the radiation
Strikes at every race and creed.
Time is short, we must be speedy,

We can see the hungry filled,

House the homeless, help the needy,
Shall we blast or shall we build ?

Men and women, stand together.

Do not heed the men of war.
Make your mind up now or never,
Ban the bomb forever more.

— sung by the marchers on the Aldermaston marches.

Documentation
and
Dissemination Centre
for
Disarmament Information
COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL

326, V .tvjain. I Glock

21,

Railway Parallel Road, Nehru Nagar,
BANGALORE - 56® 020
INDIA.

The Dissemination Centre was evolved in
January 1984, out of a need tocreate an awareness
to the Urgent task of Disarmament for Development
to inform and educate the people of the Nuclear
threat ; the destructive and ever growing Arms
Trade; violation of human rights and related issues.
Secondly to make information & documents
accessible for study, research or reference.

Thirdly, to support/link small action groups
involved with these issues and to support each
other.

We are a voluntary body of several resource
persons and coordinated from Bangalore.
Our approach has been to effectively reach
new audiences at the lowest cost. We make use
of existing facilities of other organisations /
institutions
basically coordinate joint
programmes. We have made extensive use of
United Nations films on Disarmament.

The results have been extremely encoura­
ging. We have in the first twenty months been
able to coordinate well over 160 programmes - all
to a new audience We have initiated several
institutions and NGOs to include Disarmament,
Peace and related issues as one of their areas of
concern.

We have had the State Governments department
of Information & Publicity take an active interest
in Disarmament efforts. Who have through us
twice borrowed UN films for screenings through
their district units.

In January 1985, we were invited by the
University of Jammu to assist them to plan a
course in Peace Education they planned to intro­
duce.
To reach out to a rural audience, whose prio­
rities are day to day living and issues like Dis­
armament are far removed, we are involved in
evolving a slide programme to relate our concerns
to them.
To link and support NGOs and activists in
India, we are in the process of publishing a Hand
Book - which will contain information about each
other. Those of you who are not in touch with
us are requested to contact us for our questionnaire
As part of our role during 1986-the Inter­
national Year of Peace, we will be part of an
NGOs group, who will arrange public meetings,
seminars and discussions on the different aspects
of our concerns.

We have also planned to initiate a Non-formal
series in Peace Education.

We have with us a set of slides, posters, UN
and other publications for reference or study. At
a future date we hope to publish an occasional
Newsletter. We would welcome receiving NGO
publications. If any of you are visiting or passing
through Bangalore,
we would be delighted to
arrange a public meeting to share your experiences.
However you should let us know at least two to
three weeks in advance. We have in the past
arranged meetings for several visiting Reace/Disarmament activists.
We have a panel of well informed speakers
always ready to assist other NGOs and institu­
tions.
We look forward to hearing from you.

Joint Convenors :
CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY (CANE)

1986

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PEACE

jj/V'i

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
z

». • > > ><>-• E

?
BANGALORE, ApriJ 17, fl!
3981If

SI NT AY UK ALD0
)R many western coun­
tries the idea of nuclear
war remains, officially, more
or less “unthinkable.” Yet in
Britain, for example, 48% of
those interviewea for a re­
cent Marplan poll thought a
nuclear conflict of some kind
likely within their lifetime:
thought the danger
^^reater than a year ago.

fallout shelters: a radiation meter to measure levels of radia­
tion inside and out, and a dose meter to tell each person the
dosage level he has received at
any given time.

F

However they view the chances
of such an event, millions of
ordinary people in Europe and
America consider surviving it to
be impossible, unimaginable. But
would it be?
Not to an increasing number of
experts and serious, level-headed
students of civil defence who ar­
gue that such views are based on
mythology and misinformation.
The facts, they say, show that
people can greatly improve their
chances of survival and to ignore
these facts at high levels of polciy
making is to forfeit what should
be a vital part of western defence
strategy.
Indeed, Britain’s Nuclear Pro­
tection
Advisory
Group
(NuPAG), an organisation form1^1 to pool information from
■fccialists worldwide in nuclear
pnysics, medicine, electronics,
engineering and disaster research,
has been pointing out for two
years that the West’s ignorance

i AN adequate life exist after
nuclear war?

Apart from essential medical
supplies a suitably equipped
shelter will have food and water
stored for safe consumption in
sealed containers. Careful wash­
ing or removal of outer leaves will
make even crops growing in the
field safe to eat.
The foods to be avoided are
milk and dairy products from
cattle which have grazed on con­
taminated fields. Strontium - 90
from these imitates calcium in
many ways and gets into the
bones.
One other dramatic effect of a
nuclear bomb deserves wider at­
tention than it has received: the so
- called electromagnetic pulse
(EMP). In layman's terms EMP
is a lightning - like surge of
voltage capable of knocking out a
wide range of power transmission,
radio and telecommunications and
solid - state computer equipment.
It has been estimated that a
single weapon exploded high in
the atmosphere over the North
Sea could paralize most power
and communications systems over
the whole of Western Europe.
Protection against this involves
u'es of special arrestors similar to,
but quicker and more substantial
than those used to absorb lightn­
ing effects.
Little work has been done on
these in non - military areas. But
Fallout radiation decays rapidly electronic equipment — such as
The
fourth'
effect
of
a
nuclear
jects or falling masonry. To proin intensity. It is most dangerous transistor radios — for use in
burst
is
fallout,
representing
10
loot themselves properly against
for two or three days after an
blast effects people need a good, per cent to 15 per cent of .the explosion. Shielding by heavy, shelters, can be protected by
bomb’s total energy.
careful packing and earthing.
deep biast shelter.
radiation - absorbing material
Discussing British fears of ae­
Fallout
is
made
when
some
of
It is important to note that
(brick, concrete, earth) will stop it
rial
llal bombardment
UUiUUaiu....„. before World
more than 50 per cent of the the radiation from the fireball and is vital during this period.
Within a week or two it will War II, Tom Harrison, in his
People within the blast - areas of attaches to dust and debris raised
the atomic weapons used in Japan by the explosion. Swept up by the have reached levels which humans book Living Through the Blitz
survived all of the effects de­ blast afterwinds, these particles - dependent on their general wrote, “The idea that attack from.
ion" mt ia,,,Muo
health and careful monitoring of overhead would become the
scribed above - without advance form the famous mushroom cloud
and are dispersed by prevailing exposure . can tolerate for short final-devastating stage in coming
warning or proper shelters.
winds.
periods.
wars
grew....Thus
Though
grim
when
expressed
—
Superstitions
about
fallout
Most
disciplined armed
forces of
say,erfou?fmfflion peoplTThdfe
Superstitions about fallout
Most of
of the
the effects
effects of
of exposure
exposure fhe
the.....disciplined
armed torces
oi
odds m-:v be much better than we must -!-----------ve wa-v A0--*acts <•„.
f°r PeoP'e to radiation are nnn
non - rnmulative
cumulative, traditional war would be threavsu»
are often led to believe. And to survive its effects.
Cells «ui
can repair damage that has tened‘ by
’ collapse
""" on
*“ the home
front....
’
’
Fallout
radiation
does
not
poi"
ot
been
too"
great.
This
is
why
a
anyone’s 50-50 chance of survival
Fallout radiation does not poi- n.ot been too great. This is why t
The Western powers today will
‘the environment
for Like
yearsany
or single,
large
dose of
is show httle advance
improves
withhappens
some inot radiation
r-----------formation greatly
about what
in son
penetrate
every material.
*'ar more
dangerous
than small
on those..views
-----._.:„i
i ;v. o„to
v far
more
C'
a nuclear attack, even a minimum dust, sooner or
later
it settles
doses
received
over a period of of forty years ago — unless they
mation. Without knowing what of advance warning and an awa- the ground. If it falls on water, it t'merealise
that
the
real
front is the
sooner or iaici u
vnuclear weapons are capable of, reness of what he can do to pro- dust,
will
eventually
to *
the
This
the ground.
II ilsettle
Ml* «•
““hot•«
TK, is also why two items of "Ome 'ron^ and prepare accot'
people cannot understand how to foot bihiself.
•—inn
equipment are so important for dingly.
GEMINI.
protect against them.

IHIS feature investigates the
unthinkable - the possibility
T
of large-scale progressive survi­

val after a worldwide nuclear
holocaust.

F|1HE writer details the curJLrent ability of nations to
withstand such disaster; and of
what is possible, given prepara­
tion and wider knowledge, if
governments would act now and
if ordinary people everywhere
took the precautions widely
available to them.

AFTER THE BOMB:
CAN LIFE a ON?

and neglect of civil defence may University’s Centre for Interna- fuelled the
"’ "T
u,e growing awareness
be “ the biggest single military/ tional Affairs,’• 'i
claimed
clai.med. that
lhat ““the
the and
and concern
concern ;about vulnerability to
political blunder ever made."
c.::t ShpWnnA
......w,
Srf
“a'°k m
'2 aa crisis
-7sis aIlack and (he Government’s
,
.
.
,
,
would
be
one
in
which
neither
“We could be defeated by side had a meaningful civiJ def. previously well- hidden neglect of

pessimism, says Richard Burton, ence. The least slab% situation.... civil defence planning.
Within seconds of exploding, a
eminent architect and NuPAG js one ;n which there are marked
Coupled with the decision to nuclear bomb releases three of the
co-founder, “where we might well asymmetries in civil defence
survive with planning and capability....If the United States allow deployment of Cruise-type four main forms of its awesome
protection.
does not undertake an expanded missiles from British bases this energies: heat - and - light, blast
has brought out the largest anti­
in a country further from the civil defence programme the least nuclear demonstrations since the and initial radiation.
likely epicentre of an East-West stable situation will exist in a early Sixties.
The almost instantaneous effect
nuclear exchange, the issue may 'uture crisis.
...
me campaigners for of an atomic burst is a brilliant
seem less urgent. Yet the risk to
Figures sharpen this point, nuclear disarmament oppose dis­ flash of light. So bright is this
people everywhere from some Since the late 1960s the Soviets cussion of protection with a vi- that it can dazzle people up to 100
kind of nuclear disaster is greater have spent an estimated 50 billion 80U.r and rational grasp worthy of miles away. Anyone nearby look­
now than it has been at any time dollars on a civil defence prog- medieval Christians chasing he- ing directly at it can be temporasince World War II. It seems ramme which by both their own rysies — on the
•*— ... "----- rily blinded for minutes or even
likely to get worse.
and authoritative American esti- defence is... ithe grounds that civil days and receive retinal burns. It
---------------esnis ineffectual, or war- is
most__..
dangerous
night,w..„.
when
---------_.uus
atatnight,
mates could enable between 92% mongering and contrary to their the
pupils oare
widely
dilated.
the pupils are widely dilated.
TAEVELOP-MENTS in both and 95%. of- their
aims.
entire population
rv.r«>io«:"—
pvuuiaiion own aim.
conventional and tactical nu- to survive a massive nuclear atExponents of civil defence do
With temperatures approach­
clear weaponry have multiplied lacK'
not share this dog-in-the-manger
ing those at the centre of the sun,
the range of possible scenarios
Bv
„rim 1 IS fvw'-attitude bu> <l»v — ’
the ensuing fireball will vapourise
mvoivm ” cfcc..

‘

Exclusive fare at the West End.

kjri to pool information from
^■cialists worldwide in nuclear
physics, medicine, electronics,
engineering and disaster research,
has been pointing out for two
years that the West’s ignorance

AFTER THE BOMB ■
BAN LIFE M

and neglect of civil defence may University’s Centre for Interna­ fuelled the growing awareness
be “ the biggest single military/ tional Affairs, claimed that “the and concern about vulnerabiltiy to
most stable situation in a crisis attack and the Government’s
political blunder ever made.”
would be one in which neither previously well- hidden neglect of
“We could be defeated by side had a meaningful civil def­ civil defence planning.
pessimism, ” says Richard Burton, ence. The least stable situation....
Coupled with the decision to
eminent architect and NuPAG is one in which there are marked
co-founder, “where we might well asymmetries in civil defence' allow deployment of Cruise-type
survive with planning and capability....If the United States missiles from British bases this
has brought out the largest anti­
protection."
does not undertake an expanded nuclear demonstrations since the
In a country further from the civil defence programme the least early Sixties.
likely epicentre of an East-West stable situation will exist in a
In general, the campaigners for
nuclear exchange, the issue may future crisis.”
seem less urgent. Yet the risk to
Figures sharpen this point. nuclear disarmament oppose dis­
people everywhere from some Since the late 1960s the Soviets cussion of protection with a vi­
gour
and rational grasp worthy of
kino of nuclear disaster is greater have spent an estimated 50 billion
now than it has been at any time dollars on a civil defence prog­ medieval Christians chasing he­
since World War II. It seems ramme which by both their own resies — on the grounds that civil
likely to get worse.
and authoritative American esti­ defence is ineffectual, or war­
mates could enable between 92% mongering and contrary to their
95% of their entire population own aims.
evelopments in both and
Exponents of civil defence do
conventional and tactical nu­ to survive a massive nuclear at­
not snare this dog-in-the-manger
clear weaponry have multiplied tack.
the range of possible scenarios
By comparison, US funding for attitude; but they are interested in
involving atomic weapons. Among civil defence has been less than the practical realities of the si­
strategists, the concepts of 2% that of the Soviets. The likely tuation, and are approaching
them methodically. C Bruce Si­
“flexible
response”
and
bley, editor of a new British civil
“winnable” nuclear conflict have
defence monthly called Protect
replaced the idea of a monolithic
and Survive, claims that the res­
stalemate between the superpow­
ponse to his magazine has been
ers enforced by the doctrine of
“overwhelming.”
MAD, the Mutually Assured
Destruction of hostage popula­ mortality from nuclear war for
The quiet activities of NuPAG
Americans
is
normally
given
as
tions.
50% of the largely unprotected in Britain have helped bring about
MKrance, China and India have population (about equivalent to a Government reappraisal of its
/(Ben quite openly the super­ the local rate of mortality among entire civil defence programme;
power monopoly on nuclear wea­ the quite unprepared victims of its experts have also been invited
by Government and industrial
pons; it may well have been Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
planners to advise on nuclear
splintered even further in secrecy
In Britain, with its many tar­ protection in several other coun­
- by Argentina, Brazil, South
Africa, Pakistan and Libya. Israel gets and population centres tries, including West Germany,
is now reckoned, on excellent au­ tightly packed into a small land­ America, and certain States ip the
thority, to have more than 20 mass, a recent Home Office esti­ Middle East.
mate suggested that “15 million
nuclear bombs.
As NuPAG Information Of­
Britons would survive an all-out
This nuclear diaspora increase nuclear strike.”
ficer Ivan Tyrell said to me: “Of
the risk of a nuclear device falling
course we sec disarmament as the
Though
well-documented,
this
into the hands of a terrorist
ultimate solution to this problem.
disparity has been so little publi­ But how can it be fair for us to
group.
cised that, as NuPAG points out, risk the lives of other people, or
Meanwhile, more tension is it “might as well be the Russians” our own children just because we
spilling from industrialised coun­ ultimate secret weapon. No have decided, against known
tries into those areas where their wonder they refused to have it on
facts, that -protection is useless or
dwindling, vital raw materials the. agenda of the SALT treaty warmongering.
I wear a seatbelt
originate; the Middle East, Afri­ talks.
in my car because it could save
ca. South America.
NATO Governments have been my hfe, not because I want to
This is not to mention the only too obliging. The balance of crash.”
“peaceful" nuclear disaster, a belief has become a more impor­
Good, accurate information
possibility that came near to tant element of the balance of about nuclear effects and protec­
jellify at Three Mile Island in power than ever before.
tion from them has been accu­
iMhprica.
Even if the unwelcome event mulating for years. A number of
But the least known factor, proved the Russians wrong in countries have already put it to
outweighing all the others, is the their belief that they can survive a use. Whether the big Western
nuclear
war, the tact that they democracies will begin to follow
current, stark imbalance between
the superpowers in civil defence believe this and the West does not suit remains to be seen _ GE­
preparedness. The Soviet Union makes the situation dangerou • MINI.
has taken elaborate steps to pro­ indeed.
N old-fashioned wars, most of
tect its people and industry from
the victims were soldiers.
nuclear attack. The US and its TRONICALLY, the most adNATO allies have not.
vanced civil defence prog­ Modern aerial warfare has shifted
the
risks to civilians. The 20 - to Putting the Russian view, So­ rammes in Europe today are 1 ratio of military to civilian vic­
viet Marshall V I Chuykov (in an found in Switzerland, Sweden and tims in World War I was exactly
article printed in the Moscow Norway, none of them nuclear reversed by the end of the Viet­
publication Science and Life as powers.
nam war. As Swiss military ana­
long ago as 1969) has said:
As the Swiss have stated in lysts have rightly noted, nuclear
“Although called mass weapons, their manual on shelter construc­ weapons have continued this
with the knowledge and skilful tion, “for as long as wars have trend — but on a completely new
use of modern defence methods, been waged, man has always de­ scale. Like it or not, we are all in
they will not injure masses, but vised an appropriate defence for the front line in a nuclear age.
only those who neglect the study, every new weapon developed." To
mastery and use of those them, nuclear weapons are no
For this reason, the Swiss and
methods.”
others like them believe that eve­
exception.
ryone has a role in civil defence
In recent testimony before a
Over the past year in Britain a and must be prepared for it. The
Senate Committee Professor S. P.
Huntingdon, Director of Harvard series of media investigations has first step in preparation is infor­

D

. by Robert Gates

I

Jects .vL fallln8 masonry. To pro­
tect themselves properly against
blast effects people need a good,
deep blast shelter.
It is, important to note that
more man « 0 per cent of the
people within the blast - areas of
the atomic w< apons used in Japan
., , ,al1 of the effects desenbeo above - without advance
warning or proper shelters.
Though grim when expressed
in terms of a blast - area covering,
say, f°ur million people, these
odds may be much better than we
are often led to believe. And
anyone s 50-50 chance of survival
improves greatly with some in­
mation. Without knowing what formation about what happens in
nuclear weapons are capable of, a nuclear attack, even a minimum
people cannot understand how to of advance warning and an awa­
reness of what .he can do to pro­
protect against them.
Within seconds of exploding, a tect. himself.
nuclear bomb releases three of the
four main forms of its awesome
energies; heat - and - light, blast
and initial radiation.

The almost instantaneous effect
of an atomic burst is a brilliant
flash of light. So bright is this
that it can dazzle people up to 100
miles away. Anyone nearby look­
ing directly at it can be tempora­
rily blinded for minutes or even
days and receive retinal burns. It
is most dangerous at night, when
the pupils are widely dilated.

Fallout radiation decays rapidly
The fourth' effect of a nuclear
burst is fallout, representing 10 in intensity. It-is most dangerous
per cent to 15 per cent of the for two or three days after an
explosion. Shielding by heavy,
bomb’s total energy.
radiation - absorbing material
Fallout is made when some of (brick, concrete, earth) will stop it
the radiation from the fireball and is vital during this period.
attaches to dust and debris raised
Within a week or two it will
by the explosion. Swept up by the have reached levels which humans
blast afterwinds, these particles - dependent on their general
form the famous mushroom cloud health and careful monitoring of
and are dispersed by prevailing
exposure - can tolerate for snort
winds.
periods.
Superstitions about fallout
Most of the effects of exposure
must give way to facts for people to radiation are non - cumulative.
to survive its effects.
Cells can repair damage that has
Fallout radiation does not poi­ not been too great. This is why a.
son the environment for years or single, large dose of radiation is
penetrate every material. Like any far more dangerous than small
dust, sooner or later it settles to doses received over a period of
the ground. If it falls on water, it time.
This is also why two items of
will eventually settle to the bot­
equipment are so important for
tom of that. too.

me w ,oie oi
estem -.urope.
Protection against this involves
uSes of special arrestors similar to,
but quicker and more substantial
than those used to absorb lightn­
ing effects.
Little work has been done on
these in non - military areas. But
electronic equipment — such as
transistor radios — for use in
sheltersi can be protected by
careful flacking and earthing.

Discussing British fears of ae­
rial bombardment before World
War II, Tom Harrison, in his
book Living Through the Blitz
wrote, “The idea that attack from.
overhead would become the
final...devastating stage in coming
wars
grew....Thus
the.....disciplined armed forces of
traditional war would be threa­
tened by collapse on the home
front....”
The Western powers today will
show little advance on those views
of forty years ago — unless they
realise that the real front is the
home front and prepare accor­
dingly. — GEMINI.

Exclusive fare at the West End.

With temperatures approach­
ing those at the centre of the sun,
the ensuing fireball will vapourise
anything in its path. But people
not too close to its centre can
protect themselves from the heat
by shielding immediately in the
shadow of objects that will deflect

it.
The heat - pulse lasts a few
seconds, but burn victims who
survived the atomic explosions in
Japan were in many cases pro­
tected from fatal burns by Hjeir
own clothing.
, The initial radiation is usually
sb intense within a limited range
of the burst that only a shelter
covered by a suitable depth and
type of material can save people
from its lethal effects. But even
here, sheltering behind a sub­
stantial object within a second of
seeing the flash could save your
life - dependent upon the size of
the weapon.
■THE bang - or blast - uses
nearly naif the bomb’s total
energy and is its most destructive
effect.
Like the familiar “sonce boom”
amplified many times, the blast wave itself is a wall of highly
compressed air travelling out­
wards from the fireball at about
the speed of sound. Its rate of
travel gives a person two miles
from the explosion - centre about
10 seconds to seek shelter from it;
again, the possible difference
between life and death.
Blast is so destructive because
its forces are multidirectional.
The first blast - wave is echoed by
a reverse “negative" effect as the
partial vacuum created by the
rising fireball rapidly draws air
back towards the centre of the
explosion.

Both these waves are accompa­
nied by blast - winds reaching
several times hurricane - speed. In
an air - burst weapon, these forces
are further tangled by the shock
wave bouncing off the earth and
back into itself.
Near its source, blast will put
intolerable pressure on bodies ex­
posed to it. The more common
danger is from being hurled
through the air, from fiying ob-

Grilled lobster
Fresh lobster grilled over a charcoal bar-beque, to give it a unique smokey flavour. Served
with a garlic bar-be-que sauce and bal^pd
jacket potatoes.
, ’

Continental, Chinese and Indian delicacies. Bar-be-que
specials. A fantastic brunch spread. Delightful desserts.
And an atmosphere that makes you want to linger on.
Come. Enjoy yourself!

WEST END
HOTEL
EANC.AI-.ORl- I.NKA

For the real pleasure
of eating out.

.

g„:

No 435

. 5HceZl

W'^

!8"JCk

The Nuclear Threat

By H. Jack Geiger
o calculate the consequences of a
thermonuclear attack on an Ameri­
can city is to try to describe and

understand
an event without
precedent in human experience.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not serve.
The weapons used on those cities ap­
proximated 13 kilotons of explosive force.
At one megaton—a small weapon by
contemporary standards—we are trying
to imagine 80 simultaneous Hiroshima

=HOTO:THE MEDICAL EFFECTS OF THE ATOMIC BOMB IN JAPAN.

explosions.
At 20 megatons we ate
trying to imagine 1,600 Hiroshima
bombs detonated at the same time in the
same place.
■ At the time of Hiroshima, there was
one nuclear power and the world’s total
arsenal comprised two or three weapons.
Today there are at least six nuclear powers
and the total arsenal—conservatively
estimated—exceeds 50,000 warheads.
But most important, Hiroshima and

Hie Nuclear Threat

1

In New York, the burn cases alone would exceed by a factor of 1,000
the capacity ofall the bum-care centers in the United States.
Nagasaki were isolated, limited disasters.
They could, in time, be saved and recon­
structed with help from the outside. In
any full-scale nuclear exchange today
there would be no “outside” that we
could rely on for aid. In a populationtargeted attack, every community in the
United States with a population of
25,000 or more might be destroyed. The
same is true, of course, of all the com­
munities in the Soviet Union, Great
Britain and Europe...There are so many
warheads that there is a shortage of
targets.
During the last 20 years, the con­
sequences of nuclear attack have been
calculated in exquisite detail in hundreds
of scientific journals, books and govern­
ment publications.
It is relatively easy, in scientific and
medical terms, to predict the effects of
overwhelming blast forces, searing heat
| and intense radiation on human beings
and their environments. It is the
imagination that fails, because we are so
unfamiliar with the scale and magnitude
of these forces. For example: a large conventic ial bomb explosion creates a heat
of about 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit; a
thermonuclear explosion creates a heat of
27 million degrees. Or again: If we were

able to divide the combined American
and Soviet arsenals into Hiroshima-size
bombs, and we were to explode one such
bomb every minute—60 Hiroshima
bombs an hour, 1,440 a day—we would
have to do that for two years and three
months before we exhausted the arsenals.
Since we cannot imagine a full-scale
nuclear war, in order to comprehend the
consequences of thermonuclear weapons
we must consider the case of a single
weapon and a single city—a onemegaton warhead, let us say, the
equivalent of one million tons of TNT.
That’s enough TNT to fill a freight train
more than 200 miles long; the actual
bomb is about the size of a suitcase.
To calculate the effects, we need to
know only the size of the weapon, the
nature of the attack (air burst or ground
burst, single or multiple strike), the
nature of the terrain, the time of year,
the day of the week and the time of day,
and the prevailing weather conditions,
especially the wind direction and
velocity. A single one-megaton air burst
over the New York City metropolitan
area, for example, would—according to
the calculations of the U.S. Arms Control
and
Disarmament
Agency—kill
1,667,000 people and profoundly injure

2,838,000.
A single 20-megaton air burst would
kill 7,698,000 and seriously injure
3,874,000.
These numbers, so large as to be
almost beyond comprehension, are
serious understatements, however.
Assuming something quite probable—
that the attack would occur on a weekday
when more people would be working in
the central city, near ground zero—and
something quite certain—that thej
nuclear explosion would create a’
Hiroshima-type firestorm burning for
days at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, turning
every bomb shelter into a crematorium—
the casualty count would increase 25 per­
cent.
Taking these factors into account, a
one-megaton air burst would kill
2,000,400 and severely injure 3,405,600
for a total of 5,406,000, or 33 percent of
the New York City metropolitan area.
Again, taking the same factors into ac­
count, a 20-megaton air burst would kill
9.2 million and severely injure 4.6
million for a total of 13.8 million, or 85
percent of all the people in the New York
City metropolitan area.
There is no identifiable event in
human history in which two million to

Left, Fukuromachi School, notfar
from the center ofthe explosion in
Hiroshima, was one ofthe few
buildings left standing. It was im­
mediately used as an aid station.
Above, thousands ofHiroshima
survivors sufferedsevere bums.
PHOTO
CREDITS: BOTTOM LEFT—THE MEDICAL EFFECTS OF THE ATOMIC BOMB IN JAPAN; UPPER RIGHT—THE MEDICAL EFFECTS OF THE
atomit a. .
cfntfo
BROWN UNIVERSITY; FAR RIGHT—HIROSHIMA MEMORIAL MUSEUM.
the atomi hl th in JAPAN.LEN TEH-

There

is no defense; civil defense is at best
an illusion, at worst a fraud.

nine million people have been killed in
one place in one moment. There is no
previous situation in which there were
three to four million seriously injured
human beings in one place.
And what would these injured “sur­
vivors” be suffering? Tens of thousands—
in some circumstances, more than
100,000—people would have extensive
third-degree burns. The number of New
York City metropolitan area burn cases
|alone would exceed by a factor of 1,000
the capacity of all the burn-care centers in
the entire United States.
Hundreds of thousands of “survivors”
would suffer crushing injuries of the
chest, abdomen and limbs; skull frac­
tures; spinal cord injuries; and multiple
lacerations, hemorrhage and shock. Many
would have these injuries in conjunction
with burns and acute radiation sickness.
A moderate number would have rup­
tured lungs and eardrums from blast
pressures, in addition to their other in­
juries. Many would be blind, because as
far as 35 miles from ground zero, a reflex
glance at the nuclear fireball would
produce severe retinal burns.
These would be the short-range
problems to which a medical response
would have to be addressed. Long-range

problems would, of course, include the
epidemic disease potential of millions of
decomposing human corpses, lack of safe
water, a burgeoning growth of insect
carriers of infection, and rapidly
decreasing stocks of food. But who would
be left to respond?
Assuming a one-megaton air burst,
one physician would survive for every
1,000 severely injured persons in New
York City. Working 20 hours a day, it
would take eight days for every critically
injured “survivor” to be seen once by a
physician—for about 10 minutes.
Another factor is that there would be no
hospitals, no ambulances, no lab equip­
ment, X-rays, blood, plasma ordrugs. In
short, there would be no medical care at
all, as we commonly understand it. What
would be left of the buildings would be
lying in what would be left of the streets;
bridges would be down; subways and
tunnels would be crushed.
But these are the consequences of just
one weapon—a single one-megaton or
20-megaton device used in one strike. In
the real event, as many as 30 or 40
megatons could hit the New York
metropolitan area, with strikes occurring
over days or weeks. In the real event,
there could be 7,000 or 10,000 megatons

dropped on the United States—and a
similar or even larger number on the
Soviet Union. Deaths would occur
everywhere, not just in the target areas, as
radioactive contamination spread and as
epidemic disease and starvation followed.
There is no defense; civil defense is at
best an illusion, at worst a fraud.
The only true meaning of "survival’ ’ is
social, not biological. Simply to tally
those who are still alive, or alive and
uninjured, is to make a biological body
count that has little social meaning. The
biological “survivors," in all probability,
merely have postponed their deaths. Life
in the intenm would bear no resem­
blance to life before a nuclear attack.
From a medical standpoint, the danger
of nuclear war is a public health problem
of unprecedented magnitude. There is
no coherent response, no cure. Only one
medical (and social) strategy remains:
prevention.
•

H. Jack Geiger, M.D., is Arthur C.
Logan professor ofcommunity medicine,
City College, City University of New
York, and is a member of the board of
directors of Physicians for Social Respon­
sibility, of which he was a founding
member.

Above, as part ofthe 1950s civil
defense plans, school children were
put through duck and cover drills.
Right, injuredpeople gather at
Hiroshima's Niiyukt Bridge about
three hours after the bomb hit.

PHOTO CREDITS: BOTTOM LEFT-FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY;BOTTOM RIGHT—THE MEDICAL EFFECTSOFTHE ATOMIC BOMB IN JAPAN.

August 1982

Common Cause

45

Reprinted by permission of Common Cause, August 1982.

PROMOTING ENDURING PEACE
P.O. Box 103, Woodmont, Connecticut 06460
Telephone (203) 878 4769
Additional copies FREE except for postage
Promoting Enduring Peace, Inc. does not advocate or ex­
press opinions on legislative matters. The responsibility
for statements of fact and opinion in the publications or
material distributed rests solely with the author.

REPRINTED BY THE ADVOCATE PRESS, NEW HAVEN, CT.

S1 vTY

3lBlock

CElJL

OUTSBDER/O V VIJAYAN

The Third World has become a pawn in the nuclear war game,
upholding pacification and at the same time acquiring more and
more weapons of destruction, says O V Vijayan.

should like to know is whether this pursuit of
energy, so patently questionable on account of its
hazards as well as its economics, hides a drive for
weaponry.
The satellites, it is rumoured, picked up evi­
dence of increased activity on the Pokhran site.
The Americans made this their excuse for refus­
ing spares for Tarapur, proof, no doubt, of
Reagan’s racism. The governnv'.nt has told us the
Pokhran blast was a peaceful blast, and a pity the
New Information Order is not here, for it would
have told us of the hundred peaceful things the
blast would accomplish, like building instant
alchemic apartment blocks or curing cooped tip
broilers of their neurosis. I have never ceased
wondering, and it is ten years, a long enough time
for wondering. We can wonder on, but the last
thing we’ll have is a debate, because the Atomic
Energy Act of 1962 arms the government with
or long we contemplated nuclear war with on the Jamshedpur tribals whose land the Tatas powers to declare any information classified. The
an obscene sense of victory, because we bought to build their steel mills on; the steel prime minister is the chairperson of the nuclear
had counted on our outliving the imperial hasn’t made the tribals one bit more prosperous. works, and successive incumbents, despite their
races which would annihilate themselves But even more compelling is the reason that so far varying commitments to liberal values, have
with their weapons, giving us the oppor- I have found no one who could say with honest hugely enjoyed this terror and vodoo. It is on
ity to translate our moral pretence into reality. conviction that the containers holding nuclear record that the then minister of defence had heard
Spread at our feet would be the rubble that once waste will survive the uncertainties of the future about the Pokhran blast over the radio and not
from the prime minister.
had been Europe and America! This cheerful- centuries. The waste is toxic for 20,000 years.
Often a piece of nuclear junk is sold by Western
prospect has since been upset by scientists who
The immediate post-War years were the years
have predicted an interminable nuclear winter of nuclear penitence; the unleashed atom had to salesmen to an impoverished Third World coun­
following the holocaust. They say the soot and be harnessed for peace. Science had not yet begun try, machinery faulted and outlawed in its own
dust of the explosions would be carried to the to reveal the terrible chasms in its logic; no one .place of manufacture, much the same way as
non-combatant continents as well, and this would was prepared to accept that perhaps here was one multinationals dump dangerous drugs on us. This
blot out the sun, and in the long night all living path science ought not to have taken, and that junk then becomes for the oligarch and the
things would freeze to death.
there is nothing like safe or peaceful nuclear dictator a totem of national glory and personal
dia’s nuclear establishment does not seem to energy. It was thus that Nehru postulated the perpetuation. And if it spews forth massive
verly bothered. Small may not be beautiful, nuclear credo for us; so was the government contamination, blighting our genetic susbstance,
it could hope to escape detection. It is thus committed to producing 10,000 MW by 2000 AD, the masses, muddled by degraded populism,
that we buy cluster bombs talking of Gandhi, as cheap energy for the people. To produce this would never know.
Once we have the nuclear facility, and once a
import computerised torture devices for the secret much energy by nuclear means, we need 44
police and yet condemn military juntas for sup­ atomic power stations of 230 MW capacity each. hostile neighbour makes the bomb, populist
pressing human rights, and occasionally dismem- Each of these will need 200 tonnes of heavy water pressures could be manipulated for a nuclear
ber a nation and yet feel outraged by Ronald as initial input and another 20 tonnes by way of arsenal. We can still do without the bomb, or
Reagan. Our nuclear innocence seems to be on annual replenishment. The power stations have a nuclear energy, but that is the path of creative
much the same lines, because it in some way life span of 30 years, though they seldom last that politics and a compassionate lifestyle, and of
presupposes that we will never have to ask long. Granting they do. it is 30 x 20 tonnes plus throwing the minds of our people open A
hurselves what we intend doing with our pluto­ 200 tonnes, or 800 tonnes of heavy water per unit, Pakistani or an Indian bomb will have little
nium, whether we could hold that perilous or a total of 35,200 tonnes for the entire works. combat relevance other than satisfying the fun­
substance in our hands without eventually turn­ The production cost of one kilogram of heavy damentalist and vegetarian hawks in the resnec'
water is Rs 5,000, at which rate a tonne of the tive countries. But it most certainly will serve t"
ing it into weaponry.
Raja Ramanna who spoke the other day at substance would cost around Rs 50 lakhs. The impose depravity and fatalism on the subcont°
Delhi’s India International Centre, was telling us aggregate cost of heavy water alone will be a nent. More than all this, the greatest nucl
about peaceful atomic energy all over again. He staggering Rs 17,600,00,00,000 (seventeen hazard we have to contend with is the amoraLtv
had told us in 1974 that by ’76 the reactors would thousand six hundred crores). Then at 60 tonnes of our own scientist, hopelessly compounded
be ready. They weren’t, and from ’76 to '83 were per unit per year we need 79,200 tonnes of with the rhetoric of the decolonised opportunt
the years of silence. He spoke again in ’83 giving uranium. We are assured that plentiful deposits He matches the politician’s contempt of hu
us an ’84 deadline, and now he tells us that it is exist in the country. Again, the processing in­ rights with his own affront to the eternal rA?11
Pioto’85, by when we will start our fast breeder volves astronomical sums of money. Perhaps, if plasm.
At any given moment nearly 300 of our nu 1
reactors which will enable us to have a commer­ we can take a patriotic view, the costs are not all
that forbidding; new year advertisements after all scientists are junketing abroad. It is to this j-Clea^
cial reactor by the end of the century.
These dates have ceased to interest me for many put the cost of a dance-dinner at Rs 1,500 a club that our unborn generations are entri"161^'
Perhaps they might never need that care th Ste“‘
reasons. For one thing, I am convinced that even couple!
en<*
I do not wish to examine the interminable coming sooner. And when it does, we can
if the reactors produced the kind of plenty
claimed by their partisans, all that plenty will tangles we have got into (Tarapur, for instance, is go with the satisfaction that not al] of .Jways
merely deepen our Poverty Divide. I am reminded over-radiated, Kota is shut down due to a leak, imported, that we too had our little bnrA W,as
underdog
’
s
densepack.
bs
'
of the observation a commentator made recently and Kalpakkam is non-operational), but all I

I

THE ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY Of IN°*A'

------

^MMUNITY HEALTH CELb
^6- v Main, ! Block
‘mangala
^
/
a^alofo-560034 ■/

“IN A N0CHEA1
WAR, it IS BITTER
k
he NATO decision in 1979 to deploy the
new Pershing-2 and Cruise missiles in
western Europe provoked the resignation
of
a senior
NATO
fromAsthea
West
German
army,commander
Gert Bastian.

T

two-star general and a tank division, commander
in southern Germany, Bastian knew the deploy­
ment for what it was, and decided to expose it.
From the platforms of the European peace move­
ment, Bastian disclosed that the Pershings and
Cruises were not deployed in answer to the Soviet
Union’s new SS-20 missiles, but represented the
first step in a new NATO mobilisation designed to
wage and win a nuclear Third World War. The
Persuings and Cruises are designed to destroy in
six minutes the Soviet Union’s nerve centre of
command, and to paralyse its military responses.
The nuclear missiles on the Trident-2 submarines
and the laser missiles mounted on platforms in
space, proposed to be developed, will complete
the configuration.
Bastian pointed out that with the Pershings and
Cruises, the balance of terror—the precarious, but
the only sanity that the arms race was capable
of—was now a thing of the past. It stemmed from
the clear perception that no one could win a
nuclear war, which assured only mutual destruc­
tion. This did not stop the arms race but served to
strike a rough balance. NATO, led by Reagan and
the Pentagon, now believes that a nuclear war can
be won.
NATO, however, shies away from publicly
announcing its new programme as a cold-blooded
and fully intended strategy. Preferring to project it
instead as a continuation of the arms race, as a
build-up in self-defence against USSR’s initia­
tives. On the other hand, Bastian says, the Soviets
who actually have neither the resources nor the
know-how to match NATO’s mobilisation prefers
to pretend that it does, in the hope of projecting a
deterrent. Nothing could suit NATO’s real in­
terests better, since Soviet postures serve to
justify its preparation for a nuclear victory.
Bastian is convinced that only a unilateral dis­
armament can break out of this dangerous vortex.
Bastian’s resignation and his disclosures
caused a furore and provided both the European
and American peace movements with vital infor­
mation and clear insights with which to effective­
ly question their governments' military objec­
tives. It was precisely to prevent this that,
pressures were brought to bear on him and
Bastian was not allowed to resign, in the wake of a
letter which he wrote to the West German defence
minister arguing that to defend Europe, the new
missiles were both completely unnecessary and
totally dangerous.
For two months he was stripped of his com56

THE ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY OF INDIA. MAY 20. 1984

THE WEEKLY INTERVIEW/GERT BASTIAN
The nuclear drama being played out in Europe is a source of
increasing concern. With both the US and USSR involved in a
frenetic missiles race that might end in a catastrophic holocaust.
Gert Bastian, a West German general who resigned to protest
against the NATO deployment of missiles in Western Europe,
talks to Ivan Fera about the chilling prospects of the
Third World War and eventual devastation.

niand and allowed to keep only his rank while the
West German government weighed the consequ­
ences before he was finally allowed to leave the
army in 1980.
Bastian was recently in India to address the
members of the newly constituted Movement in
India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), a move­
ment that has sprung up in the wake of the
growing militarisation and the arms race on the
subcontinent. This interview, recorded during his
visit, is particularly relevant in this context.
Bastian, who was elected to the German parlia­
ment as a member of the Greens Party, is
internationally, one of the best-known leaders of
the European peace movement.

O You were saying that the NATO forces are
■undoubtedly superior in all important respects to
those of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in
terms of both air, sea and land systems. Could you
elaborate on this with some figures and also point
out the qualitative differences between the two
mobilisations?
To begin with, it is very clear that the navies of
the United States, the United Kingdom and
France are superior as far as all the decisive units
are concerned. Big aircraft carriers for combined
air and sea operations are only available in the
West, on this scale. Besides, in the last World War
it was only the United States and the United
Kingdom that conducted and acquired experience
in air and sea operations, not the Soviet Union.
They are traditional sea powers, and together they
have, I think, 18 very modem aircraft carriers,'
while the Soviet Union has none comparable. The
Soviet Union has 2 aircraft carriers, carrying
helicopters, for anti-submarine warfare, but they
do not carry combat aircraft on board the carriers
of the British and the US navies. As far as the big
ships are concerned, the Soviets are only superior
in the number of submarines, both conventional
and nuclear. But submarines are not guaranteed
to rule the waves in a war. The Germans know
this better than any other nation. We have tried in
two World Wars to break the naval superiority of
the United Kingdom and the United States with
submarines. We were not successful, and I don’t
think the Soviet Union can be, either. This is so
because anti-submarine warfare is highly de­
veloped in western countries, much more than in
the Soviet Union.
According to experts, the anti-submarine sys­
tems of the United States can wipe out most of the
Soviet subs in the first days of the war. Already in
peace time, the United States can locate any
Soviet subs in the sea, can follow and pinpoint
them within the first hour of their leaving the
harbour. Therefore, the submarines of the Soviet
Union are not such a danger as they are made out
to be.
The USSR has no intention to build a compara­
ble navy, nor does it have any plans to build a
comparable number of aircraft carriers. This
indicates that it is not the intention of the USSR to
become a superior power, much less to become an
equivalent power. Therefore the USSR does not
want to fight a Third World War. Without the
capability to be equivalent on the oceans, a world
war cannot be won.
□ You have said that the USSR has no intention
to build a superior navy. Do they have the
intention to build an equivalent naval capability?
USSR intends to build a navy capable of being
present on all oceans in peace time and to support
the movements and smaller struggles in countries
all over the world. But in a worldwide struggle,
the USSR cannot be present off foreign coasts and
in other oceans all over the world.
NATO has always been saying that the USSR is
far superior as far as land forces are concerned.

and that, therefore, we need nuclear weapons in
Europe to defend ourselves from a possible USSR
attack. It is correct that the USSR has more troops
available, but only in central Europe. But it is
equally true that worldwide, NATO has more
troops available than the Warsaw Pact countries.
Both sides have nearly 5 million soldiers. But
NATO has some hundred thousand soldiers
more. The difference is not very important, but
the point is that it is incorrect to say that NATO is
weaker as far as the number of land forces are
concerned.
The superiority of the land forces of the USSR
in central Europe must be set against certain other
important factors. First of all, the USSR’s super­
iority is not such that an attack against well
equipped defence forces can be successful. The
experience of all the last great wars shows that the
defender in a good defence position and with well
equipped troops can only be defeated if the
attacker has a 6 to 1 superiority. This was the

I don’t think the United States
government in a time of peace
would be so criminal as to kill
a 100 million Russians in
cold blood and to make a
nuclear disaster for the whole
world.
experience of the German troops in the USSR in
World War II. As long as the Germans had a
superiority of less than 6 to 1, the USSR positions
remained unshaken. It was only when the ratio
was greater, that the Germans broke through the
Soviet defences.
This holds true even now, largely because
modern weapons technology favours the defender
rather than the attacker. You see the attacker is
always forced to move in an open situation in any
given terrain. He must leave his cover-°od. move
towards the defence position of the other side. In
other words, the attacker is vulnerable. The
defender can wait for the attacker to make the first
move. Today, the defender is equipped with
sophisticated and highly accurate anti-tank mis­
siles. The second generation of anti-tank missiles
have a range of 4,000 metres, more than that of the
tank cannon, so that the defence positions are out
of the tanks’ reach. The defender now has
anti-tank missiles mounted on helicopters. All
the NATO armies have a large number of these
anti-tank helicopters which guarantee high effec­
tiveness. We also have new ammunition for the
conventional artillery with anti-tank guidance
systems built into every grenade. All this put
together gives a greater superiority to the defen­
der, not to the attacker.
In addition to this, more than half of all
divisions of the Warsaw Pact countries are not
Soviet troops but are drawn from Poland.
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, etc. It cannot
be assumed that these troops can be relied upon
for a Soviet attack on West Europe. The Warsaw
Pact is not a fixed and solid alliance. The whole
process of erosion within the alliance is already
evident. Poland is a very good example of this.
Nobody can assume that a Polish or a Czechoslo­
vakian soldier is willing to die in Germany or
Hungary just to be able to raise the Red Flag in
Europe. I think the Soviets have to deploy a large
number of their own troops in these countries to
be able to control them and their troops on a war
front. As against the superiority of 6 to 1 that the
Soviet Union needs to overwhelm NATO, now we

only have 1 on NATO’s side to 1.8 or 2 on the
Soviet side. If the Soviet Union is able to reinforce
these troops by transporting divisions from Siber­
ia to the western military districts opposite
western Europe, NATO will also be able to
reinforce its troops. The United States is prepared
to air lift at least 4 divisions to West Germany;
besides, they have Spanish troops also available
for such reinforcements against the Warsaw Pact.
□ How do the airforces compare?
The Soviet Union in peace time has an airforce
slightly larger than NATO’s in centra] Europe. But
NATO is capable of a much higher reinforcement
of its airforces. In 24 hours the United States can
mobilise three times more aircraft across the
ocean to aid western Europe, according to a
concretely worked out NATO project. On the
other hand, the Soviets can also transfer aircraft
from the eastern front to reinforce its own
airforces in the West. But the quality of the
training of NATO’s pilots as also the management
of sophisticated modern warplanes is far superior
in the West. For example, one standard of
comparison is the number of sorties that an
aircraft is capable of flying in 24 hours. The
number of sorties that the NATO aircraft are
capable of is far higher. This has been established
in the conflict between Israel and other Arabian
countries, equipped with Soviet aircraft and.
Soviet management. The Israelites flew 2 to 3
times more sorties than the MiG’s could on the'
other side. I think that the equation between
NATO and the Warsaw Pact airforces is the same.
On the other hand, NATO has a very effective
anti-aircraft system. We have anti-aircraft mis­
siles of a very sophisticated kind. For instance the
Roland missiles developed in cooperation be­
tween France and West Germany which all our
armies are equipped with. I think the chances of a
successful air attack operation for the other side
are extremely limited. Therefore I cannot see how
the Soviets can ever be militarily superior to
NATO forces. They are weaker in the most
decisive areas.
□ Given the range and the scope of modern war
technology, would it be relevant to comoarg^°two blocks in geostrategic terms? ’
Yes. The military comparison is in any case,
only one parameter, and not the most important.
The most crucial consideration is the geostrategic
configuration. If you look at the map it is clear
that the Warsaw Pact countries are in a worse
situation than the NATO countries. They are a
close block of countries in the centre surrounded
by NATO countries and their military installa­
tions, in addition to the NATO alliances in the Far
East. Japan is for all practical purposes, today, a
member of NATO. After the settlement at Wil­
liamsburg, it is clear that Japan is very much part
of the encirclement of the Soviet Union, an
agreement that the Japanese politicians have put
their signatures to. Australia, it is equally clear, is
friendly towards NATO and not towards the
Soviet Union. In the case of a war, you must count
Australian forces as well along with NATO’s, as.
one alliance against the Soviet Union. Probably
this will include China as well, one cannot say. In
other words, the Soviet Union cannot, as it did in
World War II, concentrate all of its troops from
Siberia and the Far East on to the western front. In;
World War II the Soviet Union came to an
agreement with Japan and was able to concentrate
all of its troops from the Far East against Germany
in the West. In the next war I don’t think this will
be possible.
□ Have any of the Warsaw Pact countries pro­
tested against the siting of the SS-20 missiles?
Yes. Rumania has demanded that the SS-20s be
removed from their soil and the number of
missiles directed to western Europe be reduced
THE ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY OF INDIA, MAY 20. 1984

ST

and was against the deployment of the new
short-range missiles, the SS-21s and I think that
the government in Czechoslovakia is not happy
with the new missiles either. The conditions
within this alliance are not such that small
countries can refuse what the Soviet Union wants
to impose upon them, but there is no doubt that
the population and the government are unhappy.
□ Cannot the Soviet nuclear subs you mentioned
earlier be seen as mobile missile bases?
Sure. Also the Soviets have a larger number of
missile-carrying subs. I think there are 900 on the
Soviet side, as against 600 on the United States
side, but the number of warheads on the Amer­
ican subs are much higher than those of the Soviet
subs. They have nearly 6,000 on their submarines
whereas the Soviet Union has only about 2,000.
□ Even though the Soviet Union has only 2,000
warheads on their subs, cannot these be used to
launch a first strike?
I think not. A first strike is only useful and can
guarantee victory in a war if it destroys the second
strike capability of the other side. But the United
States has only 25 to 30 per cent of its intercon­
tinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) deployed in the
country itself. More than 50 per cent have been
deployed on the submarines, which cannot be
destroyed in a first strike, and 20 per cent are
deployed on strategic bombers which most prob­
ably cannot be destroyed in a first strike either.
Most of them will be in air before the missiles find
their target.
The Soviet Union has not a chance of avoiding
a second strike of the United States made by
submarines and strategic bombers. Even if they
can destroy all the land-based ICBMs, the United
States has a better chance to avoid a second strike
by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has 20 per
cent of its intercontinental warheads based in the
country itself.
□ And those cannot reach the United States?
They can, but they can also be reached by the
other side in the same way. The Soviets have only
20 per cent of these warheads on submarines, and
no strategic bombers. And if the United States is
able to produce intercontinental missiles like the
'MAranu'S'dbHyirine missiles like Trident-2 which
are highly accurate/iike 'the Pershing-2 and the
Cruise missiles, they can try a first strike, and if
80 per cent of the Soviet, ICBMs are destroyed,
only 20 per cent remain on the subs for the second
strike. Then the other side has three times more
against the Soviet Union’s 2,000 warheads. The
situation clearly is not in favour of the Soviet
Union.
□ What about the Soviet Union's anti-submarine
capability?
They have some, but technologically their’s is
nowhere equivalent to that of NATO’s.
□ What is the current direction of the Soviet
Union's research in weapons technology? Are
they trying to develop a first strike capability?
Yes. They are developing intercontinental mis­
siles with greater accuracy and a large number of
warheads, but the point is that the new Soviet
intercontinental missiles will hot be capable of
destroying the great number of warheads on the
other side, which are on submarines and on
strategic bombers. The basic situation is that the
United States is capable of a second strike even if
all its land-based ICBMs are destroyed. The
Soviet Union cannot avoid a second strike from
submarines and from the aircraft
□ To ask the other question. Does the United
States at present have a credible first strike
capability?
At the moment, no, because its later program­
mes particularly the Trident-2 project is not yet
ready. However, in two or three years when these
programmes are complete and available, then the
SB

the illustrated WEEKL’i' Of IIMDIA' ***

1984

situation may change. The United States can
conceive of and calculate a possible first strike.
This is even more so given the new American
anti-missile programme which aims to destroy
the second strike missiles of the Soviets in flight.
That is the objective of President Reagan’s ‘star
wars’ programme; that the United States must be
in a position not to fear a second strike from the
other side. This would create a very dangerous
situation.
At the moment we are in a situation of a mutual
assured destruction—MAD—not in Europe, but—
that is the balance of terror—between the United
States and the Soviet Union. Mutual assured
destruction however, does not prevail any longer
in the European theatre. The deployment of the
Pershing-2 and the Cruise missiles in Europe
makes the situation in the European theatre very
unstable.
□ What role do these missiles play in the context
of America developing a first strike capability?
NATO and my government also, are saying that
the Pershing-2 and the Cruise missiles are only an
answer to the Soviet deployment on the other
side. But this is a lie. The Pershing-2 .and the
Cruise missile are the instruments of a new
strategy of decapitation, developed by the United
States for the European theatre. In the event of a
war, the United States can destroy the most
important political and military nerve centres of
the Warsaw Pact organisation, and of the Soviet
Union. The command posts of the Warsaw Pact
troops and the guidance installations of the

the United States, because the other escalation
gives no advantage. Therefore the assumption
that the war in the first stage would be limited
only to the European theatre would not be
incorrect, I think. .It is in the common interest of
both superpowers to avoid the final conflict.
After an attack by Pershing and Cruise missiles,
the possibility of a second strike by the Soviet
Union is considerably weaker, once the nerve
centres of the command installations are des­
troyed. However, even if it were somehow possi­
ble for the Soviet Union to give the ICBMs the
firing order in time, what would be the advantage
against the ICBMs of the United States on sub­
marines and in the air which are in full readiness
to strike? These missiles can answer in the first
ten seconds.
□ As a senior NATO commander who is con­
vinced that the Americans are moving in the
direction of developing a first strike capability, do
you consider such a capability can be successful­
ly realised?
This depends on two conditions. If the United
States have enough accurate weapon systems
available, and if their anti-missile systems can
guarantee that a second strike of the Soviet Union
can be avoided, it can be put into effect. Under
these two conditions, I have no doubt that in the
event of a crisis the temptation for the Pentagon to
fire a first strike will be very great.
□ But do you think that it would require a crisis,
or that they would do it any way?
I think that the government would come to such
a conclusion only in a state of very great tension,
in a crisis, not in a time of peace. I don’t think the
United States government in a time of peace
would be so criminal as to kill a 100 million
Russians in cold blood and to make a nuclear
disaster for the whole world.
□ But crises can be created?
Yes. And they can arise from any situation, for
example in Latin America or in Cuba, in Korea or
in Afghanistan, in any part of the world, and in a
situation in which it seems to be that the best option
is to be able to fire these weapons first. If it
is possible to strike first, without the risk of being
killed 10 minutes later, then I cannot guarantee
airforce are not only situated in Soviet Russia but that a government will not be free of the tempta­
in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, and tion to do it. In Cuba if it had been possible for the
only some are deeper within the Soviet Union. United States to have fired missiles against the
The range of the Cruise and the Pershing-2 Soviet Union without the risk of a nuclear
missiles, 1,800 kms and 2,500 kins suffices to hit answer, I think that President Kennedy would not
most of these crucial targets very quickly and have given an ultimatum. If Kruschev could have
accurately. This is the real reason why the fired missiles on the United States without
Pershing-2 and the Cruise missiles have been risking a nuclear answer, he would not have
placed in Europe, not in answer to anything that drawn back the ships. If one of the superpowers is
the Soviet Union has deployed.
in a position not to fear a second strike by the
□ In the event of such an attack, will the Soviet other, the situation for the whole world is much
Union have no nerve centres left?
more dangerous. Technologically speaking, the
The most important command centres will be United. States is so advanced that it is closer to
decapitated. We have 108 Pershing and 440 arriving at such a position.
Cruise missiles, that is, nearly 500 new missiles of □ The whole threat of nuclear annihilation seems
one warhead each, and if 500 important targets much more concrete and real a possibility than
are destroyed, it will lead to a total paralysis of the hope of nuclear disarmament. In such a
the Soviet Union’s ability to wage war.
situation can we concretely imagine a series of
□ Would these missiles be able to destroy the practical steps leading to disarmament as a
Soviet Union’s second strike capabilities?
realisable objective?
No. That is not thp objective. The Soviet Union
The first step must be for NATO to make a
has always said that in such an eventuality, they declaration, like the Warsaw Pact nations, re­
will direct a second strike at the United States, nouncing the first use option of nuclear weapons
but that is highly problematic, and I can’t see why in case of a conflict. The second step is for NATO
they would actually do it. I think that is more in and the Warsaw Pact countries to come to an
the nature of propaganda, to make the deterrents agreement, perhaps based on a proposal by the
credible. After an attack with the Eurostrategic Soviet Union, tq establish a nuclear free zone in
missiles by NATO, it would be suicidal for the Europe. The third step must be for the smaller
Soviet Union to escalate the conflict to an European countries on both sides to demand that
intercontinental level. Therefore, the Soviet Un­ all mass-destruction means of the superpowers
ion I think, would come to the conclusion that it must be withdrawn from their countries. All
would be better to fire the SS-20 missiles against nuclear weapons and chemical warfare systems
NATO targets in Europe, than fire missiles against as well as superpower troops. They must estab-

Nobody can assume
that a Polish or a
Czechoslovakian soldier is
willing to die in Germany
or Hungary just to be
able to raise the Red Flag
in Europe.

lish a troop tree zone in central Europe, without
alien troops, that is Soviet troops in Czechoslova­
kia, Hungary, Poland and on the other side
without the US, British and French troops in west
European countries.
Later on it should be possible to dissolve both
blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, to return to a
normal situation in Europe. 30 years after the end
of World War II it is time, I think to
overcome the divisions of that conflictand to stop
deepening the trench that divides Germany into
two parts with more and more armaments. These
are practical steps which can be taken without
risk to European security, and it means that my
country for example must be willing to go out of
NATO at a suitable time, and smaller European
countries also must make a beginning towards
dissolving the blocs.
□ What if you were facing a Hitler on the other
side? What if you had somebody who was insane
enough to use a first strike against you without
caring whether you were capable of a second
strike? Would your stand still be the same?
That’s a very important question. First of all I
don’t think that it is probable that such a criminal
concentration of forces which was present during
Hitler’s time will repeat itself again in this
century. But what we have seen of the Kremlin’s
policy and of their actions show that they are very
careful even in a situation like Afghanistan. They
are not adventurous. Hitler was a gambler, they
are not. They have a very rational leadership
which is very careful in choosing its options and
in executing them. But even in such a case if the
Kremlin were to exhibit such tendencies, given
the nuclear weapons we think that it is better to
be victims than to be criminals.
□ Given your stand and that of your party, would
you clearly and coldly face one possibility; that if
you were to remove the Pershing and the Cruise
missiles, and if you were to go in for unilateral
disarmament, would you be prepared to leave
your country open to a nuclear attack from the
Soviet Union without being able to defend your­
self against such an attack?
Yes. I personally would be prepared to accept
such a situation. And I think that if the Germans
in the wake of the history of this century were to

making of nuclear weapons unilaterally, and also
to make an appeal to international solidarity,
which is in any case a better protection
□ What is the basic foreign policy approach that
your party, The Greens, adopts towards the Third
World?
The Greens have the basic provision that
human rights are inalienable, in every part of the
world. And that they must be maintained at all
costs. They cannot be renounced. The basic rights
of every human being must be defended against
all suppression, in Afghanistan as well as in El
Salvador, in South Korea as well as in Pakistan, in
Turkey as well as in Iraq and under Ayatollah
Khomeini in Iran. We support all movements
which are fighting with non-violent means for
human rights. We are supporting the movement
of the Sadinistas, in defence of the revolution
against the CIA and intervention by the United
States. The Greens would like to see a world in
which the relations between the rich nations in
the southern hemisphere are more just, than what
they are now. The Greens will also fight against
the exploitation.of the South by the North.
□ A coalition between the Greens and the Social
Democrats is absolutely essential in the next
elections in order to create a majority in the
German parliament (Bundestag) to ask for the
removal of the Pershing -2 and the Cruise mis­
siles. Do you think it is possible given the
differences between the Greens and the Social
Democrats, to build an alliance on this single
take such a step it would initiate the beginning of principle of agreement? Because the coalition
a new age. But the population of my country is once formed has to be sustained since if it falls
not willing to accept this and I’m realistic enough apart it could lead to a defeat of peace movement
to see it. It is only a small group which is in the itself?
You are right. It is difficult to build a coalition
peace movement which has this attitude and is
prepared for such an offer. The greater part of the on the basis of agreement on the missiles issue
population is still thinking in the traditional way, alone. We have differences with the Social Demo
that we must be protected and unattackable. To crats on other questions, for instance, on the
them it is necessary to point out that we must be nuclear power plant or on the issue of German’s
able to defend ourselves but not with means of membership in the NATO alliance, and I think
mass destruction which cannot defend anything. that the Greens cannot compromise on these
□ You had said earlier that it is impossible to issues, but these differences must not be allowed
defend West Germany because of its nuclear to come in the way of the coalition. The most
important objective is to get the missiles out of
power plants. Could you elaborate on this?
I think that in a modem conflict, a country, Germany.
particularly a small country, overcrowded and □ Do you still have any faith in negotiations as a
with nuclear power plants working, cannot fight a means to disarmament, or do you feel that these
war. It can only capitulate or come to a peaceful talks can only become fruitful after some unilater­
settlement. Therefore it is a contradiction in the al steps towards disarmament have been made.
policy of our government to build more and more For instance after you have an anti-missile major­
nuclear power plants and install nuclear missiles ity government in Germany and the Pershing and
and tell our people that we are protected adequ­ Cruise missiles are removed?
ately under America’s nuclear umbrella. It is
I don’t think that arms reduction talks can begin
curious to say that the Soviet Union can black­ again very soon; the last proposal of the Soviet
mail us with the SS-20 missiles when they can Union is still on the table, which was refused by
much more easily blackmail us by threatening to the United States but was supported by my
destroy our nuclear power plants with conven­ government. The proposal was to reduce the
tional weapons. Its a much easier option to use SS-20s number to the level of the British and the
and one that does not entrench Russia in a French missiles. The United States said that the
nuclear war. You can always say it was a mistake British and the French missiles could not be
and no one can fix the responsibility for such an included. This was a fair and reasonable proposal
attack. Recent studies have established that if one and the peace movement protested strongly
reactor were to be destroyed, it would render one against the American refusal. Unless the Amer­
third of West Germany uninhabitable.
icans change their minds talks cannot begin
□ After the Pokhran blast, there are now reports again.
that Pakistan is thinking'of attempting an under­
The experience of the last 40 years has shown
ground explosion. There are also rumours that that talks are not successful. We have had SALT 1
India is considering developing a hydrogen bomb. and SALT 2 which was not ratified in concrete by
What stand would your party and the European the United States. It is a paper document, nothing
peace movement take towards an arms race on the more, and the United States now have more
subcontinent? What stand would you advise the missiles and Trident-2 submarines than this
peace movements in India and Pakistan to adopt? settlement allowed. Nor have other talks in
The peace movement in our country would Geneva and Vienna been any more successful and
suggest that you renounce the development of to look forward to talks, I think, is to be hopeless­
nuclear weapons even in the case that Pakistan ly optimistic. Therefore, other methods must be
would develop such weapons. That cannot be a developed to come to better results. This other
reason to do the same. It is better to make a method can only be a unilateral disarmament
0
declaration openly to this effect renouncing the with calculated steps on one side.
THE ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY Of INDIA, MAY 20. 1984

S9

COMMUNiTY

.j.THCal

a.(FirstFlo.. ...

A A

‘■•RosiAVE

THE

western

GHATS

MOVEMENT

'

——--------------- —----------- —----- ------- ----------------------------

BANGAlOoc - bv. - -.

AND

CITIZENS

FOR

ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR ENERGY

We present below a summary of facts (with sources) to show why
nuclear energy must not be proliferated any further in India.

I.

Do we need to generate more energy or do we need to use
available energy most efficiently ?
TABLE

1

ENERGY - GDP RELATIONSHIPS
Energy (in tonnes of oil
equivalent) / $ Im GDP

Country

14G0

U.S.A.
France
Italy
Japan
Karnataka
Source:

Tndex
lnaex

'

186

795
100
915
115
849
■
•••
io6
7292 X1974-75)
917
8092 (1979-80)
1,017
Prof. D.,K. Subramaniam^ Karnataka State of Environment
Report 1984-85, Ed.-ClJ. Saldhana.

Why is India so inefficient in using the available energy?
There is a tendency to eqhate energy with electricity.
Electricity is a secondary form of energy. It is inefficient to
produce and it’s use must be restricted only for lighting.

II.

TABLE 2
------

•

“

ELECTRICITY AS A PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY
CONSUMED IN. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Country

•/.

U.S.A.
France
Italy

17.3
15.1
17.1

Japan
20.0
Karnataka
69.0 I
source: Prof. D.K. Subramaniam, Karnataka State of Environment
. Report 1984-85, Ed.
C.J. Saldhana.
■
.,
v

. III.

Is nuclear power cheap ? ;

a

comparison of cos’r OF ELECTRICITY obtained from x
DIFFERENT SOURCES
Life" Cycle
Fais.e/KWH
Cost Rs/KW
Nuclear
44,000
,103.13 (AEC+WD) 122.06 (ACTUAL)
Thermal (Coal)
‘ 92,46 ‘
42,000
Hydel
25,000
62.73
Prod. Gas
' 41„X)3 ’ ’
19,000
Bio Gas
12,000
28.18
Small Hydel
8,000
17,70 .

table

Source

Source:

A<,K,N* Heddy, National Workshop on Nuclear Power
Rana'Lorith ?pecific Hefurence to Kaiga, Dec. 10-11, 1988,
P.T.O.

2

Page

2

Are nuclear plants safe ?
India is currently installing the Canadian designed CANDU
REACTORS. The performance of these reactors in Canada vis-a-vis
their accident proneness is given below :

IV.

CALCULATED PROBABILITIES OF ACCIDENTS IN CANDU
REACTORS
20 Reactors
20 Reactors
Type of Accident
(.Life Time)
(Annual)
Loss of coolant
1/5
99.7/
(Three Mile Island)

TABLE 4
■----- -------

Core Meltdown (Chernobyl)
7/
1/500
Source: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Safety Report for Lepreau-1.
1979. Presented by Dr. Vishnu Kamath, National Workshop
on Nuclear Power Plants with Specific Reference to Kaiga,
Dec. 10 and 11, 1988, Bangalore.

Accidents and Consequences :
<
' <
Chernobyl
- Estimated Cost $ 17OOO m
1,35,000 people evacuated.
Immediate deaths 33.
Cancer related mortality 1500-500000.
Estimated death toll in a populated site such as in India 500000 to 1000000.
Can we afford this economic and social cost?
Source: Christopher Flavin, World Watch Institute, Science Age,
September 1987.

V.

VI.

Unanswered Questions :

How do you treat nuclear waste? There is no known method.
Nuclear waste can only be contained (disposed). Containment
does not mitigate it's harmful nature.
2.
How long does nuclear waste need to be contained? While high
level wastes have to be contained for eternity, an optimistic
estimate is atleast 6,000 years.
3.
Do we have containers that last 6,000 years?
NO !
4.
The life of a nuclear reactor is only 30 years. What happens
to the reactor at.the end of its life ?
It is left , as such and buried under a sarcophagus and will
need to be guarded for 6,000 years against vandals, terrorists
earthquakes and other acts of God.
VII.
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
We cannot even fight fires in a high rise building (Hotel
Siddhartha Fire, New Delhi).. We cannot handle gas leaks (Union
Carbide, Bhopal). Can we deal with nuclear accidents?

1.

To know how Soviet Union.dealt with Chernobyl, read National
■Geographic, May 1987; Christian Sdience Monitor, May 1, 1989.
If you want more details of the original literature,' please
write to :

DR. VISHNU KAMATH-,

456,

VIVEK NAGAR,

BANGALORE - 560 047.

CITIZEN’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT IN KAIGA

The State of Karnataka is coming on the nuclear map of India in a big
way. This land of beauty and plenty has been chosen to house the
entire nuclear fuel cycle: uranium mining, processing and enrichment
of radioactive materials; burning it in nuclear reactors, stockpiling and
ultimate burial of its deadly wastes.
This vicious cycle has its spikes rooted in the choicest spots of this
State:
° Uranium mining in the serene and evergreen hills of the Western
Ghats;
° Uranium processing and enrichment at Ratnahalli, adjacent to
Brindavan Gardens, the most popular tourist spot in Karnataka;
° Construction of a reactor complex on the bank of River Kali, again
in the midst of a virgin evergreen forest and game sanctuary;
° Burial plans for the hazardous wastes in the Kolar Gold Fields,O

the pride of Karnataka and India.
No other State in India has been
gifted with such a Pandora’s box
that promises enormous clout to
the well-to-do and death, disease
and suffering to the common
people. All this is being planned
and executed in a short span of
three years - exactly during the
period in which the world has
witnessed the worst nuclear
accident, stern opposition to
nuclear power and landmark
decision to bid good bye to
nuclear power in many countries.
Of the four major nuclear projects^
that are unleashed in Karnatak^T
two were mooted with the
connivance of a small clique, twc^*
were undertaken without53
informing even the State
Assembly and not one was initiated with the consent of the local
inhabitants.
But the Kaiga scenario has turned out to be different;. The people here
have mounted a formidable opposition - the first of its kind in India.
This project, as well as the resistence have far-reaching implications
for Karnataka and the Third World.
It is high time we inform ourselves on nuclear energy and all that is
happening around it and ask the authorities some questions.

2

Where is Kaiga? What is happening there?
Twenty kilometers from the Goa border there is a little-known, sleepy
village called Kaiga, on the left bank of River Kali, surrounded by steep
hills and thick forests of the Western Ghats. Massive preparations
are going on to set up a nuclear reactor complex there. A large chunk
of virgin evergreen rainforest is being bulldozed to pave way for heavy
machineries and even more gigantic earthmovers.
This serene wilderness will soon become a human beehive, busy in
erecting concrete domes and dams, screaming steam engines,
radioactive cesspits, waste yards and criss-crossing of high-tension
cables and pylons.
Countless biological species, evolved over millions of years in this
forest ecosystem, will be wiped out without a trace. Native people
will be driven out and in their place a new set of life forms consisting
.of construction labourers, technicians, plumbers and accountants
'will invade the Kali valley. The birth pangs of the monster have already
begun.
The bountiful nature of the North Kanara District, which once had 80
per cent of its land under forest cover, has been reaped and raped
many times over: under the pretext of growing teak and eucalyptus
for the government coffers; mining manganese, iron ore and quartzite
for the benefit of the private industries; plundering bamboo and
softwoods for the paper mills; clear- felling to build reservoirs, dams,
lay cable lines and new townships for the benefit of large industries.

Plunder of a pristine forest

3

In a short span of three decades, the natural forest cover of the district
was reduced to less than 30 per cent. Not satisfied with this rate of
destruction, now enter the nuclear mandarins.
State of our Environment
Two major issues of global concern are involved in the Kaiga project.
One is the assault on the rainforest. Tropical rainforests are
humanity’s greatest treasure-house of genetic diversity, a unique
biological reservoir. Embracing the earth like an equatorial girdle,
they directly influence the global weather pattern. Covering just
about six percent of the global land mass, they harbour more than
half of the world’s plant and animal species.
According to the FAO, atleast 7.5 million hectares of rainforests are
destroyed annually. Unofficially, this figure has been put at 20 million
hectares. This amounts to 100 acres cleared every minute. Atleast
one wild species of animal or plant is being wiped out from the face
of the earth everyday. Twelve years from now, that is by the end of
the century, we would have extinguished over one quarter of all life (*)['
forms.
Forests Are More Than Woodlots
We have already destroyed more than half of all the rainforests.
Whatever is left is, in fact global heritage. Attempts to prevent further
loss cannot be left solely to any one group or nation. Hence, a World
Rainforest Network formed in I987, with non- governmental
organisations from 23 countries, including India, is striving to protect
this heritage. It may also be noted here that FAO has pointed out
India’s state of forests as being alarmingly critical. The Brundtland
Report (the World Commission on Environment & Development I987)
has said that when any biosphere is fragmented into small fractions,
it no longer ssupports and nurtures the life-system it had. Human

tree-planting activities can only be to
serve the fuel and other needs of
people. It does not create forests which
are life systems evolved over millions ot,
years.
v
Kaiga is in the midst of a virgin
rainforest. The picture shown alongside^)
has been taken at a spot just 3kms from
the Kaiga Nuclear site. The site is
surrounded by 250 sq.kms. of Anshi
Bioreserve and 834 sq.kms of Dandeli
Widlife Sanctuary. The nuclear project
is being pushed through in such haste
that not even a pretense of an attempt
has been made to estimate its impact on the rich ecosystem. No
biologist or ecologist was commissioned even to catalogue the
biological species that are destined to be wiped out.

4

The entire project was cleared by a three-member committee
reportedly consisting of one civil engineer, one nuclear physicist and
one economist after a cursory survey from a helicopter joyride. The
18-page Environment Appraisal Report prepared by the Nuclear
Power Corporation does not even contain the names of the authors.
An Incomplete Technology
The other issue of global concern is the nuclear technology itself. It
is an incomplete technology as well as a provenly unsafe one. It
demands utmost rigorous discipline and unerring human behaviour.
Of late, it has also proven to be economically unviable, constantsly
demanding huge subsidies from governments, as in the case of
France. In fact, it is because of this that many countries have
abandoned the nuclear option.
Indian Nuclear Scene
The Indian nuclear history is replete with instances of radioactive
spillouts, accidental leakages and frequent malfunctions of the
0 reactor as well as auxiliary systems.

The Tarapur plant has the distinction of being the 'most
.contaminated atomic power station in the world’. During its first ten
’years it had 344 accidents or "unusual occurrences" as the DAE calls
them.
This record was beaten by the Rajasthan plants which had 251 forced
closures in its first decade. The number of days these remained
closed far exceed the number of days they have worked. Leak of
radioactive heavy water worth Rs.4 lakhs everyday and cracks and
breaks led to closure of Unit 1 for three years.
The Kalpakkam plants became operational amidst claims by DAE that
it had 'perfected' the technology through repeated repairs of the
Rajasthan plant. But this too is beset with problems. Vibrations have
led to breakages of turbine blades and these plants have been

5

liberally drawing the parts meant for the Narora and Kakrapara plants.
There was a long delay in starting of these due to non-availability of
heavy water. While the structures were waiting so,severe corrosion
has occurred resulting In heavy maintenance work. Here too, heavy
water leakages are common. Increasingly these Units are having
longer and longer closures. In one instance fuel pins got stuck and
Rs.9 crore worth of heavy water gushed out into the cooling water
drains.
The following table shows the number of days for which our reactors
have remained non-operational, but continue to consume power.
1984
Name of the Reactor
1985
1986 Capacity Factor
(1986) %
Tarapur Unit I
46
107
27
86%
Tarapur Unit II
132
29
131
52%
Rajasthan Unit I
Rajasthan Unit II

366*
121

285
106

365
54

.Yr

68%

Madras Unit I
84
164
154
40%
Madras Unit II
113
42%
(Source: DAE’s ’Nuclear India’ No.2 and 3 1986 Note: The error (*)
in the table is original)
Implications on Kaiga

Ve^ s®nsitive environmental setting. Seven major dams
around in the vicinity in a tectonically weak zone; (see the map below).

6

the second largest bioreserve in Karnataka; a 20km long estuary rich
in aquatic life that supports more than 5000 fisherfolk families; the
country’s largest naval base at Karwar with sensitive defence
installations. Any leakage of radioactivity here will have far- reaching
implications. In no time all the marine life will be contaminated. The
livelihood of protected tribals like the Halakkis, Siddis, Kunabis and
Gowlies will be very adversely affected.
Criteria Contravened
Kaiga receives very heavy rainfall, more than 3000mm per year,
spread over five months. Wind velocity goes well beyond 100 kmph.
According to the Atomic Energy Commission’s own criteria for site
selection,such a high rainfall area is not suitable. In fact, 5 out of 7
criteria for site selection are against Kaiga. Solar ponds to evaporate
Jow-level nuclear waste are not feasible in the area. During an
'emergency the area gets isolated rendering evacuation in time
impossible. Mandatory requirements for emergency preparedness
twill mean greater destruction of the forest and belies the claim that
an atomic power station requires 'only a small amount of land’.
Assuming the unlikeliest event of no emergency arising, Kaiga still
remains a highly unsuitable location for these reasons:
0 There is no major industrial centre within 200Kms which can
consume the base load electrical output from Kaiga. With a
transmission loss of more than 25% it is uneconomical to carry
this energy to far-flung areas.
0 During wartime the entire region becomes a prime target for
enemy attack because of the concentration of so many sensitive
installations-the naval base, atomic reactors and a chain of large

7

dams. As a precautionary measure, series of defence installations
in the forests, along the coastline and on the hill slopes will come
up before the completion of these projects. So a once- verdant
land of peace and plenty will become a beehive of military
activities.
° Large-scale impounding of water in reservoirs are increasingly
recorded to be causing earth tremors. Breaches in any of these
7 dams will mean a radioactive deluge of the entire riverine belt
and the coastal region.
° As nuclear installations attract terrorists or other anti-social
activities, security will be beefed up. Normal civilian activities and
freedom of movement and expression will be curtailed. Pilferage
and unintentional recycling of innocent- looking radioactive
objects like metal pieces, rubber tubes, fishing nets, shoes, may
result in putting rural citizens to serious trouble. An atmosphere
of suspicion and hostility will build up as house-to-house^L
searches become frequent in the course of time.
0 In the event of a major disaster like those that happened at
Chernobyl,. Three Mile Island, or Windscale, it becomes
impossible to even inform local residents, let alone evacuate
them, because of the difficult terrain.
A Nuclear Complex
The greatest threat of all is in the long-term future of the West Coast.
Once installed, the reactors become a permanent blot. When they
are dead and useless, one cannot just wish them away. The current
trend all over the world is to build more reactors in the same complex.
The advantage is that the dead reactors can also be guarded while
making use of the available infrastructure for the 3rd,4th,5th and nth
reactors. This is what is happening atTarapur, Kota and Kalpakkam,
and planned at Kaiga, too,

Are We Missing A Technological Future By Not Going Nuclear
One often finds statements by the nuclear establishment’s Chiefs that
India will miss out on a technological future if nuclear energy isrejected. But it is not true. Nuclear power does not lead us to
technological future but only up a technological blind alley. With all
its hazards, nuclear power’s costs far outweigh its benefits, which are
only short-lived.
Among the countries which have rejected a nuclear future are USA,
Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Austria and Yugolsavia. In
USSR, UK, and France, it Is facing stiff public opposition after
Chernobyl, which also caused several other nuclear mishaps being
disclosed in their own countries.
The newer, safer and renewable sources such as solar, wind, tidal and
biomass are available in plenty to us. Conservation, efficient use and
proper maintenance and upgrading of our machineries are the
solutions to our energy problems.
8

Everytime an additional reactor is erected, more land will be taken
and more people displaced. And again casual labour living and
working in the area means destruction of more forests. Needless to
reiterate, the burden on the future generations becomes heavier with
every added reactor.
Dead But Never Gone
There is no satisfactory technique known till today for dismantling a
dead reactor. Even if a technique were to be discovered in the future,
by all indications, it would be so prohibitively expensive that the future
generation might prefer to simply guard them instead. This would be
more true in a capital-scarce country such as ours. But the dead
reactors continue to remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of
years. According to one study, the radioactivity contained in a big
dead atomic power station will be equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb.
Nuclear regulatory agencies all over the world are now formulating
n>strict regulations. They make it mandatory for the nuclear industry to
■safely dismantle its reactors and return the land to " GREENFIELD
STATUS". That is, the place should be suitable for unrestricted public
0 use. Will Kaiga ever be returned to greenfield status? The answer is
an emphatic NO.
When the future generations opt for environmentally sound,
renewable and cheap energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass
or tidal, they would still have to be spending enormous amount of
money and resources to safeguard these dead reactors. Do we have
the moral right to impose such a curse on the generations to come?
When we are facing an acute crisis due to wanton destruction of our
natural resource base, can we afford to sacrifice what little is left only
to line the pockets of the industrial tycoons? Will the future ever
forgive us?

9

An appeal submitted to the Prime Minister of India on 22.7.88 by
CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR ENERGY,

Bangalore.

Dear Sir,
We fervently appeal to you to declare an immediate moratorium on the
construction of the Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant for the following 10
reasons:

1.

Kaiga is located in the midst of a tropical evergreen forest. The serene
and complex ecosystem will be disrupted due to construction of
concrete domes, dams, townships, radioactive cess-pits, roads,
pipelines, high-tension transmission powerlines and pylons. No one
has so far studied the impact of a nuclear complex in a tropical forest.

2.

Kaiga is located in close proximity to 5 major dams, 1 naval base, a
wildlife sanctury, a bioreserve and a very sensitive estuary. Nowhere
else in the world a nuclear reactor is sited in such a complex system.

3.

A very thorough Environmental Impact study was called for. But a
study was conducted in a casual manner after the site is chosen Just
to justify the choice.

4.

Most of the site- selection criteria set by the AEC run counter to
Kaiga. The site is very inappropriate.

5.

Kaiga is surrounded by rugged geographic terrain. Emergency
evacuation, movement of sensitive nuclear materials, safeguarding
the reactor etc are very difficult. Moreover,there is no major
electricity consuming centre within 200 kilometres.
'

6.

Many international organizations have already sent their appeals td. »

you to reconsider Kaiga. Eminent radiation experts,
environmentalists and doctors have questioned the Kaiga choice in
the context of" Global Development and Environment Crisis", in an
international Conference held in Malaysia in April 1987. Delegates
from 32 nations sent "Stop Kaiga" appeal to you. This year in June,
the delegates of another 12-Nation Conference for Nuclear-Free
Asia-Pacific have appealed to you to abandon the Kaiga Project.
7.

Sixty prominent citizens of Karnataka, comprising of doctors, lawyers,
artists, journalists, professors and literateurs like the Jnanapeeth
10

Award Winner, Dr. Shivaram Karanth, have appealed to you to stop
Kaiga Project.

8.

Nuclear Power Projects are abandoned in many countries responding
to public opnion. Yugoslavia has shelved 4 such projects. The
USA,The Philippines and even the USSR has shelved the

Nuclear Projects located in sensitive areas. In the international arena
today, it is more prestigious to abandon a nuclear project than start
a new one. India could be the first country to reconsider a nuclear
site for ecological reasons, in the Third World.
9.

You have approved our Chief Minister’s plan to hold a National
Debate on nuclear energy in Bangalore. It is quite natural that there
should at least be a brief halt to the construction activities at Kaiga,
till such a debate is held.

10.

Your mother earned international accolades for stopping the Silent
Valley Hydel Project. It was her keen interest in preserving the
sanctity of a thick forest that prompted the technocrats to rethink on
the project. The Kaiga valley is equally rich. If your intervention
could save it from the high-tech onslaught, the forest-lovers all over
the globe, not to speak of the people of Karnataka, would indeed be
indebted to you. You would earn the singular distinction of having
saved the Kaiga valley which would otherwise become dead and
silent by the end of 21st century. Please stop Kaiga, save Kaiga.

s
7

Yours Sincerely

^itizens for Alternetives to Nuclear Energy
(Documents enclosed for the Prime Minister’s perusal:
he Penang Declaration, The Hong Kong Appeal, "The Statement of
Shared Concern" signed by 60 prominent citizens of Karnataka.

P. S: As a response to this appeal, CANE received a terse one- sentence
note from an Under secretary of The Prime Minister’s Secretariat
informing that the letter is directed to the Department of Atomic Energy
for its attention.
P.p.S: Within months 4 more reactors have been sanctioned at Kaiga.

CANE CAMPAIGN SUMMARY
4 years of Peaceful Resistence

1985
An intensive grass-root level campaign was launched in the North Kanara District as soon
as Kaiga was chosen as a site for India's 6th nuclear complex. A series of lecture-cum -slide
shows were arranged in all the major townships of the district by a group of
environmentalists. This group, initially known as Citizens Against Nuclear Energy
(CANE) had a better acronym in the local Kannada language ‘AVINASHA’, which means
"indestructible", standing for ANUSHAKTI VIRODHI NAGARIKA SILAKTI. Local
people sent telegrams and postcards in thousands to the government. The response was
quick.
For the first time in India’s nuclear history top level nuclear scientists descended on the
remote village near Kaiga to convince the rural citizens about the safety of nuclear
technology. But the villagers’ barrage of awkward questions made the scientists beat a
hasty retreat to their ivory towers in Bombay.
The then Chief Minister arranged a hurried meeting between the people and the nuclear i<f
establishment’s top brass. A four-hour marathon meeting proved futile as the nuclear '
scientists failed to convince the people about the real motive behind the Kaiga project.
As the movement gained momentum in rural areas, CANE was invited to participate in
a debate on nuclear safety organised by the Max Mueller Bhavan, Bombay. But the
seminar was stalled by the nuclear authorities at the 11th hour, thus displaying theirphobia
for public discussion on what goes on behind the nuclear facade in the country.

1986
Opposition to the Kaiga project became widespread. Campaign through small newspapers
was taken to the neighbouring districts of Shimoga and Dharwar. A seminar was
conducted in a small village Vajralli where safer, cleaner and people oriented development
alternatives were presented by scientists from Bangalore, Kerala and Gujarat. Nuclear
authorities declined to participate in the seminar but at the same time put up an exhibition
stall just 13 kms away to detract the villagers! People who took out processions against

12

CANE CAMPAIGN SUMMARY

A human chain on Chernobyl Day near Vidhan Soudha

j^thc high-handed behaviour of the nuclear authorities were beaten up by the police at
Ycllapur. Meanwhile the other surreptitious nuclear projects like the Rare Garth
Materials plant at Ratnahalli, the uranium mining project at Arcbail and the high-level
waste burial plan at Kolar Gold Field also came to light. Protests spawned in all these
places as the people realised the implications of a full-scale nuclear fuel cycle in Karnataka.
'ITic Chief Minister was ghcraoed by the Rural people at Sonda where he promised to hold
a National Debate and reiterated his earlier promise to send a teams of local leaders to
various nuclear installations in the country. Villagers undertook a long foot-march and a
campaign . After four days of relay trekking they congregated at Kaiga and held a rally at
Karwar under the leadership of Jnanpeeth Award winner, Dr. Shivaram Karant. Despite
all these protests tenders for civil works at Kaiga was published in Bombay newspapers.
Internationally known nuclear critics Helen Caldicott and Bob Caldicott were invited to
address a series of public meetings in Bangalorc.Thc Chernobyl accident resulted in
further mobilization of people against the nuclear projects in Karnataka.

1987
University students took out a jatha to all the major educational institutions of North
Kunara district. Another rural seminar ‘Chernobyl to Arcbail' was arranged at the
fjbranium drilling site at Arcbail.A signature campaign was launched. More than - In 100
*an eminent people from all walks of life appealed to the Prime Minister to halt the Kaiga
project. National workshop held in Hyderabad it was declared that the site selection
/<%ritcria had been violated in respect of Kaiga. At the Global Conference on Environment
'•<>t Pinang (Malaysia), delegates from more than 30countries appealed to the Indian Prime
Minister not to proceed with the Kaiga project.
In Bangalore hundreds of anti-nuclear activists donning skull masks marched from
Gandhibhavan to Rajbhavan with a unique roadshow and submitted a memorandum to
the Governor.
All along the winding route of the 100 - day march by environmental activists - the ‘Save
Western Ghats March' the Kaiga project was decried as a major threat to the stability
of the ecology of the Western Ghats.

CANE CAMPAIGN SUMMARY

14

Can We Do Without Nuclear Power ?
Easily. Even in countries where 30-60 per cent of the electricity comes
from the nuclear source, studies have established that they can do
without nuclear power. The share of nuclear power in our country’s total
energy consumption is too negligible to be even calculated. And we have
other vast resources.

We have plenty of oil and natural gas.
The efficiency of our thermal power plants can be increased atleast
two-fold and we have coal reserves to last us more than 200 years to
come.

Less than 20 per cent of our hydro electric potential has been tapped.
Ecologically sound, small hydel stations can be put up and power
supplied through decentralised transmission systems. But instead,
generally, huge dams and reservoirs are build which result in heavy
silting-up problems. Understandably, all such dams are performing
poorly making people mistrust the hydel potential and possibilities.
We have enviably long coastline and large land mass which hold
immense potential of tidal, wind and bio-mass energy.

Our proximity to the equator provides us with ample solar energy.
All these non-conventional sources have been developed, tested and
proved both in our own country and in other countries as well.

Most important of all, we need to become energy conscious. There
is gross abuse of energy in our country. Not only most inappropriate
forms of energy are used for various activities, it is also used very
inefficiently. Being hardly an industrial economy, our industries
gobble up 50-70 per cent of our electricity and for most inefficient
end-uses. In western industrialised countries, the industries take
less than 20 per cent of the power produced in those countries. In
addition, using badly maintained and out-dated machineries, we
consume 12- 16 times more energy for the same value in output,
compare to the advanced countries.

Studies have shown that atleast 25 per cent energy saving is possible
in our country by adopting some measures.
Above all, the kind of changes mentioned above create more jobs,
more assets and a better environment for all of us.

CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR ENERGY

Who are we?
f^tureTf hZ °f Pe°,Ple ,conucerned about our environment and
U^ure of humanity - not only the immediate future of the present
generation but also of life itself on earth.
WE ARE for science and progress along scientific lines and
application of technology for the benefit of the large majority of
common people.
WE ARE concerned that the natural and other resources in the
country should be wisely used for the development of the common
people as well as preserved to nurture the future life on earth.
WE THINK that a trade-off of the existing resources for a paltry gain
in the immediate future, without long-term planning, will mean
destruction of the life-sustaining resource base.
WE ARE STUDYING the energy and development issues in the"'
country today at depth and are doing extensive documentation on
them. Based on these we write articles, papers as well as letters in
the papers.
OUR FUNDS ARE very meagre. No big money is involved in our
campaign and all our funds are raised locally. We collect information
from newspapers and scientific periodicals. We give slides shows and
lectures in cities and villages . We seek small contributions from
friends and the public to meet specific expenses like replacement of
a fused projector -bulb or printing small booklets.
BUT BY FAR the main sustenance for our activities comes from a
meltdown at Three Mile Island, an explosion at Chernobyl, leaks at
SawAtomlc Plants, cracks at Ra|asthan Atomic Power IPlants
Sos" Madras Atomic Plants, arrogant statements o< nuctoar

Chiefs, ignorant remarks by politicians.... and the like.

D-

809 17th E Main, 5th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010
INDIA
H^ooklot has'been brougm^

pdndngoftNs^L-------------------- - ---------------------------

"

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL

Nuclear Fiasco FACT SHEETi37/1'(BANGAtOaE^\sItFloor)St560
'lvIar001'<sf!oad
"Nuclear Technology demands 100 per cent perfection but man Is not 100 per cent perfect"
- Ralph Nadar
•

A sign on the University of Florida’s research reactor building reads "please don’t flush the toilet
while the reactor is running". The problem? The reactor’s secondary cooling system is supplied
by the same water main that feeds the toilet. When the toilet is flushed, the water needed to cool
the reactor drops, and it must be shut down to prevent over heating.

•

A nuclear reactor without a fastening screw and a washer at a Japanese atomic power plant
has been allowed to resume operation. The fastening screw on the fuel assembly and the washer
underneath were found missing, during a regular check in August 1988. The screw has since
been located and recovere, but the washer is still missing, perhaps inside the pressure container
beyond the focus of the underwater camera. How the screw became loose has not been
investigated. Nuclear safety authorities however believe that the reactor can resume work.

•

A system to protect against the release of radioactivity in an accident at a nuclear power plant
at Hope Creek, New Jersey (USA) was installed backward. The error was discovered while the
plant was operating at 20% testing power.

•

On march 31,1987 the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed Philadelphia Electric
Co to close its Peach Bottom nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, because the control room
operators were regularly falling asleep at their posts. In 1986 the same plant was fined $200,000
for safety violations.

Records obtained from NRC suggest that workers sleeping on the job is a regular occurrence at
nuclear plants in the USA. The commission has recommended that in the reactor control rooms,
high backed cosy chairs should be replaced by low-back, plain models.

•

Among other safety violations in USA that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found out
are "the workers were found playing video games on the computers and engaged in reading
"non -technical literature...."

•

The 1000 MWe reactor at Brown’s Ferry in Alabama was brought to the brink of a meltdown by a candle. Two workers were checking air leakages in the foam rubber packing of reactor
control cables. When a technician brought his candle very close to the packing, immediately it
burst into flames. The entire cabling caught fire which raged for nearly seven hours. With all the
electrical connections snapped, both the normal cooling as well as the much touted Emergency
Core Cooling System became inoperative. There was a real emergency as the core began to
heat up on the way to a meltdown. Disaster was averted as the operators succeeded in diverting
water from an auxilliary pump through a makeshift connection - just in time.

•

In October 1988, hidden under a heavy fog, nine activists from France and Germany climbed
over the fences surrounding the French nuclear reactor at Cattenom and climbed to the top of
the 165 meter high cooling tower. Later in the morning, as the fog lifted, their banners appeared
down the side of the tower "No to Nuclear" (in French) "Energy Yes, but not like this" (in German).

Police tried to dislodge the activists by spraying them with water from a helicopter five times during
the afternoon, but the nine on the tower only felt a few drops of water. The group had earlier been
given free access to a German nuclear reactor at Brockdorf and had been granted DM 1750 to
conduct an accademic research making a ‘survey of risks and benefit of this kind of energy'.

47/^UWm
b;,;j

'' ‘*ldi •‘■5 Aoacl
UVU QQ1

WHY WE DONT NEED NUCLEAR ENERGY
Forty years ago nuclear energy was hailed as a clean, cheap and perpetual source of energy. Now,
after billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear installations and research in several countries,
many lessons have been learnt. It has been proved that it is neither cheap nor safe or clean and
what is perpetual about it is really the waste and the burden of having to guard the same. Indeed,
even the most ardent supporters of nuclear energy would admit, waste management is the Achilles
heel of nuclear technology.
The countries which have come to depend on the nuclear source have insurmountable problems
and will sooner or later have to take the wisdom of those which have given it up. Here is the story
of those countries.
U.S.A, has the largest number of reactors and maximum learning about the technology’s failures
as well. Possessing the largest mass of nuclear waste ( 15,000 tons), is desperately looking for
suitable dumpsites. (Some African governments have agreed to burying pf most dangerous wastes
in their countries for a price.) It has cancelled all licences for nuclear plants since 1979.
U.K. is struggling with a number of reactors of outdated designs. Many accidents and leaks which
had been hushed up are coming to light in recent times. Following Chernobyl accident, is facing
mounting pressure from the public, resisting both installations and waste dumping wherever sites
for the same are being proposed.
SWEDEN despite having the best safety record in the world has decided to close down all its 12
reactors by 1995 and wind up all nuclear installations by 2010.
AUSTRIA has decided to dismantle its first nuclear reactor which was never switched on, following
the verdict in a public referendum on the issue.
YUGOSLAVIA accepting a proposal tabled by the youth Organisation-Socialist Association of
Yugoslav Youth, the Parliament decided to halt its nuclear programme. It is considering a
moratorium at the end of this century.
FINLAND has dropped plans for a fifth nuclear plant.
NETHERLANDS has decided to stop with its two reactors.
DENMARK After intensive public education by anti-nuclear groups, the people voted against the
party that was interested in going nuclear.
SWITZERLAND With the cantons refusing to allow reactors to be put up, the Central Government
has not been able to find for more reactors.
FRANCE The Electricite de France, is staggering under multi- billion dollar debt and cannot survive
without the generous subsidies from the France Government.
U.S.S.R responding to public pressure, abandoned its latest Krasnodar power plant although 41
million dollars had been spent on the project. Residents around the 20 reactors, in different places
are bitterly opposing the reactors despite being promised" more jobs, good housing facilities and
other valuable social amenities",
Coming to the Indian nuclear programme, the installed capacity is to produce 2.5 % of the electricity
in the country. But the actual production has been far less than half of this, at any point of time.
The small reactor models which we are installing are both obsolete and uneconomical. The world
over reactors are of standardised 1000-1300 MW capacity. In addition, our reactors are shut most
of the time and when they do operate, they are running on less than half of the installed capacity.
There have been innumerable leaks and accidents all of which are hushed up under the cover of
the Atomic Energy Act which gives powers of such secrecy. If nuclear reactors are for power
production, one fails to understand why everything to do with them is covered up under the excuse
of defence and security.
The Tarapur plants which have the best performance record in the country have the reputation of
being the world's most contaminated reactors and the highest potential for a major nuclear disaster.
The Rajqstan Station has been a tale of woe from the beginning. With innumerable cracks and
breakages, It has beep a source of constant headache to the Atomic Energy Department. In
addition, it has beep spilling radioactive heavywater worth several lakhs of rupees with no
accountability. They are shut most of the time.
The Madras Power Station which was started under the great euphoria of being indigenous
technology, has had its share of problems. Having had several long closures forced by technical
problems, It Is also drawing from the parts meant for the future plants constantly. It has now been
derated to half its capacity.
■,;
The recent decision of the Government to resort to wholesale import of reactors from USSR Is a
clear indication of the end of the" Indigenisation" honeymoon.
Facing opposition for their installation in their own countries, the other .countries will only be too
happy to dump them on us.

DECOMMISSIONING - A TECHNOLOGICAL
RIDDLE
COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
$7/1*(First FloorjSt. Marks Road
BANGALORE-560 001
Decommissioning is probably the least publicised hazard of a nuclear power programme. It is also
one of the major ‘hidden costs’ of atomic energy.
After about 20 years of operational life, nuclear reactors show signs of ageing. Embrittlement,
corrosion, activation and contamination caused by accumulation of radioactivity begin to degrade
its performance. The reactor literally begins to crumble. After about 30 years of operational life the
reactor is shutdown permanently. The last batch of fuel assembly is taken out, all the circulating
liquids in the moderator and coolant circuits are removed. Highly corrosive acids are passed
through the piping, flushing out the radioactive crud. The reactor is now ready for dismantling.

No commercial reactor has been completely dismantled in the world so far, though 43 of them have
been shutdown for various reasons. Only a few low-power prototypes and research reactors have
been decommissioned. Some examples are Elk River, and Shipping port in the USA,
Gundremmingen in West Germany, Chinon - A1 in France etc. In the UK an AGR at Windscale is
being decommissioned as an experiment. The damaged reactor at Three Mile Island is also being
decommissioned and forms a special case. The experience in all these units indicates that,
technically and financially, dismantling nuclear reactors is far more burdensome than previously
anticipated.
On the technological front, decommissioning is a formidable task. Reactors are built to last, not to
be dismantled. The longer they work, more is the accumulated radioactivity. The pressure vessel
and the containment remain intensely radioactive even after the core
has been removed. At Shipping Port,USA, the entire pressure vessel made of 20 centimeter thick
steel and weighing 770 tons was lifted in one piece, proposed to be transported 8000 km through
the Panama Canal and along the American Coastline and finally buried at Hanford. However, larger
reactor vessels weigh thousands of tons and have to be chopped into transportable pieces. All
piping of the primary circulation system, running into hundreds of kilometers will have to be cut up
and buried as waste.

EXOTIC HAZARDS
Extensive use of remotely controlled equipment, robots, lasers and other exotic technologies have
been proposed to overcome the difficulties. Extreme care must be taken that the dust arising in
drilling and cutting operation does not escape to the environment. It has been suggested that the
pressure vessel be cut up underwater by powerful lasers to control the dust. Electric torches, drills,
saws etc., used in the cutting operations, chemicals used In the decontamination of other
components themselves get contaminated and should be disposed of. As most of the work has to
be done in a contaminated atmosphere, only skilled workers wearing protective gear have to be
used.
Decommissioning is also inexorably linked with waste management problems. At present nuclear
power plants store their most toxic wastes at the site itself, in specially created ponds. There are
dozens of reactors which are defunct and ready for dismantling but the work cannot be taken up
until the In-situ waste is transferred and stored elsewhere. Dismantling a large nuclear power plant
generates Its own medium and low level wastes. Estimates vary with plgnt'sslze and design but It
js expected that the former will be in thousands of tons and the latter iq Jens of thousands of tons,
per reactqf. Transport and safe storage of wastes in such quantities will only compound the already
out of control waste management problems.

COST ESTIMATION - AN ELUSIVE EXERCISE
The cost of dismantling Is still an unknown factor, with estimates varying in the ratio of 1:60. In 1978
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sponsored a study of decommissioning costs which
worked out (o about Rs. 10 lakhs per megawatt of installed capacity. The actual costs incurred
during proto decommissioning projects so far are nowhere near this optimistic figure. The 72 MW
Shipping Port reactor Is being dismantled at a cost of $100 million Of Rs 2 crores per megawatt.
Economist Puane Chapman of Cornell University puts the final figure avpn higher at Rs.6 crore per

megawatt of installed capacity for large commercial reactors. NRC is now imposing several
conditions on private utilities to ensure that funds are available at the appropriate time for
decommissioning.

Dismantling a reactor immediately after it ceases operation Is considered too costly in Europe.
Deferred decommissioning strategies are being advocated as "safe and cost-effective". A decay
period of 30 to 50 years is being proposed during which the defunct reactor is sealed, guarded and
continuously monitored for leaks. Even then the dismantling operation, as and when it is taken up,
may go on for a decade or more.
Nuclear regulatory agencies all over the world are formulating strict regulation which make it
mandatory for the nuclear industry to safely dismantle its reactors and return the land to "greenfiedld
status" - i.e.for unrestircted public use. Will Kalga ever be returned to a greenfield status? The answer
is an emphatic
NO. The Indian nuclear establishment has worked out two strategies for
decommissioning. One is the resent apparent policy - pretend that there Is no suchthing as
decommissioning problem. The actual policy is to evade, postpone, shift the responsibility and
make the future generations pay for decommissioning.

Nuclear plants are being established not singly but in clusters. The last of the proposed six reactors
at Kaiga will become due for decommissioning probably by the end of 21st Century. But until then
no action need be taken on any of the earlier reactors either. They can be just shutdown and kept
mothballed.
Dozens of defunct, crumbling and radioactive monoliths of steel and concrete - that indeed would
be the accursed legacy bestowed by our "Vision", our "Energy" Planning" on the generations of the
22nd century.

According to the Worldwatch Report of 1986, a total of 1363 truckloads of radioactive
materials will have to be dismantled from a 1000 Mil reactor and buried in the final
resting ground. This is almost equivalent to the proposed Kaiqa reactor. A total
of 17,887 cubic metres of metal and concrete should be plucked out from the reactor
for the final and safe burial. Where? When? At what cost? At whose cost? f9 ■

MELTDOWN OF A DIFFERENT KIND!
Engineers at the Hanford Reactor Complex near Washington are planning to melt a
landfill contaminated with low level waste such as metal scrap, clothes, paper,
and plastic wastes. The idea is to convert entire mass along with soil and vegetation
into a huge lump of glass. The soil would be heated by electric current flowing
between electrodes placed ground. Paper, wood and plastic in the molten landfill
would escape as qas. Using 3000 Kw of power for a period of nine months, section
after section of the landfill will be subjected to a temperature of 2500'F, in order
to ensure complete meltdown of the landmass.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR
ENERGY

COM.VUn........... alTH CELL
(Fir st HoorJSt. Marks Road

1. The Fuel Cycle Approach:
bangalore - 560 001
The usual method of analysing and documenting the environmental impacts of energy generation is
based on the fuel cycle approach, in which a fuel cycle is the whole sequence of processes. It
includes transporting from the energy source to the actual energy form( e.g. electricity ) which is
transmitted/ transported, and beyond the latter,to the disposal/ recycling of wastes and by- products.
There are several possible nuclear fuel cycles, but one of the common ones is shown below, viz., the
non-reversible fuel cycle for light - water reactors which account for about 90% of the world's reactors:

2. Types of Environmental Impacts:
The principal environmental impacts arise through (a) radiation and (b) thermal particle pollution. The
radiation, which includes (i) alpha-particle, (ii) beta-particle and (iii) gamma-rays, can have an effect,
viz., cancer, on those who are exposed to it, and can also affect, through genetic damage,the future
generations.
Only a part (about 33%) of the heat generated in the nuclear chain reaction can be converted into
electricity. The rest has to be dissipated, and this waste heat disposal can cause thermal pollution.
Thus, the nuclear energy system, based on a fuel cycle, produces, in addition to electricity, also
radiation and waste heat. These radiation and thermal outputs at the various stages of the fuel cycle
must now be elaborated.

3.

Uranium mining and milling:

Uranium is mined as uranium ore, containing U3 08 in concentrations greater than 0.1% by weighL
The high-grade ores containing up to 4% U3 08 have been largely worked out. About 0.04 tonnes of
0.1% ore are required per MWHe of electrical energy produced by a reactor.
Uranium ores are generally mined by underground or surface mining, depending upon the geological
context. Today, the two modes of mining are resorted to in roughly equal proportions.
Uranium- 238 Is radioactive and decays to give radon - 222 (a chemically Inert but radioactive gas).
Thus, every uranium ore deposit contains radon -222 produced by spontaneous radioactivity. When
a geological deposit containing uranium is disturbed - as in mining - the escape of radon is facilitated.
But, radon-222 is itself radioactive producing" radon daughters". One of these is polonium-218 which,
because it is charged, adheres to any dust particles. Thus, the dust generated In uranium mining
contains particles laden with highly radioactive radon daughters. Inhalation of such dusty air Is well
.known to increase the incidence of lung cancer. Radiation exposure produces about 3.4 x10 -3 to 1.1
x 10-2 deaths per million Mwhe.
Even after mining has been completed, radon will continue to be released from an open-pit mine unless
special remedial action is taken, e.g., by covering the pit and waste rock with soil.
The crude ore from mining is then milled, i.e., crushed and ground to the consistency of fine sand, and
leached with either sulphuric acid or sodium carbonate to produce a mixture of uranium oxides (with
a stoichiometry given by U3 08 ) called "yellow cake". For every tonne of yellow cake (60-90% U3
08), about 100 tonnes of residual sand, called" tailings" are produced as well as toxic and radioactive
liquid waste (3700 litres /tonne ore.)
Uranium milling operations thus lead to releases of radioactive material (airborne particles and gases
) as well as |o radioactive liquid wastes and "tailings". The "tailings" are radiological hazards in several
ways - (1) they contain radium - 226 which concentrates in bones and is far worse than strontium- 90,
(2) they produce the inhalable radon daughters which cling to dust. Since the yield of yellow cake is
very small, almost all the ore ends up as tailings - in south-western USA about 90 million tonnes have
been piled up. They are washed into rivers, and in Grand Junction (Colorado), they have been used
for filling beneath foundations.

4.

Uranium Enrichment:

Enrichment from about 0.7% U-235 jp natural uranium to about 2-4% is q difficult process because the
chemistry of L|-235 and U-238 are virtually identical - the small mass difference of 3 in 235 can be the
only basis of separation. Two methods are current: (a) gaseous diffusion, and (b) gaseous centrifuging.
Both these require a gaseous uranium compound. Hence yellow cake has to be converted into UF6.
Apart from the fact that UF6 is a vlcipusly corrosive gas, the other impacts of uranium enrichment are
pon- radiological and arise from the enormous water and electrical requirements, particularly for
gaseous diffusion (centrifuging requires only one-tenth the electrical energy- )■

5.

Fuel Fabrication: '

The UFe enriched to about 3% in U-235 is converted, with the aid of ammonium hydroxide, to UO2
which is formed into pellets and sintered to achieve the desired density. Finished pellets are loaded
into zircaloy or stainless steel tubes, fitted with end caps and welded to form a fuel pin. The completed
fuel pins are assembled in fixed arrays to be handled as fuel elements.
The real enviromental hazard of the fuel fabrication process is the possibility of the material becoming
critical. This is particularly the case with plutonium whose oxide, when mixed with UO2 in suitable
proportions, yields a promising fuel material.
Because fuel fabrication plants may not be near reactors, fuel elements have to be transported, and
the loss/theft of fuel elements can be a danger. A fuel fabrication company reported that over six years
of activity it had missed 60 kg. of enriched uranium - enough weapon-grade material for several fission
bombs.

6.

Reactor

Though there are many types of reactors, attention will be confined here primarily to light- water
reactors.
.
1)
Air borne Radiation: The main radiological impacts involving air-borne radiation arise through
krypton- 85, xenon-133, tritium and carbon-14 released through the stack.
2)
Thermal Pollution: The thermal efficiency of light -water reactors is only about 33%. Hence almost
two - thirds of the heat generated in reactor core has to be rejected into the environment, l.e., about
2000 MWt for every 1000 MWe which is produced. The cooling water that is pumped back to the
source at the rate of about 50 m3/sec. (0.66 million gallons / minute) is about 10°C higher than the
source temperature. It can heat up an entire river to about 35°C for several miles. Since oxygen
solubility goes down with temperature, there can be considerable damage to water-based eco-systems.
In addition, microclimatic changes can be produced.
3)
Spent fuel: The irradiated fuel elements are both valuable ( because they contain plutonium and
uranium) and also dangerous (because of their high-level and low-level radioactivity.) Whether or not
they undergo reprocessing (for recovery of plutonium and/or uranium), the large quantities of high-level
waste (the nitric acid treatment of fuel elements yields about 5 m3 /tonne of spent fuel ) must be
managed. A1000 MWe nuclear plant produces at least 25 tonnes of spent fuel per year, and the high
level waste per tonne includes about 100,000 curies each of strontium- 90 and caesium -137. After
evaporation to reduce volume, it is stored in tanks - carbon steel tanks have a life- time of about 25
years, and stainless steel ones, slightly longer.
The Hanford facilty in Washington State has over 150 tanks for over 250,000 m3 of high-level waste.
The life-times of tanks and the volumes of waste to be handled must be seen in relation to the half-lives
of some of the constituents of the high-level waste, e.g, strontium-90 has a half life of 28 years,
caesium-137, 30 years, plutonium, 24400 years. ( Ten half-lives- 1/2 10 = 1/1024 - are required to
reduce radioactivity by a factor of 1000) Hence, tank storage Is only an Interim measure.
Thus far, no satisfactory acceptable long-term solution to the high-level waste disposal problem has
been developed. All that is clear is that high-level waste must preferably be in solid, rather than liquid
form to immobilize the waste and reduce the possibility of it spreading via leaks or vaporization.

7.

Reactor Accidents:

The most serious environmental impact of a nuclear reactor that has very nearly - but thus far not
actually - taken place is a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), in which, for a number of possible reasons,
the flow of coolant water is interrupted. In such an event, the central rods are programmed to fall back
into the core automatically and curtail the chain reaction. Despite this, the heat from the radioactive
core materials can cause a precipitous rise in temperature. It can initiate a" meltdown11 in which the
fuel melts through the floor of the containment building into the ground boring deeper and deeper (
the" China Syndrome") until it reaches the groundwater whereupon it can erupt into a geyser of steam
and debris releasing a deadly radioactive cloud into the air.
To prevent such events, reactors have an Emergency Core Cooling System ( ECCS ) . Though the
ECCS is meant to be a fail-safe system, it has been the subject of controversy. The most detailed
assessment of the risk of meltdown was officially made by the 1974, $3 million, Rasmassen Report. But
not only was the report disputed by non-official assessments, but its endorsement was formally
withdrawn by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January 1979. In any case, the Report did not
even imagine the formation in the Three Mile Island reactor of a hydrogen- containing bubble which
could block off the coolant and / or explode.
Other ways in which reactor accidents can occur are through earthquakes ( Bedaga Head, Belg ),
human errors (Browns Ferry, Al.), etc.
References
" The Environmental Impacts of production and use of Energy Part II. Nuclear Energy" 1979 Uniited
1.
Nations Environment Programme.
2.
Walter C. Patterson" Nuclear Power "1976 (Penguin).

t\ fr
'

COMWluwnV >i_au<.i CELL
47/1,(First FloorfSt. Marks rtoc.q
BANGALORE -560 001

THE CHRONICLE OF ATOMIC ACCIDENTS
1987
Many nuclear accidents were reported around the world: Germany, the U.K., Japan, the US.
Defective valves resulted in leakages of volatile uranium hexaflouride first during the night of April
11/12, at the Comurex nuclear plant at the Tricastin site and later at the Pierrelate Plant in the Drome.
Seven workers were injured. France’s prestigious Superphenix fast- breeder reactor at
Creys-Malville released liquid sodium for more than ten days at Tricastin.

1986
BRITAIN, Sellafield -fourfold leakage of radioactive fuel from the nuclear plant's reactors, five
worlers being subjected to radiation. Upwards of 300 serious and disasterous incidents have been
registered since the inauguration of this nuclear plant. In some cases the radius of radioactive
terrain contamination reached 25 miles (46.5).

1986
USSR, Chernobyl - (26 April) the worst man- made nuclear disaster took place in the cluster of
4 reactors of High-Power- Boiling- Reactor (RBMK) 1,000 MEe capacity each. The Chernobyl- 4,
exploded when due to human error, its fuel- core experienced melt-down. According to the official
admission 31 persons died, 231 suffered irreparable damage, and 135,000 Soviet citizens have
been evacuated and permanently placed under medical supervision. Radioactivity affected 20
countries, far and wide. Industrial and agricultural loss Is estimated to be more than $10 billion.

1986
USA Webbers Falls - an explosion in the reservoir with radioactive gas at a uranium - enrichment
plant, killing one person and wounding eight.

1985
INDIA - Small explosion and damage was reported at its newly commissioned Madras Atomic
Power Plant at Kalpakkam. Also its first fast breeder test reactor when commissioned hurriedly for
political reasons, experienced damage and shutdown. The Dhruva research reactor also
commissioned this year (Without proper synchronisation) went out of control and had to be shut
down.

1983
USSR, Atommash - a serious accident occured in a Soviet Atomic machinery plant "atommash"
where new generation of nuclear power stations were being built. Details are not available.

1981
INDIA - Besides many explosions and accidents at heavy water plants in preceding 5 years, a
major accident occured at Rajasthan Atomic Power Station unit -1. More than 3,000 workers were
exposed to radiation. The plant has since been closed down. No details have been made public.

1981
JAPAN, Tsuruga - leakage of radioactive water, causing tenfold increase in the concentration of
radioactive substance in the Urazoko Gulf. As a result of negligence on the part of maintenance
personnel, the reservoir of radioactive liquid waste was not tightly sealed. Over three hours 40 tons
of highly radioactive substances leaked from it and mixed with the communal refuse of the city.
Two hundred and seventy persons subjected to radioactive radiation. Fishing was prohibited for
a long time in the gulf.
FRANCE, La Hague - fire at a plutonium- enrichment plant. A radioactive cloud was formed,
exposing a considerable number of people to radiation.

1979

USA Three Mile Island - leakage of radioactive water from the reactor as a result of a breakdown
in the valves of the cooling pump. Accumulation of radioactive gases In the upper part of the reactor.
One person died, about a hundred were hospitalised and 14000 evacuated from the contaminated
area. The accident was similar to those which occured in 1974 at the Beznau nuclear plant in
Switzerland and were repeated at the Ringhals-2 nuclear plant in Sweden and the Kori-1 reactor in
South Korea. In all these cases the fault was with the equipment supplied by the American
corporation Westinghouse.
1979
INDIA - In a massive "pinhole" leak of radioactive water at Tarapur 30Q .workers were exposed to
more than permissible limits of radiation.

1978
BELGIUM, Antwerp - cracks were found in the body of a steam generator during the annual loading
with nuclear fuel at the Doel atomic power station. Several male technicians and one female, who
took part in replacing the spent fuel elements were subjected to radiation.

1977
USA, Cliton - an accident at the construction of an atomic power station, many workers receiving
a critical dose of radiation.
FRG, Brunsbuttel -- an accident in the main pumps, exhaust of radioactive steam into the engine
compartment of the reactor and partially Into the atmosphere.

1975
USA, Browns Ferry - a fire of the electrical equipment of the reactor, with a large part of protective
and control devices going out of commission.

1974 (?)
INDIA - A major accident took place inside Tarapur Atomic Power Plant (Bombay) killing Instantly
2
engineers. The Chief engineer died after three years of injuries sustained in the accident.

1972-1973
USA - 850 cases were registered of deviation from the norm in the performance of all American
nuclear reactors in operation at the time. Seventy percent of the investigated reactors had major
faults in the safety systems. Two persons died and 15 were seriously injured in the accidents of that
period.

1972
CANADA, Chalk River - Leakage of radioactive liquid from the research reactor due to an error of
the maintenance personnel, explosion of the hydrogen oxygen mixture inside the reactor.
FRG, Obrigheim and Wurgassen -- An accident of the reactor protecting devices and an accident
during a trial launch of another reactor an explosion was prevented owing to an instantaneous
stoppage.

1969
SWITZERLAND, Lucens -- leakage of the coolant in a reactor working for scientific purposes.
Owing to the precise functioning of the protective devices, the consequences of the accident were
localized.
FRG, Lingen -- excess of the permissible limit of radioactive substance leaked out as a result of
technical malfunctions. The reactor design was changed to guarantee against a repetition of a
similar accident.

1966
USA, Detroit - an accident in the experimental accelerator, a considerable rise in the temperature
of the coolant and the intensity of radiation. The reactor was put out of commission and reopened
only in 1970.

1961
USA, Idaho Falls -- exhaust of radioactive substances from a reactor working for military purposes.
The accident arose as a result of safety violation by the servicing personnel. Three persons died.

1958
CANADA, Chalk River - Leakage of "heavy water' contaminated with radioactive particles from the
fuel rod of the reactor, fire at the uranium rod, exhaust of toxic gases, radiological contamiantion
of the technical personnel delegated to combat the accident.

1958
USSR, Kyshtym, The Urals -- A big explosion in a plutonium dump turned vast areas of the southern
Urals into wasteland, 30 small towns were wiped out of the map of Urals. The accident came to
light only when 1979 Dr.Zhores Medvedev wrote about it in the British Press. Death toll remains
unknown.

1957
BRITAIN, Windscale - ignition of the graphite rods of an industrial reactor, exhaust of radioactive
iodine. The reactor was temporarily put out of commission. At this nuclear centre, later renamed
Sellafield, 13 persons died, upwards of 260 were doomed to radiation sickness and 12 workers
many years after, revealed symptoms of an enhanced content of plutonium in their bodies
exceeding permitted levels of international standards.

1951
USA, Detroit -- an accident at a research reactor overheating of fissionable material due to
exceeding the permissible temperature and air polluted with radioactive gases.

Compiled by Dr. Dhirendra Sharma.

|V*
ENERGY AND EQUITY

,CEU

The question of energy is not usually looked at in its entirety, although it is a crucial ingredient in
development. The so-called experts narrow their vision to an area or discipline that they are familiar
with. They seldom, if ever, take a look at the whole energy scene to see where they could contribute
most effectively. Instead, their perception of the problem and the answers they want to find are
determined by what their jobs or professions demand and not by what the situation demands.
For example, an official of an electricity Board will talk about having "to meet the demand for
electricity" rather than think whether electricity would be the most appropriate form of energy to be
used in the situation, for those activities. Same thing happens whether it is coal production,
hydro-electricity or nuclear energy. Unfortunately, the general public as well as their representatives
and administrators also put themselves In similar straightjackets.
Inaddition, there are other political and oblique considerations that block resolution of the energy
issue in an equiitable manner. With the result,
resources are diverted to cater to the needs of a small elite;
a)
b)
energy is (ab) used or used very inefficiently whether it is commercial form or non-commercial
form; and most important of all,
our natural resource base has been indiscriminately destroyed rendering destitute masses of
c)
common people at whose expense these ‘development’ schemes are taken up.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND STANDARD OF LIVING
Energy consumption is no doubt one of the indicators of the standard of living of the people. But
energy is NOT electricity alone. Even in a highly industrialised country, like the USA for example,
the demand for energy in the form of electricity is only about 11 %. In India it is about 20%. Electricity
is a high quality and expensive form of energy. It has specific areas of use where it is most efficient.
But not being costed properly in our country, industries have tended to use it for purposes where
it is neither necessary nor efficient.

When we look at the wealthy
countries whose per capita energy
consumption we compare ours
with, three things strike us. In those
countries tasks involving heavy
manual drudgery such as cutting or
laying of roads and lifting of heavy
loads are all done with machines.
But in our country we still use
largely human and animal energy
for such work.
Secondly in our country a big
chunk of the electricity produced is
taken by the industrial sector-55-58
per cent in India, 70 per cent in
Karnataka. And we can be hardly
called an industrial economy. In
contrast,
in the heavily
industrialised countries including
the Federal Republic of Germany,
France and USA, the industries
take about 15-17 per cent of the
electricity produced there. The
The Contradictions that is Indiathird point is about the efficiency
Atomic Power Station & Bullock Cart
with which we use energy. We use
10-16 times more energy for the same value of output compared with USA, France or Japan. Recent
studies show that this inefficiency is increasing rather than decreasing in heavy industries.

INCREASE IN ENERGY DEMAND
The projected higher demand for energy or electricity calculated by the Governments or
Administration is done keeping the present inefficiency and anomalies Intact. Besides, In reality,
the Increase in demand Is not a simple multiplication as depicted by our officials. This is shown
clearly by the experience of other countries. Following the Oil Crisis in the 1970’s, conservational
measures taken in the UK, West Germany and Netherlands resulted in a' 6-7% decrease in energy
consumption. In the USA, In I5 years, the Increase was only 5%.

A recent survey of 21 western industrialised countries by the International Energy Agency in Paris
revealed that at 32 percent growth between 1973-85, their energy consumption grew only by 5%.
Often there is a ‘saturation point’ beyond which demand does not grow. In this context, there seems
to be no basis for the projection by our planners that energy demand in the country will be three
times more in 20 years at 5% growth.

SCOPE FOR CONSERVATION
Before going into the larger energy area, let us look at the obviously avoidable waste of electricity
which is a very expensive one. The transmission and Distribution (T&D) losses in Karnataka is a
world record. The all India average is 25%. The same for other countries are: Japan-5.3% West
Germany -4.7% and USA - 6.6%. Karnataka’s T&D losses have been around 30%. In one curious
instance, the Minister of State for Power is on record speaking of 72% peak load loss in case of
Kolar District!

Improvement of the T & D system can reduce such losses considerably. But pretty little is done on
this score since money flowinto some pockets will be disturbed if we did not have this bogey of
shortage of power and 'need' to have new projects. A10% reduction in the T & D losses is said to
save the Karnataka Electricity Board alone Rs. 100 crores annually. But look at the 7th Plan Outlay
on Power for 1985-90 :

1985-90
(Rs.in crores)
21,302
9,198
2,108
978
693

Item

1.
Generation
T&D
2.
3.
Rural Electrification
4.
Renovation & Modernisation
5.
Miscellaneous

CONSERVATION IN TOTAL ENERGY
The working Group on Energy Policy set up by the Central Government in 1983, after a detailed
study, came up with very significant data both regarding energy conservation and utilisation.
According to this study a 25% saving in energy Is possible by taking some conservational steps
and rationalisation and improvement of machineries. The table below shows details of the
highlights:
AVOIDABLE
TOTAL
INVESTMENT
INVESTMENT
TO PRODUCE REQUIRED IN
THE NEW
CONSERVATION
MEASURES
CAPACITY

% THAT CAN
BE CONSERVED

ANNUAL
SAVING
FROM THIS

41%
10%
34%
15%

25%
30%
20%

1,925
410
765

3,580
1,768
432

3,600
650
890

Total
100%
* (Rs. in crores)

25%

3,100

5,780

5,140

SECTOR

CURRENT
S HARE TAKEN

Industry
Agriculture
Transport
Domestic

The fact these sensible and scientific recommendations are not being taken up reveals some
significant truths about the energy situation in the country:
(a)
The thousands of crores of rupees spent on the atomic energy establishment to produce a tiny
fraction of electricity has nothing to do with finding solutions for the energy problems;
(b)
No serious efforts are being made to improve energy efficiency In the country;
(c)
Spending on additional installations instead of conserving and increasing efficiency has to do
with extraneous interests; and
(d)
What is lacking in finding solutions to the energy problem is not scientific information but political
will.

Thirty to Forty per cent of the natural gas is being just flared every year. Why are the governments
not finding money for putting the infrastructure for using, conserving and not wasting all this energy?
These steps will not only save huge amounts of public money but will also create more jobs and
assets within the country.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
In the conventional energy sector, there is immense scope for upgrading. The thermal power
stations’ efficiency can be doubled, according to experts. Hardly 17% of our hydel potential has
been tapped. Environmentally sound, renewable and economically viable energy sources have
been proved to be available. The Department of Non-Conventional Energy sources (DNES) which
has been working on the renewable sources of energy including biomass, solar, tidal and wind
energy has said that with appropriate funding it can produce energy equivalent to 35,000 MWe. *
It has also been proved that in a country like ours decentralised energy systems as the
non-conventional sources are more economical given the remote, far-flung areas not connected
by grids. We shall not, however, go into the details of the prospects made by the different authorities
here. But to present one alternative development model:

"At the Government-prescribed minimum wage for an agricultural labourer, we can employ 30,000
people for 10 years at a mere Rs. 120 crores and afforest, at the rate of 10 acres a person, 31 lakh
acres in one year. At the end of this period, we will have a standing biomass of 74 to 125 lakhtonnes
for harvesting. For the cost of the proposed nuclear power plant at Kaiga, multiply this by seven
folds..."
What could be better than re-greening the one quarter of the country’s land lying barren, providing
energy to the rural masses and getting high-quality organic manure all at one shot?

What our energy problem needs today are:

•
•
•

an integrated management policy with a strict energy audit;
promotion and encouragement of appropriate forms of energy end-use; and
all the changes technological, social and attitudenal, that this demands.

The alternative sources of energy are dealt with in a separate FACTSHEET.

Food irradiation

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
@7/1,(First FlaorlSt. Marks Road
BANGAlO.JE - 560 001

The Health Ministry of the Government of India has cleared the Irradiation of onions, potatoes, frozen
shrimphs and spices, and will soon be clearing for other food products also . Many scientists and
scientific organizations all over the world have opposed food irradiation because of many research
findings which have demonstrated adverse effects of consumption of Irradiated food, on laboratory
animals and human beings. It is for this reason that Dr. C. Gopalan former Director-General of Indian
Council of Medical Research and President of the Nutrition Foundation of India has warned that
consumption of irradiated food would be risking the health of millions of people.

The Process
Gamma rays produced by radioactive elements cobalt-60 and caesium-137 are bombarded on food
materials to kill bacteria, fungi, viruses, and insects that would otherwise cause decay of these materials.
Different intensities of radiation are needed for different objectives and different food materials for
example:
For sprout inhibition of onions and potatoes
5 to 15 kilorads
Against parasites and insects
20 to 80 kilorads
For Pasteurising effect
100 - 300 kilorads
For sterilization (killing all bacteria, fungi etc)
2500 - 4000 kilorads
(1 chest x-ray gives bout 1 rad = 1/1000 of a kilorad, workers in a nuclear plant under normal conditions
may receive .upto 0.5 kilorads, Biologists consider that these low doses are risky and should be avoided.

The Effects of Irradiated Food on Cell Biology
Dr. S.G. Srikantaiah former director of National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, testifying before a US
Senate sub-committee,
in 1987, stated that rats and mice fed with irradiated wheat developed piolyploidy (increased number
of chromosomes) in the cells of bone marrow. Such abnormal polyploidy is also seen in cancers. The
same results were also obtained in monkeys and undernourished children ; deaths of foetuses inside
the body of mice increased, indicating lethal genetic mutations.
Dr. H. W. Renner of W. Germany found in 1977, that consumption of irradiated wheat increased
polyploidy in the bone-marrow cells of Chinese hampsters; Dr. M.L.J. Clapper and others In UK (1981)
conducted 4 tests, and found that in two tests irradiated wheat produced lethal mutations as reported
above by the Indian Scientists.
Onion: Rodents fed with irradiated onions developed abnormal reproductive organs (ovaries and
testes).
Chicken: A report was prepared in 1984 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture of 12 studies on the
effect of feeding irradiated chicken to laboratory animals; mice developed higher incidence of testicular
tumours, cancers, kidney diseases, and reduced life-span; fruitflies feeding on such meat had a higher
death - rate.Undergoing genetic mutations the flies became impotent over some genarations.

Effect on Food Quality
Irradiation ejects electron from the atoms of many substances thereby ionizing them, affects chemical
bonds and changes the structure and nature of carbohydrates, proteins, fats,enzymes and vitamins.
This would affect the texture and flavor of fruits; reduce the protein value of food by chemically changing
the component amino acids; change the properties of fats making them more rancid and less
mutritious; destroy vitamins A and E, and in cetrtain foods vitamin C.and many of the B complex
vitamins.
These and other effects make irradiated food less nutritious and wholesome because they contain
less amount of proteins, and vitamins, rancid fats and some foods developing odd flavours because
of breakages of sulfhydryl groups.

Release of toxic chemicals
Irradiation kills living cells of food material as well as bacteria, fungi etc. It destroys the nuleic acids
DNA and RNA, proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins etc. It also produces about 65 radiolytic substances,
some of which are known to cause cancers and genetic changes including mutations. A report of the
USA in 1980, warns that foods irradiated at levels higher than 100 kilorads could be toxic to man.
Irradiation of many food materials receives much higher doses than this and hence could be harmful
to human health.

Increased chances of Food Poisoning
While irradiation at high doses kills off many bacteria and fungi, one species of bacterium Clostridium
botulinum is not easily killed. Its spores survive, and grow on the Irradiated food more prufusely than
before because irradiation has killed off its competetors. Consumption of such food can be lethal. In
nature such poisonous food emits bad smell because of the growth of certain other bacteria which act
as a warning. These warning bacteria are killed off by irradiation while the bacterium that produces
‘botulism ’ (the effect of the poison produced by Clostridium botulinum) flourishes.
For the same reason mentioned above, certain organisms that produce a toxin called 'aflatoxin' also
flourish on irradiated food. This toxin can cause cancer in man even very in low concentrations.

Other possible effects
More exhaustive studies on the effect of irradiated food, on several generation of animals, have to be
conducted and the adverse effectrs of various irradiated foods cleanly assessed. Until that time, the
British Medical Association has suggested, licensing irradiation should be postponed.
Dr Joseph Barna in 1979 reviewed the literature of 1223 studies on the effect of irradiated food and
concluded that there were 1414 adverse effects, and 185 beneficial effects!

Spread of irradiating devices
Large scale generalized irradiation of food material would necessitate distribution of irradiating devices
to a large number of operators all over the country. These devices contain extremely dangerous
radioactive substances (Cobalt - 40 or Caesium -137 . There is always a chance that many instances
one such device could be stolen for the metal container, as has happend in many instances, and the
radio active material mishandled because of ignorance about its dangers!
Scientists and Organizations Opposing Food Irradiation
Among the opponents of food irradiation are Dr.C. Gopalan and Dr.S.G.Srikantiah mentioned earlier
Dr. Kusel Taka.hashi, Dr. Joseph Barna, Dr M.LJ. Clapper and co-workers, Dr Geraldine Deltman
(radiation and safety officer of Browns University USA); Organisations such as British Medical
Association, Health and Energy I nstitute of Washington USA( which has an advisory board of 9 eminent
doctors and nine scientists ) the Nutrition Foundation of India, Consumers Association of Penang,
Malaysia, and Friends the Earth an environmentalists organization of international repute.

Children used as guinea pigs to test irradiated grains?
Severely under-nourished Indian children who were fed With irradiated wheat had developed a kind of
leukaemia called poliploidy (extra production of chromosomes in cells), according to ATOM, the official
journal of the British Atomic Authority.
The Information is contained in an article titled "Is food irradiation harmful?" by Mr John Quick published
In the January 1988 issue of the journal.
Stating this at a news conference here today, Malayalam poets, Ms. Sugathakumari and
Prof.Vishnunarayan Namboodiri, who are activists of the Environment Protection Council here,
demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter.
The article, they said, was a report of a seminar conducted jointly by the Royal Society and the
Association of British Scientific Writers. Although the information that Indian children had been used
as "guinea pigs" was contained in a seminar paper and had found its way into the journal roughly a
year ago, none appeared to have taken note of it.
The HINDU, Dated 8.12.88

COMMUNITY HEAItu

________________ CANE news
EasWCANE

CANE

CANE&^^^ CANE €>^75)^ CANE&-9/^ CANE & <3^ 2? CANE (2>a^O

WHY THIS NEWSLETTER

THE NUCLEAR CUCKOO

The popular movement against the proposed nuclear plant

Like cuckoos, the proponents of nuclear power have
acquired a nasty habit of arranging for their offspring to be
reared at someone else’s expense. And once in the nest, the
nuclear bird often proves so demanding and voracious a
visitor that other fledgelings just dont get fed."

at Kaiga in the heart of the rainforests in the Western Ghats
in Karnataka has been a pioneer in many respects. In the
four plus years we have covered much ground and had many
gains. The movement has the unique credit of having forced
the Karnataka Government to hold a national debate on the
subject. The credit ofcource is shared with the Government
which has done it in a democratic spirit.
But our supporters are increasing everyday. There is a
growing, mutually enriching mix of the so-called scientists
or intellectuals and activists. This is gradually growing to be
a formidable front.

The quality of our support has also shown a quantum leap.
p'his is evident, among other things, from the report on the
Jan 30th event (inside). Either because of being confronted
to establish their anti-nuclear stand or because of interest in
the widespread movement, many people from various walks
of life, are beginning to take a deep interest in the whole
energy and development issue. With the result, the debate
in the houses, villages and towns is getting to be better
informed and authentic everyday.
Another feature of the Kaiga struggle is that it has cut across
all classes and categories of people Deeply involved in the
struggle are people professing both far left and far right
political faith. Ofcourse, the bulk of the people are just
concerned-about the environment, humanity the people who
are going to be immediately and directly affected, people
who care for life on earth and have foresight.

These children, women and men are taking risks are
pr epared to pay the price for the values they hold dear. While
some individuals and groups are named and known, the
) movement is really being nurtured and sustained by
hundreds of volunteers.
Through this brief newsletter, we want to place on record with
appreciation and gratitude, the efforts of thousands of
people, as also inform our well-wishers, in different parts of
the country, what is actually happening in that remote corner
of the world. The attempt here is to cover the period late Sept.
’88 to earl / February.

QUOTE
..."Heavy, dark, sluggish, hardy, fertile, productive with
little care, far cleaner than it looks, docile enough to be
led by a child, but suspicious of innovations and perfectly
capable, when roused, of charging a tiger or a
locomotive, the buffalo would be a fitting national symbol
for India"
- D D Kosambi

ii

This prophetic statement was made long ago by Graham
Hancock, who elucidated several arguments against nuclear
energy-social, political as well as technological. He also
warned against nuclear salesmen pushing for sales in the
Third World in the face of growing opposition and shelving
of nuclear plans in the West.
This ominous prediction rings more true than ever before,
when one looks at the 1989-90 Budget allocation for nuclear
power and other energy sources.
Nuclear power which accounts for about 2.5% of the installed
capacity for power, has never produced, at any point of time,
half that capacity has got 52% increase while the thermal
source which is the bulk producer of power has received a
cut-back from last year's allocation. The statedly best
performing of the nuclear power stations-Madras one. is
facing longer and costlier closures and innumberable
disasters of leaks and cracks. The half time that they are in
operation, they are on half the installed capacity. The 12 MW
Fast Breeder in Kalpakkam which occasionally worked at a
derated 8 MW has been closed down; heavy water
production has been, as ever before, a fraction of the instated
capacity and has been singularly responsible for several
years of delay in commissioning built reactor. Yet nuclear
power schemes get Rs. 725 crores as against Rs. 478 crores
last year. The prototype FBTft gets 33 crores.

TANKS AND GUNS INSTEAD OF TURBINES
The public sector BHEL which supplies turbines and boilers
and such equipment for ’development’, is switching over to
making, tanks and guns, for destruction. According to a
recent report, BHEL’s orders have shrunk and to stay in
business, it has made a Rs. 200 crore proposal to the
Government, to assemble the Bofors guns which arrive in a
completely knocked down (CKD) condition. For the
electronic component of the guns it wants to involve the ECIL
(another public sector enterprise with idling aplenty with the
wholesale importing of computers when it wanted to make
them locally). While waiting for a decision on the Bofors guns
BHEL has been entrusted with the job of assembling battle
tanks. The Tiruchi Unit which specialised in boiler
manufacture has 8000 tones press capacity to spare for want
of orders.
contd , in page 5

'

WHO IS OPPOSING KAIGA NUCLEAR-PLANT
In urban India, by and large, if the State wants to change the
character of an area from residential to non or semi
residential, it has to ask the people there for their objections
and consider them. But no such law seems to exist in respect
of rural India. Huge tracts of fertile lands are occupied to
build industries or defense installations and such others.
Lakhs of people are rendered destitute because of these
"development" schemes. Although more than a quarter of
the land lies barren such land is not taken for these
non-agricultural uses.

The movement against the Kaiga nuclear plant is an
expression of people questioning the official “development"
strategies or schemes. It is one of several such struggles
going on in the country. The wide cross-section of people
opposing nuclear power raises several questions:

Is it unscientific?
Here is the list of organisations/groups who have passed
resolutions against the Kaiga N-Plant:
- Environmental scientists from 30 countries meeting at
‘Global Conference on Environment'.
- Asia-Pacific Nuclear-free Conference at Hong Kong which
was attended by delegates from countries.
- Karwar Medical Practitioners Association
- HonnavarTaluka India Medical Association
- Uttara Kannada Zilla Vijnana Parishat
- Scientific Workers Association, Mysore
- Karnataka Rationalists Forum, Mysore
- Secondary Teachers Association, Uttara Kannada
Are they not capable of scientific thinking?

- Student Christian movement
- Akhila Bharata Vidyarathi Parishad, U. Kannada and
Mysore
- Progressive Writers Union, Mysore
- Writers Sangha, Mysore
- Samatha Vedike-a women's forum Mysore
- Karnataka Pragathi Ranga, Mysore
- Samagra Vikas,' Bangalore
- Samaja Parivarthana Samudaya, Dharwad.
Apart from these, 65 eminant writers, doctors, lawyers,
journalists, professors including the Jnanapith Award
Winner, Dr. Shivram Karanth have appealed to the
Government to drop the Kaiga N-Plant.

Where is Democracy?
The forming of Panchayats and Zilla Parishads was hailed
to a democratisation process. But of what good is it if theyf
are not listened to?
-The Uttara Kannada Zilla Parishad has passed an
unanimous resolution against the Kaiga Plant
- The Karwar Municipality has passed a resolution asking
the Government to drop the Kaiga N-Plant
- The Karwar Taluka Mandal Panchayats have all opposed
- Eight Mandal Panchayat members including the Pradhan
of Anagod (Yellapur Taluka) have resigned over the Kaiga
issue.

People's Struggle
The people have been using peaceful means to protest and

Is the Opposition from an urban few?

persuade the Government to drop the Kaiga project. Here is
the inventory of people’s persuasive efforts:

Among the groups that have opposed the Kaiga N-Plant
- Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, Uttara Kannada Unit
- Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, Mysore Unit
- Fisherwomen Cooperative Society, Karwar
- Purseine Boat Union, Karwar
- Rickshaw Union, Karwar

Sept. 23: District-wide strike; women protest; schools and
colleges closed; after a procession through the town in Sirsi,
students and women present a memorandum to the*
Assistant Commissioner to pressurise the Government to
stop the Kaiga project.

Are the opponents alarmist or ill-informed?

Sept. 25: Massive demonstration by high school students in
Kadathoka;

Among the over 50 voluntary writers, environmentalist and
student groups that have opposed Kaiga N-Plant:
- Ankola Parisara Samithi
- Parisara Jagriti Sangha, Honnavara

QUOTE
"I would personally rather put Rs. 2,000 crores into solar
energy than into setting up a nuclear plant."
- Vasanth Sathe, Energy Minister, quoted in BUSINESS
INDIA, 8-12 Aug. 88

Manalli Ganjanana Middle school called a bundh; College
students in Yellapur boycott classes, go in a procession
through the town and present a memorandum to the
Tahsildar.

Sept. 27: Vajralli Sarvodaya High School boycott classes.
Sept. 30: Signature campaign against Kaiga project started
mYallapur. All eminent writers sign.
Contd. in page 5

faults have been found in the supa dam) the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board was not consulted in the selection of Kaiga
site, and in fact, had not stamped its approval till date,
radioactive materials are being transported through our
towns and cities without the local people being informed of
them, no repository as yet has been decided for the nuclear
wastes. The DAE says, "it is not a problem yet".
The response of our legislators, ministers and officials to the
debate was disappointing. Although all Karnataka MPs were
officially invited to the debate none participated. Except for
a couple of MLAs from the area no legislator, Senior officials
of the State Government were very much visible when
ministers were present but conspicuous by their absence
during the technical sessions. The Minister for Industries and
Power, Mr. JH Patel made his customary insolent remarks
about the need to ‘educate’ anti-nuclear activists (including
Justice Krishna Iyer, and was heckled by the enraged
audience).

Oct. 22: Procession and Dhama in Yellapur

Though no one was satisfied with its outcome, the debate
was an eye-opener. Many nuclear scientists, perhaps for the
first time, discovered to their horror that they had lost
people’s trust and even their integrity as scientists was also
in question. The representatives from uttara kannada held a
meeting immediately after the debate and announced their
decision to further intensify their agitation against the Kaiga
reactor complex.

Nov 16: Devaraya Naik, MP is gheraoed by anti-nuclear
activists asking him to define his stand on Kaiga project; BJP,
District Unit demands stopping of K-project;

Tanks & Guns contd., from page 1
The Soviet tanks’ armour plates which are now being
imported are going to be made at Rourkela BHEL and thermo
pressed at Tirchi; the turret casting is likely to be developed
at Hardwar Unit. This is said to "...ultimately take India a step
towards self- reliance." Think of all the fuel the tanks would
consume even before they are made, being moved from one
corner of the country to another! Think also of the priorities
of the choices the Government makes in "development".
Tailpiece:Turbines made by BHELfor various nuclear power
plants have cracked, broke and given way. (They were all
fitted, one after another for the Kalpakkam plants). What now
of the guns and tanks? Internal threats and external threats
to the country are the same, like the ruling party has always
said!?

Peoples Struggle contd., from page 2
Children demonstrate against Kaiga. Under the aegis of
Rotract Club; Every single student of the Sarvodaya School
sent a post card to the Prime Minister against Kaiga;
Oct. 02: Nearly 3000 people, including representatives from
various voluntary organisations, from Bangalore, Mysore,
Dharwad, South Kanara, Goa and Tamil Nadu throng Kaiga
Project office, at Karwar.

Oct. 30: Hundreds of peopled majority women, gherao
Minister Deshpande asking him to stop work on Kaiga
project He says it is beyond the State Government but will
ask the Chief Minister to pressurise the Centre.
Nov. 02: Karnataka-Goa Border bundn: over 100 leaders
including a retired Dy SP, Fishermen's Union leader
Sadashivghad Mandal Pradhan, Dr. Humayun Sheik and
student leaders from Goa participate in the Road Block.
Road blocking all over the district: -1500 people arrested in
different places, including a large number of women. In
Yellapur, Sirsi, Bhatkal, Honnavara, chipagi, Harugara,
Kirkee, Bhairumbe, Kansur and Goa Border, Bisalakoppa.
Nov 04: Thousands gherao Minister Deshpande at Yellapur;
symbolic road-block by hundreds of volunteers at Baleguli,
Ankola

Nov 23: Petition to the Chief Minister at Karwar by opponents

PEOPLE’S VERDICT
£n opinion poll conducted by a Sirsi daily, "JANA
MADHYAMA" reveals that 88% of the people in the
District are opposed to KAIGA Nuclear Plant.

Nov. 30: Karwar Municipality resolution against Kaiga
Project
Dec. 16: Dr. Shivram Karanth, Jnanapeeth Award Winner,
tells a massive gathering at Karwar that the nuclear scientists
are lying to the country about its safety;
Dec. 24: Puppet show against Kaiga by Youth forum gains
tremendous popularity.
Dec. 27: State-level BJP leader condemn Kaiga Project.

STATE OF PREPARATOM
It has been found that the bridges on the Kaiga route
cai mot take the load of the heavy vehicles that arrive for
the project. ^Can^ preparation in case of an Emergency

37
Dec. 28: Kanasur Mandal Panchayat opposes Kaiga Project
Ja; . 16: People gherao government offices in Sirsi, Karwar
an-.. Ankola: 118 people arrested.

Jan. 17: Picketing of offices continues for the second day in
Si-- i: 152 people arrested; In Mundagoda, people submit a
memorandum to the Tahsildar.

MAMMOTH PEACE ACTION ON MARTYR’S DAY
The January 30th showdown at Kaiga and Karwar by

thousands of people including farmers, fisherfolk, students,
men, women and children of all classes and categories, had
as much spontaneity as preparation behind.

Apart from the widespread preparation by countless
volunteers in villages and towns, groups of leaders did a
week-long intensive campaign in the interior villages between
Kaiga and Karwar. Several leaders of groups like fisher folk,
farmers and others had taken it upon themselves to prepare
people in large numbers for the protest. Here is a first-hand
account of the event:
On 30th the Padayatrees were the first to step into Kaiga. The
Police were in full strength. Their vans and some K S R T C
Buses were ready to pick up the Satyagrahis, the moment
they began their agitation. The police with their guns &
revolvers were guarding the gates of the Kaiga Nuclear site.
licemen holding Walkie Talkie instruments were also
sy talking to their counterparts in Karwar and other Taluk
centres of Uttara Kannada, feeding them with the latest
information from Kaiga.

t

Dr. Kusuma, a live wire of the movement, Anslth Ashisar, &
myself went by the nearby road of about 8 K.M. Kusuma
lead a section of satyagrahis to the Kaiga workspot through
the thick forests. To our amazement and to the
disappointment of the police, a batch of 100 women & 250
men marched in, as planned. The police did not anticipate
that the Satyagrahis would march through woods and had
not posted any policeman there. It was only when the
Satyagrahis reached the workspot and jumped into the 20 ft
deep foundation, the police came to know about it. Workers
who were attending to work were scared and disappeared
from the scene. The police came with vehicles and arrested
all the Satyagrahis and put them in their vans.

Sathyagrahies in two batches of 100, who offered Satyagraha
Mt the gates, were also arrested and taken to Karwar. Late in
The evening Satyagrahis who entered Kaiga from Yellapur
side were also brought in four K S R T C buses to Karwar. All
of them were later released.
Those who were to offer Satyagraha, the next day numbering
about 200 stayed back in Kaiga. In Kaiga there were no
homes for shelter, and people stayed remain in the open in
the thick forests. Some had brought bread, Roti, avalakki
etc., and shared with others to sustain them for 3 days.
On the morning of 31st two more batches of Satyagrahis

QUOTE
"Peak load losses in some towns were as high as 72%
{Two instances quoted - Kyalanoor- 72.27% and Kembori
- 71.47%, both in Kolar District)
- Lakshminarasimhiah, Minister of State for Power,
quoted in HINDU, 24.6.87

entered Kaiga from Yellapur side and were arrested. The
police became panicky and decided to arrest all those who
stayed overnight on 30th, to offer Satyagraha, the next day.
When they resisted there was a mild lathi charge. Eventually
all were arrested and sent to Karwar, where they were let off.

All the Satyagrahis arrested and released on 30th joined
those who were brought and released at Karwar on 31st.
They all decided to march to the Kaiga Administrative Office
at Karwar. The policewere taken unawares. The Satyagrahis
entered the premises of the Kaiga office and squatted. Later
they were arrested in the evening and let off at dusk. About
1300 persons were arrested on 31st.
On February 1, we decided to have Rasta Roko programme
for 3 hours in the morning & to offer Satyagraha at the Kaiga
administrative office at 12 noon. When we tried to enter the
office, a policeman struck a 15 year old girl Satyagrahi with
lathi and blood gushed through her nose. She was taken to
a nearby hospital immediately by a couple of Satyagrahis.

The fisherman leader Sri. Krishnapur was annoyed and
rushed to the policeman who beat that girl, snatched the lathi
and threw it away. The police cautiously avoided any more
ugly incident arrested all the Satyagrahis.

Nineteen Fishermen leaders were taken in police vans to the
magistrate’s court. The others were put into police vans &
buses and were taken to the Tahasildar’s office.
While the fishermen were remanded to judicial custody for
14 days others were all released. The released Satyagrahis
protested against the police attitude and sat in a dharna
demanding that either the fisherman leaders should be
released or they be taken to jail because both had committed
the same offense. The dharna continued for four days in the
premises and the Thasildar’s office. Food was supplied to
the Satyagrahis by the people of Karwar in turns. A bundh
call was given by the fisherman leaders and the Uttar
Kannada Parisar Samrakshna Samithi on the 2nd of February
and had excellent response and was total.
B.P. Kadam, Dr. Kusuma, the fisherman leaders and myself
met the Deputy Commissioner and urged him to withdraw
the charges leveled against the fishermen leaders The
District Magistrate assured that the charges would be
withdrawn after referring to the Chief Minister meanwhile the
fisherman leaders were released on personnel surety
The bulk of the Satyagrahis were from Karwar Yellaour Sirsi
Siddapur, Honnavar, Bhatkal, Ankola Ta Iuka so? uttara
kannada District. Bangalore citv knnn cu- Uttara
Belgaum were also well represented.Y’
PPa' Shim°9a’

H.S. DORESWAMY

SLOW POISONING

DECEMBER DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS

When we started the campaign against Kaiga Plant, people

The long awaited National Workshop on Nuclear Power
Projects with Specific Reference to Kaiga was finally held on
December 10 and 11, 1988. The massive demonstration in
Karwar on October 2 was followed by picketing of NPC office
next day in which more than 300 activists led by Swamiji of
Pejawar Math courted arrest. The news made headlines, led
to a discussion in State Legislature and forced the
Government to hold debate. The nuclear establishment,
which had stalled the debate on several occasions earlier,
had no option but to participate this time. It’s attempts to
dominate the proceedings met with some initial success. As
a demoralising attempt, 15 days before the debate, the
Central Government ‘sanctioned’ four more reactors in
Kaiga.

often were full of disbelief. "If it is so bad, how does the
Government allow such a thing?" was a common reaction.
Now what can one say to/of a Government that allows import
of radioactive milk from the EEC? More than 12 countries in
Africa and Asia have refused the Chernobyl-affected
European milk products. India is the sole exception to
accept it.

In a public interest litigation by the Maharashtra State
Employees Federation, the Supreme Court dismissed the
petition accepting BARC’s certificate as to the "safety" of the
milk. In this country, only BARC which is a wing of the
Department of Atomic Energy, is the recognised authority in
radioactive matters. (When beryllium pencils are lost in
Calcutta or Hyderabad or Bangalore, BARC officials have to
rush there with their GM Countries to try to trace them I
The Operation Flood and the centralised urban dairies, which
is a prestigious brainchild of another techno-maniac, cannot
survive without the EEC dump.

KOODANGULAM QUESTIONS
Anti-nuclear movements in the country have come to stay.
While the movements against the older, half-built Reactors
were rather late to start, the new sites are producing
resistance as soon as the knowledge about the siting
becomes public. The movements in Nagarjunasagar and
Koodangulam in Tamil nadu have pre-empted starting on the
work at the site. In Koodangulam, as in Kaiga, the people
involved in the agitation are of all sections and
classes-students, (including of the primary class), teachers,
farmers, fisherfolk, the clergy, the lay, the workers and the
white-collared.

The determined agitation prevented the PM from laying the
foundation stone for the plant. Anxiety has been expressed
also by people in Sri Lanka as they would be affected, too.
The Soviet-built WER reactor model of 1000 MW that the
Government wants to put in Koodangulam is listed by the
Greenpeace as 'having several inherent defects... including
inadequate containment structure, rudimentary emergency
cooling systems, fault-prone pressure reduction systems,
leakage of primary coolant through brittle fracturing of weld
seams of the reactor vessel and signs of wear in valves and
in the electrical,system...’
The Rs.6000 crore Soviet "package" includes setting up of
reactors, regular supply or enriched uranium and taking back
of the spent fuel. The opponents have raised several relevant
questions regarding the inherent hazards of moving the
deadly Uranium and Plutonium over the thousands of miles
by all modes of transport. )s USSR using Indian territory ano
People »s Its backyard for making Its bombs ?

However, the anti-nuclear activists (gathered in strength at
the venue and ) ensured that the proceedings were not
reduced to a farce. Their main speakers, Prof AKN Reddy,
Dr. Deivanayagam, Nagesh Hegde, Prof T Shivaji Rao, Dr
Vishnu Kamath made well prepared presentations. (Former
Justice VR Krishna Iyer fired the first Salvo, giving an overall
picture of the failure of nuclear power elsewhere in the world.
Dr Shivaram Karanth, who had been persuaded at the last
minute to participate by the Karnataka CM, lashed out at the
nuclear scientists and their tall talk which had lost all
credibility with the people. Prof Dhirendra Sharma pointed
out that nuclear establishment was misleading the press, the
people, the Prime Minister and the Parliament with false
statements.

The nuclear scientists fared badly in their defense. These
was a sense of deja vu as many of them merely repeated
their routine public relations speeches. Except for Dr M R
Srinivasan, who put up a brave front, the other scientists were
unprepared and/or were unequal to the task. Not one of our
nucleocrats had the faintest idea of the crucial ecological
issues involved in Kaiga. Instead they went to the extent of
claiming that there were no forests in Kaiga. There was also
a tendency to stray from their subjects to elaborate on how
desperate the energy scenario in the country was and how
atomic energy was imperative. (One of the main speakers
from BARC, Dr. S D Soman, instead of discussing the impact
of a reactor on the tropical rainforests, went on and on about
the virtues of nuclear energy Vs coal). As the AEC’s speakers
constantly strayed from the subject the audience, particularly
representatives from uttara kannada, found the proceedings
irrelevant and demanded that the speaker stick to the main
theme of the debate viz., Kaiga.
A common refrain throughout the debate was the shroud of
secrecy that surrounds the atomic energy projects and its
lack of public accountability. Dr. Srinivasan’s defense that
his Department cannot afford the paper to print reports on
was met with derision. Several other cats were also let out
of the bag. The probability of an earthquake at Kaiga, (when

Oct. 22: Procession and Dhama in Yellapur

faults have been found in the supa dam) the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board was not consulted in the selection of Kaiga
site, and in fact, had not stamped its approval till date,
radioactive materials are being transported through our
towns and cities without the local people being informed of
them, no repository as yet has been decided for the nuclear
wastes. The DAE says, "it is not a problem yet".
The response of our legislators, ministers and officials to the
debate was disappointing. Although all Karnataka MPs were
officially invited to the debate none participated. Except for
a couple of MLAs from the area no legislator, Senior officials
of the State Government were very much visible when
ministers were present but conspicuous by their absence
during the technical sessions. The Ministerforlndustriesand
Power, Mr. JH Patel made his customary insolent remarks
about the need to ‘educate’ anti-nuclear activists (including
Justice Krishna Iyer, and was heckled by the enraged
audience).

Oci. 30: Hundreds of people? majority women, gherao
Minister Deshpande asking him to stop work on Kaiga
project. He says it is beyond the State Government but will
ask the Chief Minister to pressurise the Centre.

Nov. 02: Karnataka-Goa Border bundh: over 100 leaders
including a retired Dy SP, Fishermen's Union leader
Sadashivghad Mandal Pradhan, Dr. Humayun Sheik and
student leaders from Goa participate in the Road Block.
Road blocking all over the district: -1500 people arrested in
different places, including a large number of women. In
Yellapur, Sirs!, Bhatkal, Honnavara, chipagi, Harugara,
Kirkee, Bhairumbe, Kansur and Goa Border, Bisalakoppa.
Nov 04: Thousands gherao Minister Deshpande at Yellapur;
symbolic road-block by hundreds of volunteers at Baleguli,
Ankola

Nov 16: Devaraya Naik, MP is gheraoed by anti-nuclear
activists asking him to define his stand on Kaiga project; BJP,
District Unit demands stopping of K-project;

Though no one was satisfied with its outcome, the debate
was an eye-opener. Many nuclear scientists, perhaps for the
first time, discovered to their horror that they had lost
people’s trust and even their integrity as scientists was also
Q in question. The representatives from uttara kannada held a
meeting immediately after the debate and announced their
decision to further intensify their agitation against the Kaiga
reactor complex.

Nov 23: Petition to the Chief Minister at Karwar by opponents

PEOPLE’S VERDICT
An opinion poll conducted by a Sirs! daily, "JANA
MADHYAMA" reveals that 88% of the people in the
District are opposed to KAIGA Nuclear Plant.

Tanks & Guns contd., from page 1
The Soviet tanks’ armour plates which are now being
imported are going to be made at Rourkela BHEL and thermo
pressed at Tirchi; the turret casting is likely to be developed
at Hardwar Unit. This is said to "...ultimately take India a step
towards self- reliance." Think of all the fuel the tanks would
consume even before they are made, being moved from one
comer of the country to another! Think also of the priorities
of the choices the Government makes in "development".

•

Nov. 30: Karwar Municipality resolution against Kaiga
Project
Dec. 16: Dr. Shivram Karanth, Jnanapeeth Award Winner,
tells a massive gathering at Karwar that the nuclear scientists
are lying to the country about its safety;
Dec. 24: Puppet show against Kaiga by Youth forum gains
tremendous popularity.

Tailpiece: Turbines made by BHELfor various nuclear power
plants have cracked, broke and given way. (They were all
fitted, one after another for the Kalpakkam plants). What now
of the guns and tanks? Internal threats and external threats
to the country are the same, like the ruling party has always
said!?

Dec. 27: State-level BJP leader condemn Kaiga Project.

STATE OF PREPARATION
It has been found that the bridges on the Kaiga route
ca. mot take the load of the heavy vehicles that arrive for
|J(xfeu'ln^P^e?arati0n in 0356 of an Emergency

Peoples Struggle contd., from page 2
Children demonstrate against Kaiga. Under the aegis of
Rotract Club; Every single student of the Sarvodaya School
sent a post card to the Prime Minister against Kaiga;
Oct. 02: Nearly 3000 people, including representatives from
various voluntary organisations, from Bangalore, Mysore,
Dharwad, South Kanara, Goa and Tamil Nadu throng Kaiga
Project office, at Karwar.

Dec. 28: Kanasur Mandal Panchayat opposes Kaiga Project
Ja; . 16: People gherao government offices in Sirsi Karwar
an1.. Ankola: 118 people arrested.

Jar . 17: Picketing of offices continues for the second day In
Si.-1: 152 people arrested; In Mundagoda, people submit a
memorandum to the Tahsildar.
H P
6

Indian Nuclear Scene

Jan. 20: Bharatiya Kisan Sangha, Sirsi resolves to oppose

Jan. 31: Picketing of Kaiga Project Office, Police lathi charge'

Jan. 23: Chipagi Primary School organises an anti-Kaiga
Meet.

Feb. 01: Students of Karwar boycott classes and join the
picketing; Fisherfolk join in; thousands arrested;
„
Feb. 02: Picketing of Commissioner’s Office in Karw^
against criminal charges being filed against Fisherman
leaders; lightning response at Sirsi calling for release of
arrested leaders picketing of offices: over 400 people
arrested.

Jan. 26: Seminar and public meeting in Shimoga, organised
by AVINASHA, large gathering of students, teachers and
people from all walks of life.
Jan. 30: Tyagili Youth Sangha resolves to fight Kaiga project
Jan. 30: Thousands throng Kaiga Project Office at Karwar
and Project site at Kaiga: Over 400 arrested. 145 arrested in
Siddapura.

Feb. 03: Arrested leaders go on hunger strike; Kadra Bundh.

QUOTE
"... the Gulfs of Kutch and Cambay taken together could generate 6,000 to 7,000 MW of electricity, which is nearly
40% of the electricity generated in India today'"

Dr. P.C. Saxena, Director, Central Water Power Reserch Station, PUNE.
Published by: Cane, 000, 17th Block,-Rajajinagar, Bangalore 660-040—

BOOK POST

Citizens for Alternatives to Nuclear Energy iCAhE)
£09. 17th E Main. 6th Flock.
Fajr jinagar, Banjoiore - 560 01(L
INDIA

NEWSPEAK

NUCLEAR

Unlike their power plants, our nuclear experts are a dependable lot-

Year after year,

occasion after occasion, speech after speech, you can rely on them to utter the

same half-truths.

Given below are some of their favourite assertions followed by our comments.
"Nuclear power is the cleanest way of producing electricity"

Nuclear radiation is invisible. It has no properties that human senses can percieve, but
by no means can it be called'clean'- The pollution caused by nuclear power is biological in

nature rather than chemical.
"Radiation from our reactors is well below the safe limits.
There is no such thing as a 'safe limit' for radiation.

the potential to kill.

The 5 millirem figure refers only to the gamma radiation emitted by the

The contamination of air, water and

reactors.

It is in fact only 5 millirems"

Even one atom of plutonium has

soil by release of radioactive

substances is

immeasurable"Actually thermal power stations are more radioactive than nuclear reactors"

There is much more to atomic energy than a reactor.

The complete nuclear fuel cycle

involves mining, milling, processing, fuel fabrication, fission, reprocessing, transport and waste

storage operations spread over several years-

In every one of these processes the environment is

contaminated with radioactivity. Gamma ray emission from nuclear reactors forms only a small
fraction of the total biological pollution by nuclear power programmesThe emissions from a thermal

station represent the worst of its pollution-

is also available for minimising such pollution.
unwarranted-

The

Technology

comparison is therefore misleading and

"Nobody has died of radiation in India"
There is no way to identify the specific cause of cancer or genetic damage and no way

to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they were caused by nuclear radiation. Radiation tends

to accumulate in the body, with increasing probability of cell damage. The carcinogenic and
mutagenic effects of radiation may manifest themselves randomly after a delay of several years,
obliterating any connection between nuclear power and its victims. The relevant question in
this issue is. What basis do the nucleocrats have to assert that all deaths in India are due only to
non-nuclear causes ?

"Contrary to popuiar misconception, nuclear reactors cannot explode like nuclear bombs"

They don't have to ; they are the'Silent Bombs'. Vast amounts of radioactivity from a
reactor can be released into the environment without the accompaniment of a big bang. The
Charnobyl reactor, for example, caught fire while the fuel assembly at Three Mile Island melted
down into the earth.

reactors"

"Chernobyl was of an old design- There is very little that it has in common with our
r. .
citizens for Alternatives to Nuclear Energy (CANEj
809, 17th E Mein, 5th Slock.
Pajajlnagar, Bangalore • 560 010,
INDIA

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL ?'
47/1.(First FlooriSt. Marks Road
BANGALORE - 560 001

m

yroK'diijunioin
sfqjn&JlU
coricS

ANU-SHAKTI : HATTU KARALA MUKHAGALU, HATTU
VAKRA SATYAGALU (Ten dark aspects of nuclear energy).
Kannada. By NAGESH HEGDE.

Jointly published by Anushakti-Virodhi-Nagarika-Shakti
(AVINASHA: Citizens Against Nuclear Energy), Bangalore,
Mannu Rakshana Koota ('Save Soil' Fourm,) Bangalore, and
Samaja Parivartana Samudaya, Dharwad-580 001 (India)
Pages: 23 1987

ae*. «. sisijsF, fogfoiw
ao*. SedesdoEJ,
ac.
tJoritfjada

0

ro85StWrW/ tSori^-KLOOOO

KpitsirijS Existed — 2

—
10 ^0-3^ ©doosorto,

10 sd^ p^ri^o

jjaries® coricS

e
jj^-^eszJrf :

erased, adj3??> <roriotf Sd, (acrosl), tfcritfjido
ZbC93n tiEjKI Jfjau, tSorWjad)

itetosB Eio^Fsi Jtownaoto,

16 Ood 18d ddrt dorteaada daaedd ad^SSaodoiiO

1986d

•dotarab etpd^ Se3' tfaOd eraotoFnad^aodo ddoSada.

edSa„ riooJaaed 4>

xdado doraan djrsa daad, wsteodj rfdaaa (M3kb^ aac* ddaatf,* tfearuiS)

dofcj Sdaats doddFrf ridaanaafc.

adt^rWa, ^odsi, assad, dakvazpd,^

daaosad aatp adabrttf urtrt aO ezjsra^ab asdacda ddoiada.

nsdJiaS

BsaJor^Fdjs

dtsdaa

rteFxaJs rioa56ajog zpsridJofcd b BsoJjnSjdodg

tfsartrf dj5d,ded ded cra»4rttf doddus ddob UodSoioS^ SoodijBodda.

aad Juried rfowoQAdod riwro ajjrija sradjsdd ^jssdrirWa udtrarideira
sJoddFiSrt naodjjdyo sndnad ?ssr!d3

ndofcodo aod aspa^oiinaAsfq,.
ddddsssnd.

Bd«, Bdo^uaad «?j9aji«Js<S>4 B£»F?iwo iexj idadjaS/rW

ajae^dP sajidjssd
a_,oJ33S.—eraaada^ito,

stoddciodo

iedjaFiWesotioia.

a Ddoio s^oda

abates djUoqS. ^dsia, d,t(u;SnaA Adodaa

iasUj Martes’ drtd adort wa^ S^es^oanded.

n^aaere tSeddd zartrt satfd

osadac BS3a4s>t d^rtSodeaaa ?3o5zUe3rt9odoja s^e^d Saaedc^erf.

a&;e/ 5, 1987

—s^sadida

d

1.

1.

ec®jd$Joto 10

ctooiOrttfs :

erw aadta tSeddo^dS, esraotosao.

ecto Sedasa^e

DdjaeQ.
2.

DSdrsd do^scto d,dag 5jk»^)C>o.
duseri^ &sa,dd doaoad w.

3.

era>d4,<»)cd ado6a»
assaoSoe sdttou.

•

4.

ztoas^rto^ctoa

e^rd

tros^Dfcdd

©atf^od

SfoB^d d4d^otoge edo oaodaarddpS rfdito^d.

edo

E5odadodto^

5.

ersadSjOioo

jrao^adjse?.

tsso^

wsSjdrfrt

cosrija

tfoJjaes^difOrt s^i&aedeS aecfo^tS.

6,

dgrtato ScfcJ® ooarija dao?i6d

edo s^aadod, aduae?).
FSd<t*g ecb

7.

cd^tfo^cS.

doaoOrf a)««rto±> s&ed ecto adorazpad aSfdod.d.

rfcto*

di^ri stoOsto^tfcto^ cjO drtctoijasb^cd.
t 8.

^oDrfStto cireBd

EtoooDrf Ksrooricfcddja 6craaoto

5toooctodO?Mft53rtodJc3.
9.

eraodi, ctooctocStdrfeto* ^fde&stodjrf,

10.

udfie dijiSojao ijse^ dd uttoad,d.
®a<5f tfu9?todJc3.

3

djaeqJ RQatocS^

■pyeo2? rs ereo *c$2p$2«
pac£ pjssj 'peep: epose^eueu • ecp<jserpo?

p p o e n p p p ^ 2 0 5 3 p jjQ
<*(?is;tp

dod rfaaad.

esdsad agdaaid d?d daaax>,

Saarfri, ds

doarfd ^oaiSralode rf^xgcda cof^od, SF^dd s3m«3 . daoSaaaad

addad_, aod. rfxrirdg &>cdodaa ^gado ‘^daacrfodoo’
(rfdudfdd) dOZJ daaaOdrf^drfa* ^^njsa BSQSOi) corfOrfg
^aiSj waowWrfa^ doioaOsasL, aod.

3.

zJsaaduse? ecsadS,

d? dddaarfd da^dc^age. deaoioo aoa dudra rfaarfad
dwuarf rfodaae^rfoSjaoSarfa. esrt.asdra ada, esadasaO aozaada
cajaOriaa «9adSg.

dd~ S9dod rf rfs edd daaao rfcdaaj^u

aoiad ojs.D sarfe addrsdusfrioj sasajd. ess esdda,safaridscsad
dates esad
aj-aapf. =j36d 5odjae<de3 axoc3oaox> adaot&

osoSjidrieri
cradora djseeS esjSo^asbs, esstoaertafasotoda. escarf

Sjaao4' a>d?i, flgdv-s ccdo, - a^d.ao adoia asdra

rfoOoiJSA

arfrivO aazsrf dotooWrt deaafeo ara, weafca-B^ es^oara6S
ac2oS?a asaaFcda eS^aad; djaertrt<?rt ?iQjcCjda.
deao*o esc^rfe cdaadjrfojarf^ aoa odadrfa, eba^OXidd

Srfw ndreaod eao sarfe e^Orfa^d aona seda

dg esofcOS daSa, t'?ort?oafrfcJg ejarfa* daosc*
dcorf.asaA daa ?sosad 8yS Esa/jcdaaoiaSa.

aonari, 1940
SojaaOarfoda

adaFrfoia &>UD*

tfaaaa esc3? oessdrfa^ as? rfn9od aaaarfa^aarfow
^sa,.

ddo&oXx®

end caaoza4' SoiaaOA, edaOtfd dadadaaaaojag doega^r

SjQXad 5ojaS_rt adcsrf? dasaafcod daaoada..
Zot3,Dff rfrfa,
zcacf-rf sdrsarta ddada__. ss«3aaf .Saaraa sdraartad.edoda dadrf(
rfcdzd tfdaioXida,.

aacza®

ScdjaO^drfa^ a^oSaatnSj rfaaedod

ddeaod esdaO&a* d^rtea fcssaat^rf Jodaafidaa aariodd aSxd
c3aadfrfcdao zaacza^ coaodda-.

uodaaad e>^ ssrf rieS), rfrtd

5

rirorootodo. edoOi, oioadeRaioo

a^doaeacdoo rofo ddAid

tiodo rooaorfo, doostio OdrW deed rranaxraBOjo s3oee3

aSjSjfUXido.
asadd4od $edoaO rotoaoaod edoOS^ eraosJ^cDood
Cedo saoaoA ado6s® soaro troaawdd doadod dod, etpstao,. ^dd

oaa^rW’rtja

oojsada.

d? dod,

deaddoa^

djadad^

rtedod

doz3d

“ecw ado^ ad^ ert^dodd edS, Cuatso*' zlraeBdod

e$ro do® rods doodad erta.de ^e-eda^ sg^d” aodeo
sa^sido.

«idd dedritf s^&psdod a«^,aritfdoH t$dx>, «rao

dod>d sad aeado.

d>d^, sjd^d sea saepajj® 3oe<? edddd

dedrWO eras dets dd.co ^xiirooJo^ S^oZoXido.

sado d>d?5»

dadOj HpajJ^ esdriosa eews^ddrtedo, adoF* eddod wtod
s^Sjaod rood®' dotaiOXi deo&d^ dodo, .ecsouadordd eduaeri^

rorioa oas^d eSja^si^ erootsariod

e

doddoatSod^ dodo.

erooSdra Soaeoddd tedeo vudodod.d.

dsgoxted^ ddod^d.

d^d Ba(c$X. tfdo^rf k.^o®-, sa^Soaedd sa6dHo* doooaad
2000^ a5dou driodo djaertritfo deidoaedod^d.

odoodeRc&o

rfcSodoO Seri doadodddo d^doeta aj^xid sae^ofrt dosa.r(o
^s,d. rirfoJood drtd edod^ doa^d aedo ddri SeOdd esedd

riert eroodo. rirfdC daaBd doc^S ca&odog draad doaB^oaod
£6rt dead doadd dod^o esaxid eronaddf$r(<?d. edd d? atod
cfcaeri uoddoa sSdsadroriOe, rirf rioa^rinadoariOe dorod dedosj
de. aSodd, ta? doaerirttfo dgra deJdoaedo^de. acpasiron
et^doXiddoa, efsodidrodoronoSoe doaeri wododo oioad d^d doa

aoetfod rone.
eraoasdraDod udod doaerta^ ecaod^ojo ^caairkra oind

douo^dA ^doc^de.

eraosi^dddod
6

ao3a_,do

do^eo

doad

))

dg 3^ naari satfa tadouafi^ddaa, natfaJa daaaetf, Seoddaaaoi,
3dsa0 «dsa dsioad coaOd doaaetf daaerWa udad.d.

daaerid

ugrarisb rtaasa,riod daadtfe sad zfe^daaeddaa, ddafc datf^addafa dedd

sad dae^rt 23au6d©a3ae d£d Ba^o* wdwdado.

ed sadoada d^oa daaddg eraosa dd ^euzsaddaa sa«3
dd4d rfdaardea5, eraasa^dd x>ado

daaeKSj tcOodaarizadodo.

Eooda ddrzsaddaa d^rtoaa sdda saad idaaedaauo* ed sadr

dedd sad daaao ssaXiritfa ddab tadafid «a8.d eqadzsad des*
egaio

aaJoo’ zra^rfafo asaoa tfadoisadofie, daaosi fida^sofio.

daoaa aadra sgaOdsand.

add aedra ad ricSrt Barao^Oo ;
assa^sriVo wodo do?g

sjro^nadfJ-dad ad© ad^dodjOex

daaadd udSe aaaad dadotfdeSx

^osadd andra dd^de^e

ooaadjrt Sea&d,, djJe&se daatriricrt dasajY asisaori dofyfrt
adb SaaddftJa.

4.

eraado^oSaod a$ni asaS
a?oaod ad^s* trosa^DAidd djfi abjaSd^rt 30 dd^ ddu

wdadjdodo eocrassd.

oaoJadaaOrf

ad^s* d^tidO

tfedasfo, enaOXi, Seda fcd* aao&od ada^ erosajOXidd d,fi
afoaaswri 60 d^ de^saria^d.

dtiodd

dd doodaa,

de^aaajd.
dao,

etso ada(3*

tfaacro ed^e

aOeSodaa

eraaa^Srteo

d^

wdads wtfinadSod deoaaA ea^e dddg ada^

d^aaeaa

OTsaddoDaod

ddu

80

rtdcadtf

daadudada.

add

&&&©,

o£x©Sd*d

d>fi

d^d4dg

doricisfod dd.fi

eraaado^

djanaoJari^da^

asainad.

aetfa&dcda

dodaaedfSoia dda, rirf ertdd ddu,

TOdddda*

2

iJtfd

SoaaVad dd^

eodd d>fi afcaassa5

7

aiond

daatfad ddu, eraa

'■ssa^Drttfda,
ada4fi,rt sad) Sed

80

Sedddja,

ddaae-odsn

eOrt

dasddg edd

wjddesartad^d. ada^ dtfsde ^ddaa rfdssOe dt^dodd erode
djSg^S, coM 2^3F JjJaCSWSSfiOe^.

e;S,e 00, eraass^dd^oda ddx Seded 20 ddF ed©o8o©
eras* ©^ad

saoriad

dda S,Ao3S,* iAsada

de,ooa

dro^de

Sts-: Adad„doda ssaadadddja ^aad. -. era^ddd SdroFrad

cod^, ddFd ed©ofcg) ^dacda, eroSa^, zrorrou, erte, ©da..^®*
2330 jrosasFra, oaaadeddoda® scs^dra ^336©rto ©da^ du. d4<da

eraa^asd

drodaSjdoda oirodaa dsddrt e3S_ 2o£j,x>o. d,3 dso

cda^Bassarious ded e>do3aod ©da^djda* dddes dodo Jjaddd
oi^erigeda

ilraeBuja^devo. . erMroddddo* edojtf

dj3dad3rie^ d^aSadOj dddoa ddd?oa.

?fcto©

nisSgJdd^ dori^dd

ssdafiod oOt^F? roZsaJOjdodo dooddafi srisSosteJcoada. ssuas^dd

.j^dd

11 ddFri^S 344 2330,

ddFrteg 251 2330

oazsTO^dd cjs<?d3 zj^dd 10

oaado ado^da, dddoo ddas^,.

eraa

dSj

d?ddriaa d^oda 23dj3iO23Fd

daafOAo.

dj^da*

dodddort

tsda £>cdjs

^dzaujtsa

dasBo.

Sdcdd

Bda^s5,

OBK^dd addjs sa^dd SiJa^jsda ^a? w«dg 2^dab de. 85
ddau dda^ tQo 3J3d23esaA eaoda eo$B3d cBdda^.

5.

efsada, nsoiddaie^
«ra:3SJ »aW.§f aioacss^ adasFcaoSjA, ada^ erosB^dd

eddosd. ero<?oi>;d d^daa* (dj^daseSaiada*) 233023®'
tjVs©3rtod,d.

edaO.u, r?ort^ois«',- ^5^, dd6,

232023®* . SOiJSOlba^d.

dotaOurt

23ed dos&i

Otod

233d4

djtJaseodcsajs ^odddja, eoddoa&^eoda 2udJodddai

sdrtrfXi

eraa&,3_eu djsdda.

2?3ds^

197400

s^^daseRojana®* erDss^nrt tsriad^dd 23302a®

8

dCrfaSOdad dde coda_d,d.

dSFi

dd d

cojad

3j,drW

CM^^dda*

ZoSOZdnOda dod.Oda

adoioZoazd

Szz^zaaria^d,
saarias^d.

ZaSCZd

ZOZ^a^d.

dojaarodd edda„ atfdad ddozia dda s,d.

riawd rW ad

riaoiaO daad;do, ^az oaz^dz drodori

eroasadd 'sdde zzraozd na«?da

qoda ^gz

'■sdad.d.

cssrran eroax^ddd dad, dgraadsW Badea roddzBariad.d.
z$Mi&ae«>c3ao z^dad ^aarifS added derate uri q^d
z3zBz>riad,d. ^oiffiesSjdudnsrie), dazxFO^cd BadaFSOnadfi
z^oda ddg z^£seS>o3ao Xj^daa edzpFuj sadrozaariad^d. Bs?d
dsf «Jdoaz5anfS croo
^ox^dro ssojjarrradnO sSoacdaad

SeOrt oiradjae

dd&gda.

ujavaoiart^e zjdOxfod

Jj^cri woa^o,. 1980dO roosg* dedd croa^dd^poda Sdaarro

aoosdggsri ^S/S? ojaadddjadritf

za£)ojjao3ada.

ede

eroaxra.dd saojaFSdsjjanad^ zasoza* cascsaod zS&ffirae*
tScdd? dadoScjartzadacK Asa,. rsoip ttcCip~d Sod dasad dazoas
roS/o* ridsadSj
dzd croa^dd adasfroooda szc^S

dcossd Jifda^d.
^Seafo ari^d .zadroz^ri^ zsddrt cjzu. dd.s. edaaerip
5>z#rodc<?5 aousuzpasd J3®ScdaFrtslra cwdoazasri edori eroax^dd,
eroazascza* dodasOBs dod^dda^ Qq.zasriadod daza ds rod^a

Tj

do^da^O Bscaadado^ d/dz&ibdg qas crad,rt^ oiaona^
d©3«Ttert dedtf epqad. adcraz^ri^ dzOz^da sidae zSoaau
Zpassl xtefotf rteda, artdddad wdca. oSaad^
ridaddda,

dcro

tdaad^doda tsd&da

riaodod, d^oiaa^ ai^d,

aDOzdrt cdaso6

SodsSas^odzaa^ daOtdaad, azudda, csd,daJ dcBd^ rtaO caadass^d.
aso3 zsodaa deddoS djazaija^s^d. dgro o^bs, edFcUzza.

zpadd, sron^d, 's^zza*. <soaBfdoqS oazi.rt^S eroa^ddrteb
sraoS oddad 8drtaazosda®.d.

9

6.

Breads, djtsadod^daaed
Btaadi.aia ertaaedd BajacdariConaA edSe dowodAd ao

KoSaaFdorfri^daa^ ddd.aaaA dd&d

doaad

s5^cdo wad.

enOod aaariosori dSd Sedad udoa iaartOSOod eroaroddS^

tjnacda udA?^oia adod®F?iSd d°3ade BQtraDrtert sariaa dod;

tsa artert

«jdQodd.

oc^Oodde

spaddd©

1972d© eroadfi,

ffacOadafos^ tsaOrtaaCAgad. crfaadaa oraadS^oia wrtn daaSod SeVa

do Au.

aOdaF dd d e5djdd; Setfadodo.

s^dod^naA oSaad dd^

dcaa6o<da Saacaa dodaaed^ dd^odoSu.

eraadfi,, SaDdo oaaadaa

daaJoAcdada* dofyJodadofio,

dor^Jodad

o±>d^

daadadodo,

e^na ^ddofi daa&S SsdodoAu. odiad w^cdo^ria ofoa^de
dddrt Sedde eraadS, °?oaa3 daoUa^rtaaeoa coa«aaa^usdada.
arsadfijOSaonaA tsdaaert^ d^s ddOdd dossad Saadd? ^dwcoada.
^od aadaadorW $d> SaaedcdaO edStojSaaod eroaas,
^cras! tsddijOiadaa* d^wdcdjddaa^ dA^a^d.
eraaa^aja
Suatf
d^daadd
wrtn ssdOii
dfdf^addddo,
d^ad^d.

cojdoawt^d eraa ^odd rfcp^dra saadaFnaddod d^rtd^
&od dodra dsb^ritfa egod ssaex^ edaaedaeu^ daaddgd
wdoSag dd.adadadda^ ssadaFjfo^rtert aw>d edaa?ri4 ed"raO
(dad^ SurfDod drtdawatta>ao5ado.
''S.S/drt daaod^d© aidro
i&Od

Jodda Sod daadad^d^ BadaFSfSaa^d dd^ari^da,

wdaaonaA Sd^oddeeaA uonari, e SaOda dd^SdFdaadd daad

Faadn aQtraO Sod StfdaSaa^desaoJada.
eraasa^dddda^

dedad dddg dgrsa

dadoiodaa^ daaeddtadado.

odsaoritfa

oiaad

(daaddaa, woQduaiida edro (daad

odjCridaa^ daal^rtaacoa ccaSSaa^,tadada.
SOFfoSoFaa rbd^d.

10

eraadSj ^d^© asddS,

daoodd dteriri daaddjartad_,d

7.

eraadsdrad dadjOsada daaod daUjSdad daty? sSoeex/a
eriad.dcwadil, Jodaae&djj-TOnaTOScda add ^osadrts?? tos
o&aAd.

daoa^narttfe d«j^ zorioia daaert dazSdrWdaa., ddeaaori

rW&a, ddda, oiaad ssjj^ d^dd doort ttedriVa aadripji,
tJeESrf ac&Wesariad^d. eddue ts<g, sra*i jrosj °?oda d^atiad

tsraa SuatfrWda* daaSod daaaw daaodd a^ertaiadda ddcrad
uzrod dra d6o3a^z3?zrariad,d. ^oda dsa^od
sbdaada 315 eraaTO^ddrWa ..z^dda^ ^.s^S.d, edda4 £>O
zftsariad^d.

zaz^ddeda, £>S diroddeda sow xido^rt «sdaaH eroded M,e>.

daaoOd dzffrtoaa daf«3 d? sSda^oia tpsd &/adSt3.
15 dsiFriVg 300 eraa^wdd^o
todad^d.

zSjadrie

sidda ?idd>?cdo ^3rt

«c<d a^jCia eraa^ddri^da^

dead

to AA

edridroA^.

add dodaaf^o^ dd^dda^

daaedd KTOoriddde ^OSdetfa.

vod.d Madddri ^od da^d

Zoaa^ad eod,

iroddrtert

sadea «a5ddeda. eodaa eraad^tda “d« dderi,

daw doaoddddrt.”
sps^ae KTOortd dae<d das^dcdaSdad saddrWdaa* TOOd

daadoiodaaH daaOA>dd
daaAoioo^Oa eraa sd.
ddFrttfg eraads, ^caaJcda sjaijaedsaaSrWaa, d^Ad
■ dod^d ?io5(54O3aja iada^ dza^riad.dodd eraadrt

cosda

zjda -Bfd sdrasaariadjd. eraadJ, essaedadoda iaeaortaa dad
'€? cadSjddaa tfaad ds djd^ri dra dabajaad,«3e ^ddesartad^d.
araaddt

daa^ad dod^sa^A

daassd ddsc3fdfBaiiad.d.

dayd

to ddritfa z^aaSodoaa^!, dawa^pdoaSje rtoOcdaartdod scaa ad^d
doQdidtdjBarias^d. a desSrt udCe d^daaaeri^od ded artn
dddg dda4^ erosa^dd sa^roddaa Saad eraaTO^ddrtV dra
sao&ad Su^oda dzsa^ritfda* dddtda?\ra<??iadJs3f

11

■sddesaria

zadd^dg zpaOe daad,d dradda., eraa ^eaaSnaA Saadoa

d,d.

AdcSzdceadad^d. dzd dd,daa dar5_d ed^S daoodadOdc3?z3?Ba
riadjd.

^odddd dd^e doaoddddaa daadad, daaeddesad

ddotoard dodzjlr adacartad'd.

8.

ezaadJ, daodadz^dda* d/dtadad^d
ddds dt^oia

dddg eraada,

iDzoardddda^

«joaa3<da

oad^og^cda dddg eda otod zaaz^dg

(doadaa uzstdoSg.

<aoqS dodaaz^Sotfag addaaaAd, dda^ dra ddj3artaS.d aaozxdda
Ojjzdja dd&zea daadadodg.
wod

Sodart<?od

^©aaiAd.

p)

ddAd^asad zaac^drts^da^ ddAa^

ddAdjjsad ddrt

iDOeddad

ds

z^OTJjtsad saoddssada&dad ds deitag daeoSaad

ddeadaj ds ^eaaaJrt
^dOod usuad daodadd d

^caaStdag
d^o3aad,d.

^dadodo.
dan^T’rf

tfoa^da* eraaro^dd adaarra^ 250 SaaetS daaaacOa

sOzsardd,

d^d^

ade nad>d ^na sa^dd^ 800 Jaae63 tiaaaaoia

4DraaFriad,doda

wocEZaa daadoaAd.
drad dacdadd^ ea^e eg, dda43* d^cda daodadz^oaa^
eraa^sdri^a

ddrtoajd

£>da43»

SjaeOSo±>da4

tadea, «jdjaHcdo

eraa^dtid^

daajod.edsrivarta^d.

£><?ad dodasSad

jjdaFSiad dadaaed^ dda& ^aOeradg sarawda^d.

Ofaa^ddrttfda^ daati duaoddg
aaaUo^ddrt ada^da, ssAJj ddaasari
daodadd^d waa^rte Sedad,d.

9.

easadad

egod daauada idaa
voodartad AaaeOodaaaf')

wdOz sJijOiada^ aortaa^d eraa
eraad^aSa erosa^ddrtodo zpao?

dt^djadad ddsadl

wdOe dda43* daaaerW wrtn sasa^d

dodaaetpad ^dadjdda.

12

dadoda ae tfd saraddanaAd.
er^da^rtedo, SdaFSb
do otooriaa add, <w. doddd t^^otood dadgdasad n^dds,
tdortaa^e, «3tf.aJi3J roeatood/ridcSj^e, ddaadjd dcteooaod ados*
uvsa^adod dod^ddaa/ za^urt ddoa dfeadda^ dra odt ^adaio.

eoqS dodaaed^Ort dJ3d43aijar©, ri®dd«3ari£>, dded oing/da
H^e^rfear© Xiriaiu. zpadddod dzddeD dda_.8* u^6 d^daara
dn, wdScda cede; detfraa 20 dd/^daa, zadOe dS, daaaerttf
daaedfSrt daai d^daarad dra oapda^o. u«3 eroddOSj H$d,
rtaaza,d eao roddrttfodd sasa^d d4g,nartaid. dda.s* zjtfgaia
>1

doa d^doarade dedd d,rteo±> ogradodo zpadx>, ^a^oridg
Seda Baoto&dod tdoss^d Soxltfaa^ ado^iSj ud^oarfe^d.
eo$ zaade wtfScredde oraasa^dd deiodo daasi, «ido3aJd; eraa

sn^ddd <ao eas^ri^d^ ESood, »dd does?, daaodd dfSrtofo

daed daaD^ d^odoan dda^d dooda wstfoi© Rddoandasa^d.
eracda, 'waaJrt ds ddrt ?ioOd eeJed ridd; Saaad daaaaoso

ritfsio, djd de,daaaearW>rt dRoaaajnxidd, dsAdado^ dS,gadad
?ida?36o3ae iadaoario^dOo.

dda^

c«5.

ddat© «idaa^ 200 ddFTTOrt saoaria

escdd rtedaUjddo, d?FXi. dja©d4ddaH

tJada daadadd, dodaaed^ dc&d^d oaoiadaaddgdadcd
aasJaafdjji, dda4t3anad ^dSzadoda. ddajD dsnd zsudda^*

Tjadadf^ada* ^daa^ edodtoj ddMaashd sad^d ^d.
ds4 dda63*

daaaud dda^

uusa^dd

dgj

daacj&adada.

ddo.s* d^oiada^ tatfdad oaoodaaxdtfdroritfda^ da^doiaOda^
J ed)^
^Ad dda43* utfooftda* deftsa 30 ddo^

8dato daadejdada.

rfda&0 dda43* dodrWde deScaa 25ddad

d8u jSaaeddaafriaid.

dazpaOd dedrfc* coart sra^ erod^do Kara

dadjd

aa^^dadaro* ssandd d? SaaeOSoda

ddri^zjadodo.

ed acS-

FidOjO

udazparidda^

ddF^ 8 .Sort'd sae a&tW

a^dd^

na1?, d^ea, e«3 e&yfrWg enad didodcdaddad

13

da&egJr

ddaad/Beddd.

arsad*.

‘

aaa

wds^d.

10.

Oodj.

dsddrt araad4,03a 10 (Stray daaX)ritfdaH djaeBgacOada. sfe^
d^ojWdaa., aKd^dariaffari^daa, doad^uua^doda araadi, ^eaaad

anart adei d^> de^nrt^da^ aec&3Jdo3,d.
°?oql deeSrWg)
wdedaa coada«>oOCJodja djaertoaB oazstiad^rtea addo, dwdode
dpwasa^d, eadp ac$de Af^aaad dja$Alra«fo sad. eo£
d^doasD ntf, deCtfrWa «igd. (dssaod odowad^ addradO
fijadoaAd.)
1.

ddofc araasa^ddriVa ^dd dc-drttf ^ddriSAo^ ddaa

dd,53aAd. °?g edspa^ wrtda. oiradja ^odaddod aadradu.
(ddab eraoTjaddrWeja s^ode dsa^da jaaO edspad eAd.
oatsTO dd dujidda., rfodoxua jsa^de add, ode ddrrWg

daadoaAd.

adda^rts* doc^oiada^

daad;

tjd^d

d^L^A

oarta^d.)
2.
eWJrirdg
arocda a Ao.

xid»TOAofce

dfidea

rotf^d.

osaaOriaa

(fS^AFS d«dra &02J datareanaAdaS.d. Sedtfd ^jaeootfao

dadtfaoaioia jjC da<S tfdj&aodddg aeSetf wad daaod.dja daaert

ri,d.daa ^gadowad^ cra£>drt$?rf.

^dcdaow daa^e

ad^aa^ frfrtFdg

ddiu aedraddo^

Mdra '

d ^d;d aQsad

ddaAa. adrirdO Jsa^oadaod^EjoJood aaad^e aa^a taaow*
a&a^eU*
zsa^uawaak) ^dwcdad?)

3.
araas^ddrtoOd ad^a^.oS d*. ad^a^de
tad aao3aasaJd.
14

ateb,

k ‘

(d?L edgyas! 3,3 g 5are;3Jd.
^«dddo

esraoio

ttSdSoa*

dedd rtao&ad

adoO&sa^doSoe

^afoo
deoa

drt,rt

daaddgdcd

dooriQ

wOdrtdo

^dodddS^ oacoSri^o

&ja«b,«3dg. oraoiwddrttf at^SS, Su^daa wOoijarioa^d.)

du.oja gado cod:> a,d.

4.

dd.dcoaori'Sg w3o,43, erao

E^olraod? dooodd tojoaorfiS, dtfeo &aeOxbd to3c^f4 3ddd.
(Sc, ad doododd^ godo^d.
q

Sc, ad wdO dojaertVSOj

aSodocodg tsS8, tfodoOg, doooQS asacriS. eroods, rodnartSd.)

SOd
OSodeoa dOSd 3ja£)<i
m Q
■
b coJoa
2d 3,c5,

5.

rfjaw
C*

iSu^ri^rtja 3Osid3,faartV 3djaed

(tfOn,oart©?,

sjQSo^ae.

djada

efidu^rivariOe

Snort

SosartSrto^ Sj^so^ota.)

eraodS, ea^ertja ste^g. rtfJoio wC dgc^oSo^ wOft

6.

ws^o^d^e 33 3rttx>s.c5.
(eraoSojOfo ‘^Sd’

doddoa^OTrtostd,

zra^dd

Sdoa^rt Srie»3 33u3SOj sfcocDS zsesaortddd 3e3rt dMjOarfo^cS.)

7.

tsraod^rt S «ecdo «Sd adjae^ ^g.

Srtdritf Seade

toat^aearttfo doort_d nad S^Sosa^d.

(S s?ecdo eSort eraad^oio SK^djacj rtaasa^rtg. ^Saarae?
Q ocpsa dxdjadoaasa D_taSriVg erea£5dra <»a3$ci> tartn oioadaa

eaort coe«g.)
8.

eraosa^rfdd

&3.SW3.

3oa3o<«»

^ri^g

34dra

XtaFbjJOg.
(SjaXiddaa
y^4ag.

edSs, dd^djadon ^vidii tsSs:3JaS40rt
‘^^oauo’ OSrt^a 3ocjj ^J)ofct doa^^Sg

15

1984d «zae ddrdg 65 odrtea

daadaaaoa adriwnd^)

dodd d^edaritfaa escaaada^ sdaaedritfaa zd^e sbg,

9.

dd)^ rjoO zsariaa ziasd, rfoBrWcdo*.r3J<&J?j3sa<d.

(^da d$e traad?!, d«^ aaaadzS ooariaa rfa'sb, esrodcS.)

araoduaaz^ri^a ^aza azsoada,

10.

zpaddd d^ridcdada^

rfSorfoadd dde& So,rW Ujriaaodrfcb.

(eraaxsa^ddritf ?ioa36 dzsa^ddezSz dd?J>e da,ritf ezpedj
jSddedad-.d. dead daas? coOaSaad.,d. zpolraesajdoOrt edaiaao

asariad^d.

erased zpdjddarfa* i?ortaa<?7k>d a^o edsadrfcfo

ozpsbd,;3.

adeS>e dSjOda S^asad

^das^de azsaadd

e^sad^d doododg . ^dad.doSoe duadda
zbeoSao^Oo.

^.rra
I)
1.
dOJidd

t

eda

dOrfddxdarW w«?

1 O ^dcarWo

d^da sM^d JjcrocoAOd dUj das?sadd djag^&d
da^4

^na

ro^dd

d«3o3adj£)d.

edra6

zSzdzsaeSj

troodartad ds^dda^ oiradaa daodSaadoa ?sad6ae.

2.
ddafc ecaoTOddd da^dd aoiododd, ora^ddrttf
dddaae3o5ae ddaaFranaria^d.
aariOiid oiaad aojood^rasaa^
LA-ddde z^odd

Zoodaaeda ®dd d^oijariad.tfe

«sdad,d.

da&ja;do ddrriv saw eaMeSd da^d ereaHa^ddritf rtaaeOoiaan
tro^aiaad^d.
3.
ariOd.

d^a daada erftfaa^ris! jtfzparidg eraasa^ddd adaarra
zpaadod, icad.d zporido# o&ad

16

d^aaed

Oodex/a enacda eroo&aridod ^dTja.da ddrrW sae eraosa dd
Q
ridsia* saaoaidad aLrarf daaodd ssaaoriddd zSoeeJ S3e«bd,c3.

4.

BaeoJaod

cdoda sadad eeaadfidraaa^d SeOSonafi

e'J’dcrfa d^Orfe^e co, rtaaenaOod s^d-daozWjaDdddriaa udo

dedd^ enaoio aadooariOd.
5.
3

^eafo sadddda^ soas^dga^fi ^d^da^ sadddasa^A

daaa, daadd dSSddo4 da^daj d^;-^dwaxA daadad oSaaessd
^taa-

6.
adaarro dcdd daado 15 zdatfFTte'g «?da SaafUSaod
spade d,daarad dda^dc* Suesbd.cS.
7.

a^aaFsa «&<Brrtjaosfcfcee5 ^ndod m^aariaa acfc3_.rt

cSdodo aej □ass^ja naeanadoariad^.

feared

aaa6s5'

satfg ^eodjri^e esd ckaddgga sanac^ojaele Wooassaea ac^s*
jSjaeOnoisariod.cS.
8.
erod.d Ss^cd sSeJoda □awaSaartFritfg ossa
eraa
Ss&sa sjnaqSF'ritf ?ronau co83auA eaj^driV Sos^aS ssa^toriadjCl.
ssdd rfjCdaSjV sja^dod^i,
drtoad^d.

9.

eraa^sudrisfoai

sicaa sSaaddaaitoid

osariaa

ecispad

Tioidsprdg sjiarieJetfa^ 34dra aJaaenrWoaaA ^Qe ESgJoda daaeud
si^rt^a 5>daaJa$aotf,E5ariad.rf.

evades Sasfy ^cfodoXodeaa

ea8, sJarasb, a«4j spadfi Sa^odaadjCJ.
10.

eSjOcSedritf sartaa tiJoSaaea^dSd

8d adOoSaad.rf.

d? sgoJa

er£cUa,rW tfddaad, oraa^sid ssariaa 5?>Ba

17

ddritfog rfocsaoddeaOe oSjaeesdris'a t>ode tfd aeod/e^dEsadd
otoOdaa gedodo. .

tsKd.E3ad.od '■soda da'Seadari^a Aed>ri5oiag isaddartaa^d.
^§d naaei3a4da£jaei3 feed tsodaitoa daaddd ed^dacadocsaA
cradodjirtaS^d.

‘tSeddsarfd' daai^oa’

code

ooddartaaod

ds dnadXiOd wfyrWg tfedd^c^ rJDa^afcarbd, taodd cog
d/dad^dodoaa tSedris’da* dad, Kj&.dca sagodu.
wadded

na9d dOdtid

daeuariad doreadaris’da^

dedtsaod
eruaJodca

sagsde>.
edSse ^oda eedoCd ds dasJsadarts’t^ denaddaa
$aatf,de£oda co deads’ tSeddt^ciaa 5d Seda^nad. SaaeUriUjCJ
ddrrteod saSesaeroA csadrtaaoddad ds Badass’© doatfdd

cogged seade^a; atosjde tartoda ‘ezpd,^’ Bao3cFr>s’oJjac<
zja,do$?taadda—iaowacaaA
«0do AM?jao a gad.

Cdjso^oia dts^da

<aga

dedriffri

£,na d<?,o3a aSad.dxd, «icg ?toacdA>Orf dUj dosteada "?d.
djacdaFdJ>ooiaaa Sodoaddcg ds rtaaeotsadca^dO Eaooog dd4

uai> dedtsoda ^daSaowadda^ ddr daadad daadde eraaaaa^dd
S oda, erSs^rtcdo eorae tfQotoad
fea^doepEsaAd. eraa
sa doS.oda «edu 4 sadd duJeos' ^aadaoaarfa^ wVJ5a^,edoda
eroasi., ^uaadoa: egsad deSgda, dowadoAo. dSodd eraa
s>a dd Sdaarrad doddC sadar^d

dxiArtoda, deda-dS.-dda^

a^adoSrtodj ^daa, ddaaue dua^ oodaa edra4 sadnartad.d. eroa
xra dd ddaarra edd::tioiaja dod^d saeJaaeddodo, dda^
xsnaui^oda. tidcsa dda.rts’ dotydSjodo, daOUO datforis’

ddadddoda ed£«4 ^d^da^ dad.da^ gaddariad^tfe Boaaerto^d.
araa?;a ddris* dd»Q addosdaja tfri, sa^ddris’ d^riedo ^d^da^

18

cojasi

sa ddridofo, R£»F^z3f5arbd,d.

d, yidd^oJa

Rdodd

ddo&ad, das? A edra.rW ftjeSafoaa aAnud sariad,d.

s^dussaA edra, d^o^edodo ereadfc^da coe^asajOaddaa

eda aodriaa <S^AfiS edra.^ siosadoijarieadda.
ddFri<?od

dosage dsa^riaaod Sofierar

vaaeUodd

zSedoa8>o3adaH dad,

RdaFriea diarfaRod sa^do.

KriS,d§ d^ddri atod da^naBdgaaa eaaosa^dd sa^&Kd

ecaadddraaoaaA s^ddaadd daadd SdarWa
zsRSda ddart daada^. a^oSaaerisaeJcdaO daarari^a eraadSdran

aasOeS °?o.

aorsadadod ddoft daed ssaearis1^ d^sSaaoBda ddart rtaada,.
eaBcS SaaeHjOdd a?drtea dadoed a^d daad ddota>d,s§se rtaa^u.
e<fd S>eOS KeddrWa oiaad zariod dead doddrt sjdfe ^aadad.agae

riaa3,e>. eod otod doe Joiadaa* dcWdoSae doa diatoft erao
saffldd SdaFdad oiaaetsd satfoaAd.
«^da sa^ade. dfd

SaaeUoia rod eqSaaa a^d SfdSaatdcda

eaddaa Zjiad S4

rioisaodd ^daQd oSaaeaSoJae eriad.d.

eraasa^ddritf ^ddjad osariaa esjacdarttf s!ddja«3 «addaa
Eja,dc#«aar(ad daow daaaOe Szpard d,rtaa^avd d? slodzpFdg

gfaa^daad, d^w sJda^d Rzdadosadd 55a<?d deCrtOaa datid^d.
zScdrWa ddajd^ d^&sa^d.

SedtS Sada^Radoda Setfasa^d.

(f; SjHa oSaaesJiSafo sa^deS siaSaa^aaoPadodd, eraadi, ^oaaSafcasda

dedd «idaa^ 21 tfdrWg «aa?i sa^ddrWd^ adaF&ddOgad.
ROF^6ddaodr
daarariea apaFddda^ uosaH, tosaci’',

eo£id,ded, daS,dd oats4rW wd d,dritf dawaa dedcariad,d.

edu dadodriefi Wjdotfdge ddoJaadad ^ajJ aSaatSrraoS ddaa
daeOd.

19

d>deddg ^aastodAs’aAad

^de

sac^

AdoSae djuadd ddaW s3oee5 dOodaa3,d.
djdeddg ied©
25 uelaaedaa^o5 3,«6d Jedjdg daadarod;d &<& 65^duo.ritf
adaarra eriSSjrf. t-Mja, 13 asoadodaA^ adaarra eAO^d.

dedgaae daaddg-

eddg Redd zpaddocaaA daatfoafcaaAeodada.
Saaotfaa.. d^deidg-daatfodsaaddaa add
Sed^saA difcjdjd.

A§A

do?sada

ds

ged>Sd

ea'S’ddd RDaFX>©arto3,dod e?5eS as^da^

da^taassad «ig.

2>ead.dAA e?5(S

nd ada^a tau.d.

daauoddonaA ^ds S,na ecaasa^dd d^ssaA eAaa^eUAwdada;

ed^a rfae«ndoSo et^gUa^AVa adna aod^aaaddg eroaaj^dd
^naa^udada.
eddaa^Ad dodra ”iodAdg dedaasaoaA
ooad9daadgaai tsaaaaJa wodariwdada. dsiiaaode bo, daaodrf

ddajsadd ddFritfddr>aa d? eaaasa^ddri^ riaaeOritfaa, d^
eddedri'Ara, d^oiaa^ort^aa oa<? SeddO aasaoiasao aadraris^
daadad.de ^dad.d. edOj ded1^ eddodag edoUadsb daaSd
adjdSj aodaae tfa^dda^d. ddoda aoadj adoaAdad.d, dasaad;
asad1? daetffOdadjd.
daa^od eriddad.doda? edo^ O?d’F
edQdcndri d? aao c^dArtf djSaaedritfod eaosa^ddrWgb

d^dde^o.

wdOe dipadrieod

ada^ drtadosaddaa

eaad, ds eraasa^ddA^da, nadd daoddrteoS (dfddaoQdrt^o)
grapg ©
sasjaGuaaoBddeca.
co srfC3 Ua,
w

sadw 'aoda daadad dad.d.iL
■<) 6 u ,

ddd ‘©ad’S, daaodd &e<?tfo3adda dod ddad.de ^ddeoa.

saSdd ddaad,^ oaadad es?doaag eddaadd auddrttfo

SeOdad.d.

enad^aeda-dJoaeOA Cad^radg daad, rfosafSaaed.d.

daadad ierid daedaA^aa, dd6dge eddcd dad^dddo.d daa^do*

OaedaAtfaa ^gd Adaa^da dd.d uaUaozaAeA eSedarodad ddAXid.
ts'Sdoja ds dd aeOA tsraa^addod daadwdad doosadai^d
aadeda

AeOcaaA

ed60jad daadg.

tsoddA^ ?^SA5

denaAa^doda

cdaadaa

daadaA^ ^osajSaae^d, Hadodr6 ddadeoaA

20

esSstojiitonsA A>&>R>eOF$ ezpad enao&aA aaarforte dd,

wdodo.

^dad

dorid

cofAdad^d?

ezpa^rissariad-jd.

edSj

dwaeod

Seddssadd

wad eraaaa^dd uda, riAdssanarioaa

wodaaoda

eraoaadra daS>d uua^d ku SfOdaae a aedrio* Soa&d doadod,d.
saoadiddg riaaoada wad JocnaAd.

Sera,S.do6, aa^dddg aarad,

zpadsso i&Oc&raeA eeSfSwaO ridaod^i aaora ?5eOd.

Soerradd

daa&risb 3±>cdosdsd wtfSri ea3aafri.S3arbd.jd.
daaria riodao
dfdsfesaAgdaa, edSj AoaS ^odf drijda oaT ddaOridftrarbdjd'
Bauu^aSaera dri^do wdaa^w,craA ddo& zSfasas^abddc^ daaddo rM

EojaerizSfBario^rf.

edOrrod dd.§4 oiradaa dOcoad Sfdas3)do.

eraaddjOOaonariSe,

BaaiFra4rW

ciradda

ertSBajriConariOe

ri9eo±>ort ds^

ez?ria^Oo.

d^dOrt zsaoeari

zSfdfri-ra

zjidoaA rirtab dra>aic30 aJOsad a^daa sSSeeada, sJa^SFrM)

dsiab naeria, aidd abeeJ ero«d eSra Siraesd ^aae^ad, SdAdad^cS.

eraaaa^aid aafcsFca^odo djadOod wed e«3eS • ria&y BaSoFSdo
Sjdafra jfod.dwd, e>#6£>§ rivadsad sarias erodaa^nadBadS^
d,4afd ddria3a_Jd. ri^foiado ddo& eSodde ddSecdaoariasa^d.
eraa?radddfi5,

dS,

wsa^dcSoda

oirad

oSaafKeJoiaeraddaa

uodaa6fnadBad daozaa dado eoowadda* das da w&jdaaoddaa,

ada6dJd w^uoirariadO
rrad©
6,

wdaa^fnadead codo^d

a>rio(3aJd.

erDsa^ddoiJariad ada^do^ w^Soijarb^jdo djad,

daadd

tWnsa, draa, nadraridri«i§. najdafca wridria, aoa^ddsro^A
doaa eddsb, riridd

SaatfrifOrt doSrt d^dta*,

doriddriaa^ ed, ririd doriddrfaa, dBBae^e
oJraezstJ ‘■snarbd^d.
t^rroOod

od4s3ariad

ddo4d_e

^dj

ezpa^rf djsdad

S^aFiaS3.f

&rbd_,dow

oirad na4doUo3aa <^u; aSodd e de^narieJe ado4dJd oa^zoia
»ae

Rd03FK>s3aA,

see

crawriert

21

ado^d ' asdaad

dod«

d^S, asaori ajoOdad^d.

rijaeasa, docsaoaa^,

eod/d/ded

cosrLra Sed^ oaas4ri<?Aod do?b da^d d^drarad© a?ona dd^s*
StTOFUSuj uapAiddja, edsb^ ajtfsbd
J,nadod 200-300
S©jaed„ados daadd©d. daarirdde M® 25 dd^ dda.s4'
Ajaeo rojaerfo^dOod a^d doe© oa«4^

cJjaeasdctoocan

aidjd? duaddo oaddo.

gjOa fto^siNd,© co^rid d^dda aaarija sad eedo±> d^,da

doad; ddjSj doDcdaariasa^d aodo apadsaaadda. ddodo ^dd asd
^edad^ dddqd odatfadj, u©oijaridesartadjd. duadudoio g,
csan, erac^ddd Jed; ujdoera o^erararodode add ari^d w

Jedidp dTO^dasarbd,,. asdaadaadjd daatf, sioasad^ eddd erooda
rbd^d.

a^oftr doa^rWrlra

eroasa^ddd oioa^de

edjac&tf aj,drid daae^cS ddoiaad^d.

ddeataan edra4s3axiriva

hdad saeSj, Aid asariaa ri^rtdc# a^d asaracri ^afc, duaedrSri
a^^naria^d. ausaa3$ eraa^ddd© ^eUaariOe, a^eutf
ed^dssariOe xio^dXicrari, a© Soasotead eraozsaaO sarija eraa
dddaadd^ dourt asasaddaaj, doadosa^d.
na<? d/aedritf
dxiaotS rbd tfaSdrid© dslo&d aedt» d^dadoaan dorio, ess,
daraaio, aeaftj, aaatfo&o^ duaeud dtfritfu tas^rt eddrnarbd.d.

earad d? esjaab Ptot^de ^ddaa, na«> ddrdaad das,
ddja xiado.

daooaSjd doadatii^rte© traded tfdHd aJdoto natSas*
dtfrtert aJoaKjd sadcartd^d. <\ae 8©oi) narfa^ d4dasad
etpa^oariad.d.

erao^ddd ac<? dsa^d ©jaedd, cro^e^

dtojUfe
oariaadado.

taododd rfdsajda asd ddorioa^do&e
djaeriij dasa^riajdada.

eftosa^dd '?ddu s^D dedrW ot«o±> soa^d ^de ^dod^d.

a^oJjaes^jdddaa, rijaa^asaddja, dedd ea^d>drt daaoais sai eoaas
aid ajDo&adJadaao&Tdd dt^orfiS dajJjaed^^abddja ecaosa^dod

22

siadj oacdsarddsS

Ejajdofiidasa^d.

edda^

ddrifc^doda dates

asaAoSae ddsaOe dited^ asariaa daSuo daoart??a sSdote wda
spartdg dnasao dcdOda^ddeBaria^tS. d/sadi$ad.d da®e>4
rivad sroa^dod^, dotsad sa^dod^, oft, zja^dod^rito ^daera
djaUeariasa^ cojaeriad,d. SeJcda spade Kjaaorid araOri zto
daanadad onaotod SSJoijariad,d. S3,abda„ daaiiaeaaSd drt,
S^eaasartad, coaaeriad,d.
deS - oiaaOnaA d$ oraasa dd ?

<9)

*)

23

“rropiew todaridrijse^ddode ddjaue oJuaeaiSridc dja&dnand.

ro>?j,d edddabg esg ariddo, <5a3,ato( uddddd,

rt?od d? riddo, ds^dadrWaJM^d.

;

add

sas^CS edcaS

wddd aMdrfg Xzssrriod redoado

gjaeU djassacto dortnadd dcsd sS/tead ddtfridoidOj srca&darieridye
djadafcadosahd.”

“add eddiri Badrsaandodcd

oJjxKSri* nsOdjjad.

dodd^e-'ri^ Se^aaadta; di

edra6w>d, dOed®£)FJ4 djsdOTd«JrW dtd^ORidc

agd-Sj^ edc*d,asddj3 udadd Seddd d:ed esjrW sdcwaifc do^dOj

(f)trodj.
"^do otocjrfja uocfc addrtr^sJj ?ioao!pjjd dd:dsoiej. ■ di&fc, Rdofc.

agd aa?s! tw^-vcead
rtjsoaede djiddo dotpidriCTddo.

ad dodofcd tfoedodu

sfo^al^ eroOjta

direrid osdori«rig SjidS ssi 3xri?jdod

regd tfjrisb dirt tSereojod tjjsa:oi>d^ oCoririao tnddrijsoarf.
“added diride jsnriJdrijj‘?jB,eta. dORiddrio^ eiWiSjsera ; dOddd^FFSato
douses aedriddo, rido^rijseSjiera."

—doMon d^raa rfjsu

1)

dcraj iJjju
ras^os: !>OTFUtf n»a srabdi RQ
nso? ^d-d, toured sosb^f sJ'SzJf
t3ort^jsdc-560 001

2)

JidJSK aJOstafrf Jldwosois
Koiorfrid B5Jxt', san^d
n?dCT?d.58O 001

l-iflg.fi

'

-

\

(-A

<n C\
\V

THE HINDU, Wednesday, July 11, 1984.

.5

Wdear p©weir9 the gtreat btandtesr9 /'
NEW YORK, July 10.
by Mr. Charles Kommanoff, an American
The future decline of nuclear power, projected . economist who has demonstrated that the
by scientists who are consultants to business capital costs and operating expenses of nuclear
firms in the United States, is supported by power plants do now and will increasingly
evidence that peak levels have been reached.
exceed the corresponding costs, of building
The'next 15 years will see an inexorable and operating coal-fired plants
working out of a chain of dismal events em­
Disasters: Mr. Kommanoff’s data base
bodied in three decades of massive commit­ enables observers to quantify the economic
ments to a flawed technology.
consequences of several nuclear scenarios.
That nuclear power can no longer be regarded The worse contingency is that of an accident
as an economically viable alternative to other involving the meltdown of a core of the kind
sources of energy may be inferred from the narrowly averted at Three Mile Island In the
low ratings share market operators on Wall United States about five years ago.
Street. New York, assign to nuclear power , Some observers of the nuclear power industry
stocks and bonds.
believe there is a 50 per cent probability
This view is held by Mr. Jay Gould, an of such an occurrence in the next 10 years.
economic consultant specialising in the study
In a new book entitled Nuclear Inc: The
of the impact of scientific advance on business. Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy, Mark
Mr. Gould says in Monthly Review, published Hertsgaard reports general agreement even
from here, that the bleak prospects for nuclear among the elite corps of nuclear executives
power today stand in sharp contrast to the in the U.S. Government and in private industry
euphoria of the atoms for peace programme that such a disaster would result in the immediate
launched by the Eisenhower administration shutdown of every nuclear plant in the U.S..
in the early 1958 with its promise of nuclear aside from the Immediate direct damage the
energy too cheap to be metered and therefore
Atomic Energy Commission of the U.S.
available to users as a gift.
estimates to exceed $7 billions on an average.
Rapid expansion: In conditions of wartime
Gradual phasing out: A more hopeful scenario
secrecy huge public and private funds were envisages a gradual premature phasing out
invested, particularly between 1950 and 1970, of the 73 operating reactors over the next
in speeding up the design of an American 20 years as the result of an increasing number
nuclear reactor that would dominate the non- of shutdowns required by the cost or increas­
soci-kt world.
ingly stringent safety regulations.
In^J period the rated capacity of successive
Difficulties would multiply as the reactors
reactor designs rose fifty-fold without any, encounter new and unforeseen problems of
operational experience to justify such rapid corrosion and embrittlement in the later stages
expansion. As later evidence proved, the safety of their 25-year life span.
requirements of this new and dangerous technol­
At the end of a reactor's useful life, the
ogy were badly served.
irradiated fuel must be removed and the reactor
The economic death of the nuclear power closed down for 10 to 30 years before it
industry has been definitively foreshadowed is safe to dismantle. So far attempts to dismantle

-0. '• .UNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Koramangala

dead reactors have proved prohibitively ex­
pensive.
Transportation: So It is probable that in
the future all dead reactors, along with the
accumulated low-level waste, will be permane­
ntly interred as modern pyramids, construction
of which by the turn of the century will constitute
a high-growth activity.
Any attempt to project the grim prospects
for nuclear power must take into consideration
the gigantic problem of transportation and
disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
A typical pressurised light-water reactor
uses 60 fuel assemblies, or 30 tonnes of fuel,
yearly. About 360,000 metric tonnes of
commercial and military high-level nuclear waste
has been accumulated at some 100 locations,
and it must be moved to an offsite burial
ground.
Countless deaths: Mr Ernest Sternglass.
a former member of the Nuclear priesthood
of the U.S., has demonstrated, that low-level '
radiation from the fallout from testing attim
bombs and emissions from reactor accidents
have caused, and will cause, countless deaths.
He has measured the sharp increase in
foetal deaths and infant mortality in regions
subject to heavy windborne and radioactive
fallout extending even to the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT) carried out in schools 18 years
after exposure. He correctly predicted the
rise in infant mortality in those countries in
the State of Pennsylvania affected by the
fallout of the Three Mile Island accident.
Mr. Sternglass forecasts in Secret Fallout:
Low Level Radiation: "Our reliance on nuclear
power, as on nuclear weapons, may eventually
be seen, if there are (any of us left to see,
as one of the greatest blunders in human
history." — UNI.

n X'
\V

THE HINDU, Wednesday, July 11, 1984,

. 5

‘Nuclear power, the great blunder’ /
NEW YORK, July 10.
The future decline of nuclear power, projected
by scientists who are consultants to business
firms in the United States, is supported by
evidence that peak levels have been reached.
The’next 15 years will see an inexorable
working out of a chain of dismal events em­
bodied in three decades of massive commit­
ments to a flawed technology.
That nuclear power can no longer be regarded
as an economically viable alternative to other
sources of energy may be inferred from the
low ratings share market operators on Wall
Street. New York, assign to nuclear power
stocks and bonds.
This view is held by Mr. Jay Gould, an
economic consultant specialising in the study
of the impact of scientific advance on business.
Mr. Gould says in Monthly Review, published
from here, that the bleak prospects for nuclear
power today stand in sharp contrast to the
euphoria of the atoms for peace programme
launched by the Eisenhower administration
in the early 1958 with its promise of nuclear
energy too cheap to be metered and therefore
available to users as a gift.
Rapid expansion: In conditions of wartime
secrecy huge public and private funds were
invested, particularly between 1950 and 1970,
in speeding up the design of an American
nuclear reactor that would dominate the nonsoci^i world.
period the rated capacity of successive
reactor designs rose fifty-fold without any,
operational experience to justify such rapid
expansion. As later evidence proved, the safety
requirements of this new and dangerous technol­
ogy were badly served.
The economic death of the nuclear power
industry has been definitively foreshadowed

by Mr. Charles Kommanoff, an American dead reactors have proved prohibitively ex­
economist who has demonstrated that the pensive.
capital costs and operating expenses of nuclear
Transportation: So it is probable that in
power plants do now and will increasingly the future all dead reactors, along with the
exceed the corresponding costs, of building accumulated low-level waste, will be permane­
and operating coal-fired plants
ntly interred as modern pyramids, construction
Disasters: Mr. Kommanoff’s data base of which by the turn of the century will constitute
enables observers to quantify the economic a high-growth activity.
consequences of several nuclear scenarios.
Any attempt to project the grim prospects
The worse contingency is that of an accident for nuclear power must take into consideration
involving the meltdown of a core of the kind the gigantic problem of transportation and
narrowly averted at Three Mile Island in the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
United States about five years ago.
A typical pressurised light-water reactor
Some observers of the nuclear power Industry uses 60 fuel assemblies, or 30 tonnes of fuel.
believe there is a 50 per cent probability yearly. About 360.000 metric tonnes of
of such an occurrence In the next 10 years.
commercial and military high-level nuclear waste
In a new book entitled Nuclear Inc: The has been accumulated at some 100 locations.
Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy, Mark and it must be moved to an offsite burial
Hertsgaard reports general agreement even ground.
among the elite corps of nuclear executives
Countless deaths: Mr. Ernest Sternglass.
in the U.S. Government and in private industry a former member of the Nuclear priestnood
that such a disaster would result in the immediate of the U.S., has demonstrated, that low-level
shutdown of every nuclear plant in the U.S.. radiation from the fallout from testing atom
aside from the Immediate direct damage the bombs and emissions from reactor accidents
Atomic Energy Commission of the U.S. have caused, and will cause, countless deaths.
estimates to exceed $7 billions on an average.
He has measured the sharp increase in
Gradual phasing out: A more hopeful scenario foetal deaths and infant mortality in regions
envisages a gradual premature phasing out subject to heavy wlndborne and radioactive
of the 73 operating reactors over the next fallout extending even to the Scholastic Aptitude
20 years as the result of an Increasing number- Test (SAT) carried out In schools 18 years
of shutdowns required by the cost of increas­ after exposure. He correctly predicted the
ingly stringent safety regulations.
rise in infant mortality in those countries in
Difficulties would multiply as the reactors the State of Pennsylvania affected by the
encounter new and unforeseen problems of fallout of the Three Mile Island accident.
corrosion and embrittlement in the later stages
Mr. Sternglass forecasts in Secret Fallout:
of their 25-year life span.
Low Level Radiation: "Our reliance on nuclear
At the end of a reactor's useful life, the power, as on nuclear weapons, may eventually
irradiated fuel must be removed and the reactor be seen, if there are'any of us left to see.
closed down for 10 to 30 years before it as one of the greatest blunders in human
is safe to dismantle. So far attempts to dismantle history.” — UNI.

-U I.OUNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Koramangala
Banaalnro-FRnz'- 4

India

...

_

Dm

High leukaemia rate
n^ar nuclear plant

. ,-

p„ H

■

, .

nadence ©I blood cancejr in
en living near nuclear plant

M nJ .OU

back on to the beaches surrounding the plant.
! ■
LONDON. July 22.
■vernment inquiry has confirmed although a spokesman for British Nuclear Fuels
kemia rate around a nuclear Limited, the State-owned operator of the
rthen England is about 10 times facility, said the discharges are within safe .
limits.
Irage. official sources said.
,
. A'
washed back onto the beaches sur-.
w- said the inquiry', conducted by Windscale was the site in 1957 of one of the
LONDOh., July 22. — A Govern- rounding the plant, although a spoke- lack, a leading physician, in- world's worst nuclear accidents when a fire In
ment inquiry has confirmed that the
f»r British Nuc|car Fuels Lia
plutonium-producing reactor caused the re­
j ire could be a link between the
leukaemia rate around a nuclear com- milcd lhe Statc.owned operator of the
lease of a cloud of radioactive iodine gas. —
plex in northern England is about 10 faciii£y said the discharges are within' ear reprocessing plant and Reuter. UPI.
ihildren from leukaemia.
times the national average, official
rent set up the inquiry after a
sources have said.
The sources said the inquiry, conA newly discovered protein produc-- jvision station. ,reported
W1_______a......
high
ducted by leading physician Sir Dou- ed by a suspected cancer-causing gene (Ukaemia and other cancers in
glas Black, indicated that there could apparently helps trigger one type of iear me plant.
LONDON, July 22'.
be a link between the Sellafield nu- leukaemia, according to a recent study.
S
Of The findings were praised by cancer ir
| Yorkshire Television said the
the British secret service has been "deeply
The findings were praised by cancer ta|e near the nuclear complex compromised" by Soviet penetration and has
The Government set up the inquiry experts
----- —
as very. important and a
of childhood cancers over lost its way. a former spy-catcher claimed in
igh” in understanding how L , 0 times the national rate.
after a commercial television station “breakthrough
an Interview on Sunday.
...
reported a high incidence of leukaemia cancer may be spurred by genes.
Mr. Peter Wright, who last week said it was
said Sir Douglas had confirmed
and other cancers in children living
•
' ' down
.
“Diseases may
go
a certain I' rate around Sellafield and he "99 per cent certain" that former spy chief Sir
neTrh?rf^arthv Yorkshire Television path,”„ said
Dr.
fawen
Witte,
head
of
—■j r,_
u—i -f was sufficient evidence to war- Roger Hollis had been a Soviet agent, told the
Observer newspaper he had a highly sensitive
saicMhe Ullage of Se^cale near the fee research team. “What we’ve done ----------nsive inquiry.
nuclear complex had 11 cases ofB)^l'X^XI1£L « complex contains the dossier about Soviet penetration of British in­
childhood cancers over the past 30 pahway s that w b tterunde stand
one of two such telligence services.
Mr. Wright, who for seven years led a commit­
years, 10 times the national rate.
l^man leukaemia ”
'
rations in the world. The other
tee probing the extent of Soviet spies in the
UP adds: The Sellafield complex human leukaemia.
civil service and in intelligence, accused senior
contains the Windscale reprocessing
ine piant turns spent magnox reactor fuel ■ figures in the M15 counterespionage service
plant, one of two such commercial
into reusable uranium, plutonium and high level of covering up chronic weaknesses to avoid
operations in the world. The other is in
waste that must be stored indefinitely. Other '. political embarrassment.
depleted fuel front thermal oxide reactors in ■
aossier. which
wnicn was
was seen
seen by me
papc,.
The dossier,
the paper.
The plant turns spent magnox reac­
Britam and Japan is stored on the site pending argueci that
M15-s attempts
men. iv.uo
euenipis to detect and trap
tor fuel into reusable-uranium, pluto­
the building of a new plant.
spies were
were repeatedly
repeatedly swept
swept a
a side
side by
by leaks
leaks
spies
nium and high level waste that must be
"n the Russians.
stored indefinitely. Other depleted fuel
Since reprocessing began in 1952. the plant t°
rotirori
has been discharging radioactive waste into
Mr. Wright. (69). lives in Australia, retired
from thermal oxide reactors in Britain
and Japan is stored on the site pending
the Irish sea, including particles of plutonfees^From the service in 1976. He believes M15 is
the building of a new plant.
Some of the radioactive waste has washed still not secure today. — Reuter.
Since reprocessing began in 1952,
the plant has been discharging radio­
active waste into the Irish sea, includ­
ing particles of plutonium.
Some of this radioactive waste has

British secret service
'deeply compromised’

THEHINDU, Wednesday, July 11, 1984.

.5

‘Nuclear power, the great blunder’ /
NEW YORK, July 10.
The future decline of nuclear power, projected
by scientists who are consultants to business
firms in the United States, is supported by
evidence that peak levels have been reached.
The'next 15 years will see an inexorable
working out of a chain of dismal events em­
bodied in three decades of massive commit­
ments to a flawed technology.
That nuclear power can no longer be regarded
as an economically viable alternative to other
sources of energy may be inferred from the
low ratings share market operators on Wall
Street. New York, assign to nuclear power
stocks and bonds.
This view is held by Mr. Jay Gould, an
economic consultant specialising in the study
of the impact of scientific advance on business.
Mr. Gould says in Monthly Review, published
from here, that the bleak prospects for nuclear
power today stand in sharp contrast to the
euphoria of the atoms for peace programme
launched by the Eisenhower administration
in the early 1958 with its promise of nuclear
energy too cheap to be metered and therefore
available to users as a gift.
Rapid expansion: In conditions of wartime
secrecy huge public and private funds were
invested, particularly between 1950 and 1970.
in speeding up the design of an American
nuclear reactor that would dominate the nonsoci'fck world.
In^^ period the rated capacity of successive
reactor designs rose fifty-fold without any,
operational experience to justify such rapid
expansion. As later evidence proved, the safety
requirements of this new and dangerous technol­
ogy were badly served.
The economic death of the nuclear power
industry has been definitively foreshadowed

by Mr. Charles Kommanoff. an American
economist who has demonstrated that the
capital costs and operating expenses of nuclear
power plants do now and will increasingly
exceed the corresponding costs, of building
and operating coal-fired plants
Disasters: Mr. Kommanoff's data base
enables observers to quantify the economic
consequences of several nuclear scenarios.
The worse contingency is that of an accident
involving the meltdown of a core of the kind
narrowly averted at Three Mile Island in the
United States about five years ago.
Some observers of the nuclear power Industry
believe there is a 50 per cent probability
of such an occurrence in the next 10 years.
In a new book entitled Nuclear Inc: The
Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy, Mark
Hertsgaard reports general agreement even
among the elite corps of nuclear executives
in the U.S. Government and in private industry
that such a disaster would result in the immediate
shutdown of every nuclear plant in the U.S.,
aside from the Immediate direct damage the
Atomic Energy Commission of the U.S.
estimates to exceed $7 billions on an average.
Gradual phasing out: A more hopeful scenario
envisages a gradual premature phasing out
of the 73 operating reactors over the next
20 years as the result of an increasing numberof shutdowns required by the cost or increas­
ingly stringent safety regulations.
Difficulties would multiply as the reactors
encounter new and unforeseen problems of
corrosion and embrittlement in the later stages
of their 25-year life span.
At the end of a reactor’s useful life, the
irradiated fuel must be removed and the reactor
closed down for 10 to 30 years before it
is safe to dismantle. So far attempts to dismantle

dead reactors have proved prohibitively ex­
pensive.
Transportation: So it is probable that in
the future all dead reactors, along with the
accumulated low-level waste, will be permane­
ntly interred as modern pyramids, construction
of which by the turn of the century will constitute
a high-growth activity.
Any attempt to project the grim prospects
for nuclear power must take into consideration
the gigantic problem of transportation and
disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
A typical pressurised light-water reactor
uses 60 fuel assemblies, or 30 tonnes of fuel.
yearly. About 360,000 metric tonnes of
commercial and military high-level nuclear waste
has been accumulated at some 100 locations,
and it must be moved to an offsite burial
ground.
Countless deaths: Mr. Ernest Sternglass.
a former member of the Nuclear priesthood
of the U.S., has demonstrated, that low-level
radiation from the fallout from testing atom
bombs and emissions from reactor accidents
have caused, and will cause, countless deaths.
He has measured the sharp increase in
foetal deaths and infant mortality in regions
subject to heavy windborne and radioactive
fallout extending even to the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT) carried out in schools 18 years
after exposure. He correctly predicted the
rise in infant mortality in those countries in
the State of Pennsylvania affected by the
fallout of the Three Mile Island accident.
Mr. Sternglass forecasts in Secret Fallout:
Low Level Radiation: "Our reliance on nuclear
power, as on nuclear weapons, may eventually
be seen, if there are:any of us left to see.
as one of the greatest blunders in human
history." — UNI.

-’0. ..UNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Koramangala

India

,

SJH

High leukaemia rate
naar nuclear plant

,

^Kr^inALP)

'^A
gar
^District)
L

faa Reddy, I-A-S’
ShV* hover the past 30

leads to one form of

years, 10 times the national .t^ human leukaemla,
UP- ad?he ^Mindscale reprocessing
“n“,ns„n he0f tw > such commercial
±ations in?he world.Theother ism
Volant turns ^nt magnox reuac-

stored indefinitely <MerdeP^“ritain
the building of a new plant.
th^^S^f
active waste into the Insh sea, inciuo
ing particles of plutonium.
'"some of this radioactive waste has

^Q^AGING DIRECT°r■ h. ’ Hyderabad

■

branch

<

/j -it was
/chief Sir
/., told the
/y sensitive
/: British in-

Zed a commit/; spies in the
/ccused senior

4 Innage service

ql sses to avoid

W by the paper.
1 letect and trap
4 side by leaks
■ .ustralia, retired
■ oelieves M15 is

THEHINDU, Wednesday. July 11, 1984, . 5

\\

'----- ’

‘Nuclear power, the great blunder’
NEW YORK. July 10.
by Mr. Charles Kommanoff. an American
The future decline of nuclear power, projected . economist who has demonstrated that the
by scientists who are consultants to business capital costs and operating expenses of nuclear
firms in the United States, is supported by power plants do now and will increasingly
evidence that peak levels have been reached.
exceed the corresponding costs of building
The'next 15 years will see an inexorable and operating coal-fired plants
working out of a chain of dismal events em­
Disasters: Mr. Kommanoff's data base
bodied in three decades of massive commit­ enables observers to quantify the economic
ments to a flawed technology.
consequences of several nuclear scenarios.
That nuclear power can no longer be regarded The worse contingency is that of an accident
as an economically viable alternative to other involving the meltdown of a core of the kind
sources of energy may be inferred from the narrowly averted at Three Mile Island in the
low ratings share market operators on Wall United States about five years ago.
Street. New York, assign to nuclear power
Some observers of the nuclear power industry
stocks and bonds.
believe there is a 50 per cent probability
This view is held by Mr. Jay Gould, an of such an occurrence In the next 10 years.
economic consultant specialising in the study
In a new book entitled Nuclear Inc: The
of the impact of scientific advance on business. Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy, Mark
Mr. Gould says in Monthly Review, published Hertsgaard reports general agreement even
from here, that the bleak prospects for nuclear among the elite corps of nuclear executives
power today stand in sharp contrast to the in the U.S. Government and in private industry
euphoria of the atoms for peace programme that such a disaster would result in the immediate
launched by the Eisenhower administration shutdown, of every nuclear plant in the U.S..
in the early 1958 with its promise of nuclear aside from the Immediate direct damage the
energy too cheap to be metered and therefore Atomic Energy Commission of the U.S.
available to users as a gift.
estimates to exceed $7 billions on an average.
Rapid expansion: In conditions of wartime
Gradual phasing out: A more hopeful scenario
secrecy huge public and private funds were envisages a gradual premature phasing out
invested, particularly between 1950 and 1970. of the 73 operating reactors over the next
in speeding up the design of an American 20 years as the result of an Increasing numbernuclear reactor that would dominate the non- of shutdowns required by the cost of increas­
sochitek world.
ingly stringent safety regulations.
In^^period the rated capacity of successive
Difficulties would multiply as the reactors
reactor designs rose fifty-fold without any, encounter new and unforeseen problems of
operational experience to justify such rapid corrosion and embrittlement in the later stages
expansion. As later evidence proved, the safety of their 25-year life span.
requirements of this new and dangerous technol­
At the end of a reactor’s useful life, the
ogy were badly served.
irradiated fuel must be removed and the reactor
The economic death of the nuclear power closed down for 10 to 30 years before it
industry has been definitively foreshadowed is safe to dismantle. So far attempts to dismantle

dead reactors have proved prohibitively ex­
pensive.
Transportation: So it is probable that in
the future all dead reactors, along with the
accumulated low-level waste, will be permane­
ntly interred as modern pyramids, construction
of which by the turn of the century will constitute
a high-growth activity.
Any attempt to project the grim prospects
for nuclear power must take into consideration
the gigantic problem of transportation and
disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
A typical pressurised light-water reactor
uses 60 fuel assemblies, or 30 tonnes of fuel.
yearly. About 360,000 metric tonnes of
commercial and military high-level nuclear waste
has been accumulated at some 100 locations,
and it must be moved to an offsite burial
ground.
Countless deaths: Mr. Ernest Sternglass,
a former member of the Nuclear priesthood
of the U.S., has demonstrated- that low-level
radiation from the fallout from testing atom
bombs and emissions from reactor accidents
have caused, and will cause, countless deaths.
He has measured the sharp increase in
foetal deaths and infant mortality in regions
subject to heavy windborne and radioactive
fallout extending even to the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT) carried out in schools 18 years
after exposure. He correctly predicted the
rise in infant mortality in those countries in
the State of Pennsylvania affected by the
fallout of the Three Mile Island accident.
Mr. Sternqlass forecasts in Secret Fallout:
Low Level Radiation: "Our reliance on nuclear
power, as on nuclear weapons, may eventually
be seen, if there are i any of us left to see.
as one of the greatest blunders in human
history." — UNI.

JU I.-.UNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Koramangala
Banoalnre-FRO'''' 1

_------—•—-----------

India

a

,

.

WlrfOU

HiEh incidence of blood cancer in
'. iu 1' ..Vapmia ricMdren living near nuclear plant

High leuKaeinw ABritishG—
naar nuclear plan^^
'

LONDON. July 21 - A

ment

>>as

washed back onto 1*®^^
rounding the P *UTh®

by
a leaqdin^ physician, in-

^cle" sm»

i'e-Own dicated.tTiat there could be a link between the

inquiry, .con-

co^^"^^S

«««

Windscale was the site in 1957 of one of the
world’s worst umvisui
nuc ear_a^te ^a firejn
WOIIU&
a plutonium-producing reactor caused the re­
lease of a cloud of radioactive iodine gas. —
Reuter. UPI.

W British secret service
>,q
Oe>nlv rnmnrnmtsed
‘deeply
compromised’

. T.h.a £Heading physician Sir Dou»
of |eukaemia and other cancers in
gfc Black, indicated th"jhCTe “ujd leukaemia, accordi children living near the plant

LONDON. July 22.
The BritIsh
British seC
secret
ret service has Deen
been "deeply
oeep.y
compromised"
compromised" by
by Soviet
Soviet penetration
penetration and
and has
has
--------.
r
—
lost its way. a former spy-catcher claimed
claimed m
in
an interview on Sunday.
,
Mr. Peter Wright, who last week said it was
a?mrted a high incidence of leukaemia
*
The sources said Sir Douglas had confirmed
an?other cancers in children i g
‘‘Diseases mavi
h. h
rate around Sellafield and he ‘"99
‘S per cent certain" that former spy chief Sir
Roger
Hollis had been a hSda'highiy
Soviet agent,’sensitive
told the
near the plant
ire Television,
believld there waS
Otee^"new™'he
'AS._______ __
ho hoH hinhlv sensitive
™ee vilhge O "ale near the the
rant a more extensive inquiry.
■ Obse^er^
^British in.

Be a link between the seiw
of
by Yorkshire Television said he
clear reprocessing p ant d d
The findings I
J Seascale near the nuclear complex
local children front leukaemia
experts “tfTn had had 11 cases of childhood cancers over
television station
‘h® P®“30
10 timeS
nati°"a'

nuclear complex had 1 ’ “t". ?n pathway so tfratj
The Sellafield
complex contafrisi the telligence services.
chMhood cancers over the past 30 Pthe pain
h lhal
|e reprO
cesslng plant,
such­
. jr7 Wright, who for iseven years led a commit­
nun leJ Windsca
windscale
reprocessing
pi«"u one of two
--Tv
ennanoou
- at:onai rate.
thuman
_L, leukaemia commercial
_____ _ -_i JL
__ ««««. in th©
operations
the world. The other .tee_____
probing the extent of Soviet spies in the
years,
Sellafield complex
service and in intelligence, accused senior
is in France.
t i civil
_
The plant turns spent magnox reactor fue ffigures
.
in the M15 counterespionage service
covering
up chronic weaknesses to avoid
into reusable uranium, plutonium and nign level
c
fe^inthM The other ism
waste that rtiust be stored Indefinitely. Other . political
...
embarrassment.
depleted fuel from thermal oxide reactors in
The
)he aoss
dossier,
,eri which
wmcn was scan
seen by the paper,
r-r-■
Britain and Japan is stored on the site pending ar
argued
gued that M15’s attempts to detect and trap
The plant turns
spies were
were repeatedly
repeatedly swept
swept a
a side
side by
by leaKS
leaks
:
the building of a new plant.
spies
‘
n
the
Russians.
,
„
.. .
Since reprocessing began in 1952. ‘b® P1®^ tO Mr ’wrfqht (69), lives in Australia, retired
Mr Wright, (69), lives in Australia, retired
hasbeen discharging radioacUv>
9
ig76 He
M15
and Japan is stored on the site penuiug
the building of a new plant.

th^t^lSrff
active waste into the Irish sea, memo
ing particles of plutonium.
BqXme of this radioactive waste has

COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
47/1,(First Floor)St. Marks Road
BANGALORE-560 001

ATOMIC

POWER:
Myths & Reality :

CRITIQUE OF NUCLEAR POLICY

( C’GUN TENTS )
Abbreviations

2

Nuclear Power : Unsafe at Any Cost
The Atom Bomb is not the Answer

3
13

An Appeal, on ‘Nuclear Weapons Policy’ to the Commonwealth
Heads of Government Meet (CHOGM) November 1983

15

Nuclear Estate : Threat to Democratic System
JNU Attacks ‘Academic Freedom’

17
29

A Thorn Removed

31

Selected Bibliography

■

32

"W-----------------------------------------------------------THE COMMITTEE FOR A SANE NUCLEAR POLICY
( C 0 S N U P )

NEW DELHI 1984
Rs. 3.00

© Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, New Delhi, 1984.

This collectiori’of articles and documents issued in the public interest,
by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy.

Abbreviations
AEC

Atomic Energy Commission (of India)

BARC

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Bombay).

BARCOA

BARC Officers’ Association

CANDU-PHW

Canadian Deuterium-Uranium Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor

DAE

Department of Atomic Energy (of India)

DST

Department of Science & Technology (of India)

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

MAPP

Madras Atomic Power Project (Kapakkam)

NAPP

* Narora Atomic Power Project (U.P.)

PPED

Power Projects Engineering Division (DAE)

SACC

Science Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (Government of India)

RAPE

Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (Kota)

TAPS

Tarapur Atomic Power Station (Bombay)

TIFR

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (Bombay)

Printed at :

Narendra Printing Press, 20 Model Basti, New Delhi 110 005,

•

NUCLEAR POWER

UNSAFE
AT
ANY COST
Science Policy /DHIRENDRA SHARMA
Dhirendra Sharma has always been a staunch critic of the country’s
nuclear policy. There is his controversial book, India’s Nuclear Estate.
And various articles by him criticising India’s official Science and
Technology Policy have appeared here and abroad.
Recently, he was unceremoniously transferred from Jawaharlal Nehru
University’s Science Policy Centre (a post he had held for 10 years)
to the School of Languages , under pressure from the Department of
Atomic Energy, which felt that Sharma's views had damaged the
country’s reputation abroad.
In a scathing attack on India’s nuclear policy, Sharma, who is Con­
vener of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, urges the nation
to pause and take a fresh look at its nuclear strategy. In the light of
the catastrophic environmental consequences which would result out
of radiation.
He questions the right of our democratic process to invest India’s
meagre resources in an energy system which can even damage our
central rights and liberties.
What he suggests is that we should develop an alternative energy
technology. Which is efficient, renewable and safe. And at a
reasonable price.
In the meantime, he emphasises the need for a moratorium on all
nuclear power projects in order to save our future generations from
the serious repercussions of a nuclear fallout.
India has demonstrated its nuclear cap­
ability by a successful ‘Peaceful Implosion’
at Pokharan in the Rajasthan desert on May
18, 1974. But to construct and operate a
nuclear .power generation system safely and
efficiently is another story. As early as’ 1965,
Dr Horni J. Bhahha had claimed that “one
new atomic power reactor of 200 MWe will
be set up every year from 1968 onwards”.
It was also claimed that, by 1970, “100 per
cent indigenous atomic power plants would

be produced” in India. For whatever rea­
sons, none of these targets could be ach­
ieved.

The pattern of energy determines the
choice of selection of technology, which can
vary according to the demands of industry
and agriculture. But imperatives of appro­
priateness in an energy system cannot ignore
futuristic demands for protection of social and
natural environment.

3

India’s major research and development
[R & D] efforts in science and technology have
been diverted to nuclear and space pro­
grammes, which together take away almost an
open-ended budget of Rs 1,000 crores [R & D
only]; the highest scientific budget, Rs 600
crores, goes to nuclear energy. But, if econo­
mic and industrial considerations were neces­
sary for deciding a power generation strategy,
it may sound odd, but no comprehensive
study/report about environmental effects or
cost-benefit analysis of atmoic power has been
made public by the Department of Atomic
Energy [DAE] or by the Planning Commission
or even by the Ministry of Energy.

do not question the sincerity of the past and
present Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com­
mission, but their tall claims just cannot be
substantiated.

The country and the Prime Minister seem ■
to have been misled into believing that the
DAE could really execute such an ambitious
N-power programme. Moreover, a rough
calculation of industrial and technological
capability would confirm our doubts. A
nuclear reactor unit of 230-MWe capacity of
the Canadian Deuterium Oxide Uranium
[CANDU]-typc reactor system—which has
been adopted for the Rajasthan ‘Atomic
Power Station [RAPS] the Madras Atomic
Power Station [MAPS] and the Narora Atonj' a
Nuclear fission as a source of power gene­
Power Project (NAPP)—requires roughly w
ration has little appropriateness in India,
tonnes
of natural uranium fuel per year.
where abundant renewable resources are avail­
Assuming the life of a unit to be 30 years, a
able. India can still pause and take a fresh
single reactor would require around 1,800
look at its nuclear strategy. Is there absolutely
tonnes of uranium at 70 per cent utility factor.
no alternative to nuclear power? Is it desirable
For a total of 10,000 MWe, a total of 44 units
to invest our meagre resources on such an
of 230-MWe capacity at an annual rate of
energy system whose returns arc not certain
2,640 tonnes, the total uranium requirement
and whose environmental consequences for
would be around 79,200 tonnes. But going
posterity are infinitely catastrophic?
by estimates prepared by the International
The Government of India has, in the Sixth
Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] on tbe World
Five-Year Plan, approved construction of 10
Uranium1 Resources, India’s “attainable pro­
to 12 atomic power stations in addition to the
duction capabilities” of uranium tonnage are
4
already
constructed.
And
Dr Raja not going to be more than 200 tonnes by 1990.
Ramanna, Chairman of the Atomic Energy
And there are no industrial and financial
Commission [AEC], has claimed that the coun­
resources to stretch this capability to 2,000
try's DAE and the nuclear industry “is now
tonnes by 2000 AD.
poised to undertake the projected programme
The cost of one tonne of uranium fuel is
for installing a power generation capacity of
roughly Rs 900,000 (or £ 60,000) at-the pre­
10,000 MWe by the year 2000 AD”. But
sent rate of inflation CANDU's unique feature
no details of the ‘projected programme have
is that, in it, Deuterium Oxide (D,O) or heavy
been disclosed, so, in the light of past per­
water is used as a coolant and a" moderator.
formance, grave doubts persist about the
One kg of heavy water is produced by the
seriousness of nuclear plans.
breaking of about 7,000 kgs of hydrogen atoms
.Instead of making a fresh assessment of and, therefore, the production cost of D.Q s
the whole nuclear issue, the new chairman has
roughly Rs 5,000 a kg or Rs 500,000 a tonne.
launched a massive public relations campaign.
A reactor of 230-MWc capacity requires —s
Press parties have been taken around the
initial charge of 200 tonnes of heavy watt.,
DAE’s establishments and announcements are
with an annual replenishment of about 15-20
made periodically that a few uranium deposits
tonnes, depending upon the efficiency and the
have been discovered to meet the high demands
maintenance of the plant.
of N-power. A few films on the peaceful
Thus a single reader unit, in its lifetime of
application of nuclear energy have also been
40 years, would require a total of (30+15 +
released for general public showings.
200) tonnes of heavy water. In order to run
Some necessary moral boosting for the
a total of 44 units of 230 MWe for a maxi­
DAE notwithstanding, the claims to such an
mum possible life of 30 years, 28,600 tonnes
ambitious target are at best unrealistic. We
ol heavy water would be icquired.

4

Thus, to generate 10,000 MWe, the country
would need a minimum of 1,000 tonnes of
heavy water per year, whereas there exists no
industrial infrastructure within the country
capable of sustaining such a high-capital,
energy-intensive and commercially non-viable
enterprise.
To overcome the problem of heavy water,
a switch to the enriched uranium-fuelled Light
Water Reactor (LWR) system has been sug­
gested as an alternative to the heavy-water
CANDU reactor. If we have not been able to
assimilate the PHWR system of CANDU
^acquired from the Canadians more than 20
tJars ago, there exists no know-how with the
DAE/3ARC to produce a prototype of its
own LWR. However, if it is necessary to
revive the nuclear power programme,'reliance
on technologically advanced nations would
become essential. But in the present inter­
national situation, only the Soviet Union

Pro-nuclear argument rests on
two claims—that nuclear power
is cheap and clean. The fact
is that it is neither cheap ncr clean.
In truth, nuclear power is the most
unclean or dirtiest source of
energy ever known to humankind.
appears to be willing to extend the necessary
assistance, but not without conditions.
The Soviets have about a dozen 1,000MWe LWRs of an earlier design which is no
more economical to their advanced nuclear
jj'wer system and cannot be installed within
t’Jr country due to improved safety and
regulatory rules. But a 1,000-MWe reactor is
ifjond our technological capability, since
there is no city or industrial area in the coun­
try which can absorb more than a 300-400MWe grid.
However, perhaps the Soviets can also
supply LWRs of 440-MWe capacity of an
earlier design produced in the past, which
they had supplied to some East European
States. But the DAE must have learnt its
lesson at Tarapur, where we failed to judge
the technology. Assessment of the Russian
LWR system, at this stage, is beyond our ken

and, even if the Soviets agree.to offer the
reaclors on acceptable’ terms, the gestation
period is going to be long and painful, as we
have to start from scratch; New textbooks
will have to be prepared for our scientists and
engineers.

The Atomic Energy Act 1962 has granted
absolute powers to the Indian Atomic Energy
Commission (IAEC) to initiate, execute, pro­
pagate and control exploration, planning and
manufacturing of atomic material and its hard­
ware. The commission is responsible for all
research and developmental activities pertain­
ing to the atom in this country, where there
exists no other scientific body to ask relevant
questions. Under the Act, the IAEC has
powers to declare any information as ‘res­
tricted’ and is authorised to frame its own
rules and procedures to govern its facilities
and nuclear power projects. The Chairman
of the IAEC is answerable only to the Prime
Minister who is the sole authority on atomic
issues in this country. The chairmen, on
several occasions, have simply- not replied to
enquiries made by the Parliamentary SubCommittes. Often, it is considered sufficient
to reply to the parliamentary enquiries by
stating that “the matter has been explained to
the Prime Minister’’.
Such freedom from regulatory constraints
was perhaps justifiable in the early years, as
the atom was a new field of technology. But
the autonomy thus acquired by Homi Bhabha
for the IAEC-DAE, along with the permis­
siveness and the indulgence with which the
government has treated the nuclear pro­
gramme, has become a curse for the DAE.
Secrecy and non-accountability have led to
problems
of mismanagement, corruption,
nepotism and inefficiency.
After 30 years of commercial operation in
advanced countries, viability of nuclear power
has now been questioned on the grounds of
safety and environment. In terms of cost
analysis, nuclear power is neither competitive
with other energy sources nor can it be consi­
dered economical. But, in India, our policy­
makers—politicians and technocrats—are indi­
fferent, if not ignorant, of the economic and
environmental consequences of nucear energy.
Alas, our country’s leading research institutions
and scientific bodies have not raised critical

5

questions, nor have the problems been debated
before the Indian National Science Con­
gress.

No critical assessment of nuclear energy
has so far been undertaken by any ‘autono­
mous research council’ : ICMR, ICSSR, TIFR,
ICAR or DST. In 1962, however, there was
one scientist at the TIFR, the late Prof D.D.
Kosambi, who had urged a review of the
nuclear power programme. Dr Homi J.
Bhabha, then Founder-Chairman of IAEC,
was outraged and Kosambi’s fellowship was
terminated.
However, the argument against the fission
process has now been well established to be
rejected as emerging from an ‘anti-science*
perspective. N-power suffers from inherent
problems of operational safety and waste
management. For this reason, exploitation of
the fission for electricity generation has become
a matter of serious controversy. Grave doubts
persist whether nuclear technology can serve
as a viable source of energy for the 21st
century and beyond :
The Indian experience with the atom is too
short to come up with any certainty about
safety measures and their effectiveness upon
workers and miners handling uranium ore and
spent fuel. Admittedly, the Canadian design of
the CANDU reactor adopted for our country’s
power programme is the safest in the world
and it is practically impossible for the Pres­
surised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) to
explode in a bomb like fashion like the China
Syndrome.
But the safety measures of
CANDU do not cover radioactive waste, an
essential residue of burning atomic fuel. The
reactor fuel cycle begins with the mining of
uranium ore and continues with its subsequent
processing, manufacturing of uranium oxide
pellets, assembly of fuel bundles and the
means of its transportation. Each of these
steps requires a whole industrial set-up of its'
own with special internal safety measures.

The reactor waste produces intensely radio­
active elements which remain hazardous to life
for a long time. If the reactor structure is
damaged either by an earthquake or by a
direct hit of a powerful missile, highly radioac­
tive liquid material and solids will pollute
streams and the natural environment.

6

The fission process produces intense beams
of radiation and even if only trace amounts
should escape into our environment air and
water—there exists a serious risk of their
finding their way into our food-chain by get­
ting into the water-flow and green vegetation
through cattle's milk and agricultural products.
There is no all-safe system against leakage of
such pollutants once they are allowed some­
how to contaminate the air and water sur­
rounding the nuclear facilities.
A nuclear reactor system, in the, process of
thermal generation, also produces ‘spent fuel ,
which is really a misnomer, as it is not really
spent. It contains a mixture of isotopes whos
deadly pollutant potency remains dangerously
active from just a few days to thousands of
years. Tritium or strontium takes a few years
to decay, but Plutonium 239 remains deadly
for 24,300 years and Plutonium 242 for as
many as 379,000 years.

Since radiation penetrates our bones and
lungs and remains invisible—without smell or
colour, causing no pain during exposure—it
catches its victim unawares. But it has now
been established that radiation damages chro­
mosomes which are made up of genes that
carry the genetic information determining the
character of the offspring. Damage due to
radiation exposure can thus take the form of
gene mutuations of chromosome aberrations
resulting in abnormal and disabled children.
Sir Brian Flowers, Chairman of the UK. Royal
Commission on Nuclear Power and the
Environment, has rightly stated that the genetic
damage will not necessarily appear in the first
generation of descendants exposed to radiation.
It may be recessive or sex-linked. A recessi--?
mutation will only appear in a later generate i
—and then only if it is paired with a similarly
mutated gene.
. >
Thus the absence of genetic abnormalities
in the first generation of workers, or citizens,
exposed to radiation at nuclear power plants
and/or at other nuclear utilities is no guarantee
that they will not occur in subsequent genera­
tions.
There is no way to predict the ill-effects of
radiation upon the future generations—say,
children to be born 50 years hence. Thus the
danger of radiation is not the result of an

antiscience’ perspective or due to lack of a
‘scientific temper’. It is a high probability
threatening our biological existence.

Pro-nuclear argument rests on two claims—
that nuclear power is cheap and clean. The
fact is that it is neither cheap nor clean. In
truth, nuclear power is the most unclean or
dirtiest source of energy ever known to human­
kind.
Still it is a matter of policy with all nuclear
establishments around the world to suppress
the information about its adverse effects upon
life and environment. Sir Brian Flowers’
ftjport has concluded that many workers at
Mindscale and other nuclear plants, where
plutonium was extracted or fabricated, had
developed leukaemia. But the British Nuclear
Fuel Authorities denied that any deaths at­
tributed to plutonium had occurred. The com­

mission, however, observed that the nuclear
authorities had submitted the data about the
workers who were actually employed with the
nuclear facilities, but had omitted at least 50
per cent of the deaths from cancer of those
who would have been traced, had the men
continued to be kept under observation after
they had left employment with the nuclear
agency.

There exists no environmental protection
agency in India which could examine the re­
cord of DAE performance; and there is no
legal provision to maintain health records of
its former employees. Since the effects of low
radiation take time to reach the marrow of the
bone and kill life over a period of 10 to 20
years, the DAE does not consider itself
responsible for the deaths which occurred
to the workers after they left nuclear
employment.

INDIA’S
NUCLEAR POWER PROJECTS
ESTIMATED COST & COMPLETION DATES
Project

Original Cost
Estimate

Revised &
Re-revised

Taps : I.& III

Rs 48.tO crores (1962)

68.00 (1970)

Raps : Unit I & II

Rs 33.95 crores (1964)

Mapp : Unit I & 11

Rs 61.78 crores (1973)
Rs 70.63 crores (1975)

Napp : Unit I &II

Rs 209.89 crores (1975)

4 Heavy Water Plants
i^re Earths Ltd

Rs 94.56 crores (1975)

Rs 58.16 crores (1972)

Rs 32.30 crores (1975)

Ball-bearing Steel Tube Plant Rs 23.76 crores (1975)
Rs 49.88 crores (1974)
R-5 (Research Reactor)
•Fast Breeder Test Reactor Rs 35.00 crores (1974)

97.12 (1981)
73.27 (1973)
92.26 (1980)
107.87 (1980)
103.02 (1980)
327.40 (1980)
189.00 (1980)
85.67 (1980)

Completion
date

1969
Indefinitely
shut down, March 1982
Uncertain (1984?)
Uncertain (1986?)
Uncertain. Not before
1990

Uncertain progress

Uncertain progress

51.72 (1980) Some progress
76.30 (1980) Not before 1985
69.12 (1982)' Not before 1990

(FBTR)

* Estimated cost does not include three major support facilities : Radio Metallurgy
Laboratory, Radio Chemistry Laboratory and Computer Unit at RRC, Kalpakkam
(Source : India’s Nuclear Estate, 1983)_______________________ _ ________________________

7

The AE Act 1962 is silent on the question
of safety and environmental
protection.
School-children are taught about the advan­
tage of nuclear energy, but are not warned
against the radiation hazards. Citizens and
the local administration around our nuclear
facilities have been provided with no scientific
literature about the invisible danger of radia­
tion And the IAEC maintains no health
record on workers who have been exposed to
radiation but are no more in the service of the
DAE.

India can still pause and take a
fresh look at its nuelear strategy.
Is there absolutely no alternative
to nuclear power?
Is it desirable to invest our meagre resources on such an
energy system whose returns are not
certain and whose environmental
consequences for posterity are infiitely catastrophic?
There exists no contingency plans or inter­
agency arrangements to protect citizens from a
plausible nuclear accident. Since there is no
all-safe system in this complex technology, the
nuclear scientists and engineers at best can
reduce the probability of accidents at nuclear
sites.
According to a recent study on potential
consequences of accidents at atomic power
plants, released by the US Government, the
worst case of casualties could exceed 100,000
and the damage could exceed S300 billion at
certain locations. This report, released subse­
quent to the Three Mile Island (.TM1) incident,
has invalidated earlier estimates of Rasm­
ussen 1975 or WASH-1400, which had erron­
eously claimed a figure as low as 3,300 early
deaths and property damage at barely §14
billion. The cost of the clean-up operation at
TMI alone is estimated to be around 51.1
billion, spread over 20 years to accomplish the
task.

for the democratic process to operate to see
that it does not do so in a way that damages
our central rights and liberties. There is no
issue more urgent than the democratic control
of nuclear power.”
Officials of the IAEC lay claim on the
great potential benefits of nuclear energy and
describe how cheap and safe nuclear fission
can be. But the most serious question of the
impact of the nuclear fission system on social
behaviour and political institutions of the
country has not received due attention from
our social scientists.
The present Chairman of the AEC has
been a keen advocate of the Fast Breede
technology and the government is under presure to restructure the whole nuclear power
programme. It is now proposed to scrap the
Pressurised Heavy Water system of CANDU
and go for all-out efforts to import the Soviet
breeder reactors. Having spent an estimated
3,000 crores on the CANDU system, now
shifting to the FBR system will cost the nation
many more millions and the gestation, period
cannot be less than 20 years even if we assume
that we can obtain the essential fuel-cycle and
the Soviets generously agree to supply the
hardware and place no restriction on our
acquisition of weapons-grade plutonium.
However, introduction of the breeder and
plutonium industrial economy is likely to lead
to large-scale bureaucratic centralisation. If
we are to encourage, greater reliance on
nuclear power from the FBR, necessary safe­
guards should be there. That would call for
an increase in numbers and provide greater
authority to the secret police and intelligence
agencies, thus adversely affecting the country’s
open democratic system.
,7)

Those days arc gone when science was coik
ducted in small rooms and its involveme.' >
with public policy affairs was minimal. Since
atomic energy gets the highest share of the
developmental budget and its decisions and
performance are directly involved with national
planning and public welfare, the question must
be asked as to who decides the nuclear policy.
Tony Benn, the Energy Minister of UK, ■ Who really speaks for nuclear power? And
said during his tenure (1974-79): “In the begin­ whose interests are represented by the AECning, we shape our technology but, if we are DAE? Who benefits with this scientific and
00^ careful, in the end it will shape us. It is
secret enterprise of the country? Does the

Chairman of the AEC-cum-Director of the
BARC speak for the scientific community of
the country? Do the directors of nuclear esta­
blishments properly constitute representative­
ness of the working scientists and engineers
of the country?

These are important though largely neglec­
ted issues. But, since' the nuclear policy
decisions directly affect the internal and
external affairs of the country and since
the consequences are far-reaching for the
people of India [and for the generations to
come], they cannot, and must not, be allowed
to be governed by an undemocratic organisa­
tional set-up. If responsibility entails accoi'Stability, then the government must so amend
the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 as to see' that
the decision-taking process can be made more
open and greater democratic control can be
exercised on the country’s nuclear power pro­
gramme.

SIXTH FIVE-YEAR
PLAN 1980-85
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
(R & D) BUDGET
Dept/ Agencies/Ministries

(Total Plan &
Non-Plan
Outlays)

1.

Atomic Energy
(R & D only)
2. Space (S & T only)
3. *DST

4. CSIR
5. ICAR (agriculture)
6. Health—ICMR
7. Universities (UGC)
(including fellowships,
equipment purchase,
computers etc)
8. Social Welfare (Family
Planning)
9. Labour

Rs 533.57 crores
Rs 392.72 crores
Rs 324.42 crores

Rs 388.24 crores
Rs 530.00 crores
Rs 66.00 crores

The official briefings are indicative that the
DAE intends to meet its nuclear power target
Rs 142.00 crores
by introducing the FBR (Fast Breeder Reactor)
which, as its name indicates, ‘breeds’ pluto­
Rs
2.00 crores
nium more than it consumes. And, in the
Rs
1.06 crores
breeder reactor, thorium can be used as a
Rs 10.05 crores
blanket. We are admittedly rich in thorium 10. Rural Reconstruction
resources. And, by burning thorium, we can 11. Housing
Rs
5.80 crores
further breed plutonium. But the commercial
12. Railways
Rs 36.00 crores
exploitation of thorium is, uneconomical and
there is no evidence to support official claims
*DST’s allocation for renewable energy
that the country’s plutonium capability has
(R & D) is Rs 7.6 crores
attained the level of its utilisation with thorium
concentrates in the FBR.
(Source : India's Nuclear Estate, 1983)
Besides, even if the DAE can come up with
a test breeder reactor by the end of this cen­
tury, in order to fuel a commercial FBR a
rrenmum of 1,000 kgs of . plutonium per
aSimm would be required. There is no way
the DAE can meet this high demand of pluton Jn in the next 20 years, when our first-gene­
ration PHWRs are not yet operational, even at
40 per cent capacity factor. To buy it in the
international market would involve political
compromises and it would. be an extremely
expensive proposition for generating economi­
cally ‘inexpensive’ electricity.

On safety grounds also, the FBR poses
serious technological challenges. Since sodium
is used as a coolant, the reactor stability,

safety and radiation damage to its inner
structure creates formidable technical pro­
blems. There is a real possibility of an FBR
exploding like an atom bomb in a Three Mile
Island situation. But the economic implica­
tions of the FBR are also prohibitive: an esti­
mated Rs. 15,000 crores ($15 billion) over the
next 15 years will have to be spent as capital
investment at the present rate of inflation.

The life of a nuclear reactor is less than 30
years, but seldom, if ever, has a nuclear power
plant run without serious mishaps in its full
lifespan. The contracted life of the Tarapur
Atomic Power Station, for example, is to come
to an end in 1993. Whereas sufficient data has

9

SOME OF THE ISOTOPES PRESENT IN SPENT FUEL
Biological Implication

Element

Symbol

Tritum
Krypton

sH
85Kr

12 years
44 hours

Strontium

saSr

53 days

An inert gas, it radiates beta rays
Easily absorbed into the bones

28 years

and lungs, it is retained and emits beta

Iodine

ml

8 days

Xenon
Cesium

lasXe
wvCe

30 year

rays
Absorbed into the thyroid where it'
emits beta rays
An inert radioactive gas
Absorbed internally where it irradiate^)

Uranium

237U

2 days

the body
Radioactive substance that can

238U

23 minutes
86 years

Plutonium

sssPu

Time to Decay
to Half-Strength

5 days

233PU

24,300 years

243PU

6,580 years
13 years

2>jPU

2.12PU
243PU

Absorbed internally, it emits beta rays

also be absorbed internally

A considerable hazard to health,
absorbed into the body organs

379,000 years
5
years

(Source : India’s Nuclear Estate, 1983)
been obtained about potential biological
hazards (including potential genetic effects of
radiation), there exists little information about
the socio-political and financial implications of
decommissioning dead reactors. We do not
know what kind of social and political institu­
tions would be required for maintenance of the
entombed reactors. Nor do we know for
certain about the measures to be taken if,
under some natural forces, these decommis­
sioned reactors disintegrate in the distant
future.

In order to keep safe the large amount of
waste material—hundreds and thousands of
tonnes of radioactive steel and concrete—we
would require a specially trained force to
guard the entombed reactors along with their
waste-burial sites (grounds) for as long as
25,000 years. No one had guarded the Buddhist
stupas for more than a few decades even when
they had spiritual significance for the people.
But successive governments shall have to divert
millions in funds for the protection of useless

10

but dangerous nuclear reactors in perpetuity.
Otherwise, unguard*ed, they would endanger
the environment and threaten the very exis­
tence of. future generations, who might not be
aware of this man-made anti-life radiation
emitting out of unsuspected silent structures.

Do men of ‘scientific temper’ of our age
have a moral right to endanger the life of on­
coming generations that might inhabit /Miis
planet? If we cannot leave behind a K* ler
world inherited from our forefathers, we have
no right to leave a more pollutant planet,^o
we?

These are some of the philosophical ques­
tions which the people of India must ponder
before they commit the nation to a more
ambitious nuclear power programme. The
Government of India, the Atomic Energy
Commission and the Department of Atomic
Energy have not discussed these potential
hazards either with the people or in Parliament.
The DAE has published no report on environ­

mental effects of nuclear power. The citizens
and the administrators of areas adjoining
nuclear facilities have not been warned against
the potential danger from radiation. There­
fore, every state and politician clamours for a
nuclear power station in his constituency. The
country’s scientific community has shown little
interet in the investigation of interdisciplinary
problems of the social and biological conse­
quences of nuclear fission.

a de-facto moratorium exists on the construc­
tion of new nuclear power stations until the
problems of waste management can be resolved
satisfactorily.

We do not doubt the high calibre of our
scientists and engineers engaged in the nuclear
energy programme. But the fission process su­
ffers from genuine technological problems and
*?*re is no foolproof reactor system to guar­
antee absolute safety to our environment. The
hazards of nuclear power have been vividly
made clear by the accident at Three Mile
Island. That this technology is not so advanc­
ed as was assumed, not so clean as was believ­
ed, not as cheap as was claimed by its pro­
pagators is a fact we will have to accept.

Decisions relating to safety and environ­
ment protection are important enough not to
be left to the IAEC-DAE alone. The decision
to site a nuclear power plant in a high seismic
zone at Narora (on the bank of Ganga near
Moradabad) and the construction of a fast
breeder reactor, for example, are likely to have
serious repercussions for the generations to
come. Therefore, this cannot be left to the
judgment of the DAE and its own ‘experts’.
For they are inherently committed to nuclear
development. But there are prospects of more
plentiful, reliable and environmentally safe
energy technologies promising inexhaustible
energy.

According to a report in the Time magazine
of February 13, 1984, more than 103 orders
for nuclear power reactors have been cancelled
in the US; in many states there, the construc­
tion of new nuclear power plants have been
banned for 15 years. In Europe, an already
completed power reactor in Zwentendorf,
Austria, has not been allowed to be functional
since 1978. Thus, in many advanced countries,

In India, we are not lacking in energy re­
sources. What we need is an appropriate
energy technology which can lead us to an
efficient, renewable and safe source of energy
at a reasonable price.

In the meantime, we should urge a mora­
torium on the nuclear power programme until
an independent interdisciplinary committee of
scientists, economists and public policy analy­
sts can examine the technological and institu­
tional malfunctioning of nuclear energy.

( Reprinted with permission from : The Illustrated Weekly of India, April 22, 1984)

ATOMIC FACTS
Li^artment of Atomic Energy, Govt, of India, claims to generate 10,000 MWc by 2000 A.D.
aAa cost of Rs. 80,000 crores.
k'-rough breakdown of resource demands indicates that the DAE has no realistic plan for

power generation.

TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR 10,000 MWe
Reactor Units ;

Uranium Fuel;

44
79, 000 tonnes

CANDU type 230 MWe capacity each.
at the rate of 60 tonnes each unit per year

approx. 2,640 tonnes per year to run 44 units.
Our assured resources are less than 50,000

tonnes.

11

Heavy Water

28,600 tonnes

at the rate of 200 tonnes initial input for
each unit and 20 tonnes annual replenish ­

ment.

Approx.

1,000 tonnes heavy water

will be required per year to run 44 units. But
our industrial capacity is nowhere near 500

tonnes per year.

Trained Manpower :

50,000
personnel

to man 44 units and keep in constant rota­
tion to take’in normal operational radiation

exposure.

Our training capacity is less than

100 personnel per year.
Rs. 5,000 per kg., Rs. 50,00,000 (50 lakhs')
per tonne, approximately Rs. 10.00 crore$

COST : 1) Heavy Water :

per reactor (unit per year to replenish 20

tonnes heavy water per annum. Rs. 440
crores for 44 units per year.

2) Uranium fuel :

At present rate of world market £60,000 or
about 1 million rupees (10 lakhs) per tonne.

Approx. Rs. 60 million (or 6 crores) per
reactor per year for 60 tonnes uranium fuel.

Roughly Rs. 2,640 million (or 264 crores) to
run 44 units.

3) Manpower :

Sufficient data is not available.

4) Construction ;

Approximately Rs. 4500 million (460 crores)
per reactor unit. But by 1990 cost is likely
to go up to +800 crores.

Hidden Cost ;

Gestation period—for a reactor varies anywhere between 8 to 16 years

seriously affecting the cost of construction. Total life of an atomic reactor
■ is merely 20 years with present safety regulations. Tarapur, e.g„ wlil .ftp
out of

commission by 1993.

There

is no

structural arrangememfiy

system/experience to de-commission a dead but still highly radioact+p

reactor. Dismantling the reactor and safe disposal of radio active paus
and waste material will cost, in time and money, as much as the original
construction cost.

We Call Therefore for a Moratorium on Atomic Power Programme and
Propose Reassessment of Atomic Technology by an Independent Group
of Economists and the Public Policy Analysts.
(Issued in public interest by :

12

The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (COSNUP),
M-120, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110 048).

THE ATOM BOMB IS NOT THE ANSWER
We view reports of imminent nuclear ex­
plosion by India and Pakistan with deep
concern and alarm. For, the Indian sub­
continent is presently facing a very grave
situation where two superpowers are confront­
ing each other on our borders. Internally our
democratic forces are desparately trying to
survive against heavy odds." At such a junc­
ture any attempt to stir up a parochial frenzy
in support of the nuclear bomb would benefit
no one except the authoritarian forces and the
big arms dealers. We call, therefore, for
restraint and caution.

India, due to its geopolitical status, sets so­
cial and political pace among the South Asian
nations. It is for this reason that we believe
the onus rests with us whether to go for nu­
clear bombs or not. Possibility of a desparatc
dictator holding sophisticated arms against us
' is always there. We, therefore, rightly oppose
all efforts of arming Pakistan by the United
States. But we cannot ignore the fact that the
armed forces of the USSR, after having occu­
pied Afghanistan, have arrived at its door­
steps. It would be unthinkable for Islamabad
now to open up a new front against us. Therefore, the narrow nationalist propaganda calling
for ‘the defence of India’s honour’ intends
to arouse strong enough public opinion to
justify any nuclear weapons programme which
tS'ir politicians have been egging on for so
many years. But before this nation takes the
^iiteful decision, it is necessary to seriously
'ftbnsider its likely impact on this hemisphere.
The N-bomb would divert our meagre resour­
ces to war-oriented nuclear and space pro­
grammes. Big military-industrial groups will
secure huge funds in close alliance with the
political vested interests. Soon the bomb will
be identified with the country’s prestige and
industrial progress and the bomb will establish
its own patriotic ferver. Reversal of the
nuclear weapons race would become practi­
cally impossible. That is the lesson of SALT
where no superpower is willing to take the

first step towards dcescalation of its militaryindustrial advancement (sic.k Once you have
begun the race it picks up its own momentum
and the fate of humanity hangs with the
nuclear bombs. For us, therefore, still there
is time and it is within the power of New Delhi
not to fall victim of the cold-war games.

Although armed we are, our real conflict
with Pakistan is not of bombs and weapons.
It is a fight between two ideals: Secularism
and Theocratic Backwardness. We are oppo­
sed to their political set-up but we are not
against the people of Pakistan who belong to
our common linguistic and cultural heritage.
Our real enemy is not humanity but poverty
and backwardness in the region. To speak of
nuclear bombs in face of starving millions in
India and Pakistan where even drinking water
is not easy to get for millions is a sheer
madness and simple jingoism.
It is presumptuous to claim that India—
the superpower in this sub-continent—is being
forced to go for nuclear bombs by Pakistan.
Where does our responsibility lie in directing
the course of history on this unfortunate sub­
continent ? How can we Indians abdicate our
share of responsibility in directing the destiny
of the South Asian peoples?
Two-thirds of dur manpower remains un­
employed or underemployed. Our industries'
suffer from shortage of raw material and fre­
quent power shut-downs. Any rash decision in
favour of the nuclear bomb will simply divert
our resources from more essential services. It
will starve our social and welfare programmes
of necessary funds and badly cripple our up­
coming industry, for it is easier to make {a few
big bangs than to run socio-economic institu­
tions efficiently and provide the millions with
basic daily needs. The Government that has
failed in its mandate of removal of poverty
(garibi hatao) wants to cling to power by the
nuclear gimmicks.

13

The nuclear hysteria will take us further
away from our cherished goals of building a
just and equitable society. The nuclear race
and militarism will increase our external
dependency and the world's arms dealers
would be waiting to add fuel to the discontent­
ment in our region. Because the cold-war is
the best guarantee against their economic
recession and it is the peace that they feared
the most. In the interest of the people of the
Indian sub-continent we call upon the Govern­
ment of India to take initiative to open a fresh
dialogue with Pakistan and perceive the pro­
blem of defence from a wider South Asian
security perspective, in which today or to­
morrow Pakistan will have to play an impor­
tant role along with India. We believe there
are diplomatic methods open to us. But the
bomb is not the answer.

Mr. Gobinda Mukhoty (People's Union for
Democratic Rights)
Dr. Ashis Nandy (Centre for the Study of
Developing Societies)

Mr. N.A. Palkhivala (former Ambassador to
the United States)
Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit. (Senior Statesperson and former President, U.N. General
Assembly)

Dr. Ishwari Prasad (Jawaharlal Nehru Univer­
sity)

Mr. Balraj Puri (Institute of J & K Affairs)
Mr. Radhakrishna (Gandhi Peace Foundation)

Ms. Nayantara Sahgal (Writer)

Signed.
Dr. Aqueil Ahmad (Centre for Science Policy,
Administrative Staff College of India,
Hyderabad.)

Swami Agnivesh (Political activist)

Dr.

Dr. Karunakar Gupta (China Specialist)
Mr. Kamalesh (Writer)
Dr. B. M. Kaushik (Institute for Defence
Studies & Analyses)

Harish Khare (Assistant
Hindustan Times)

Dr. T.N. Madan
Growth)

(Institute of

Dr.

Dhirendra Sharma
Committee)

(Convener of the

Ms. Krishna Sobti (Writer)

Andre Beteille (Social Scientist : Delhi
University)

M r. Devdutta (Writer)

Dr.

Mr. Sarveshwar Dayal Saxena (Writer)

Editor, the

Economic

Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee (Senior
Supreme Court)

Advocate,

Mr. Justice V.M. Tarkunde (People’s Union
for Civil Liberties)
Dr. J.P.S. Uberoi (Social Scientist: Delhi
University)

Mr. B.G. Vcrghese (Journalist)
Mr. Nirmal Verma (Writer)
Mr. O.V. Vijayan (Writer/Cartoonist)

New Delhi, May 1, 1981

14

On "Nuclear Weapons Policy"

An Appeal to the Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meet (CHOGM)
New Delhi 23 - 30 November 1983
WE, the citizens of India and the Commonwealth, express our deep concern.at MAD
(Mutual Assured Destruction) Nuclear weapons race which can result in annihilation of any
life on our planet.
Whereas the global military expenditure is approaching an alarming level of dollars
800 billion a year;

Whereas the world’s stockpile of Nuclear weapons is equivalent to 16,000 million
tonnes of TNT with the present number of 50,000 Nuclear warheadsand another 17,000 are
under production;
Whereas the present stockpile of weapons carry an explosive force equal to 3.5 tonnes
of TNT for every child, woman and man in the world;
Whereas the present stockpile ofN-weapons capacity amounts to destruction of this
earth ten times over;

Whereas the Radiation does not discriminate between friends and foes, nor between
those living and those not yet born, and will deform genetically successive generations, if there
are any.
We believe that there is absolutely no necessity to add a single Nuclear weapon to the
already existing stockpile of 50,000 warheads, and that safety and security of the world can­
not be brought closer by Nuclear weapons.
We, therefore, call upon CHOGM to affirm a Commonwealth Nuclear Weapons Policy
which collectively renounces :
a)
the testing, production and use of Nuclear weapons by the Commonwealth
countries;
b)
to ban installation and stationing of Nuclear weapons from all Commonwealth
territories;
c)
to assure to never use or support threat of deployment of Nuclear weapons to
resolve international conflicts.
O
We further urge the CHOGM to assert that no Commonwealth state would enter into
^agreement with any other N-weapons government for possession or production of such
f.r} warhead.

We believe that CHOGM can provide the necessary moral courage and leadership to the
present strife-ridden world by taking the first step towards collective Nuclear Disarmament.
We appeal to you, please, give PEACE a chance for the survival of human race and
civilization.

SIGNATORIES :
Swami Agnivesh

(Convener: Mass Action Committee, Janata Party)

Mr. Sumanta Banerjee

(Author/journalistj

Dr. (Mrs) Krishna Bharadwaj

(School of Social Sciences, J.N.H.)

15

Mr. Mohan Bhatia

(Centre for Studies in Science Policy, J.N.U.)

Prof. Madhu Dandavate
Dr. J.M. Dave

(Member of Parliament)
(School of Environmental Sciences, J.N.U.)

Mr. S.K. De

(Quaker Programme in South Asia)
(Centre for the Study of Developing Societies)

Dr. Giri Deshingkar
Ms. Janet Ganguly
Dr. Indradcv
Dr. K.S. Jayaraman
Dr. Jayashekar

Dr. Georgie T. Jose

Mr. Bharat Karnad
Dr. Harish Khare
Dr. B.M. Kaushik
Dr. R.K. Khosala

Mr. Satish Khurana
Dr. B. Krishna Kohli
Dr. Narendra-Kohli
Professor T.N. Madan
Mr. Mohan Lal
Mr. K.S.R. Menon

Professor K.P. Misra
Mr. Surcndra Mohan
Mr. Gobinda Mukhoty
Dr. Ashis Nandy
Dr. K.C. Nayar
Mr. K.K. Panda
Dr. Ishwari Prasad

(Social Worker)
(Jt. Adviser, CS1R)
(Science editor/journalist, Press Trust of India)
(Editor, “Problems of Non-Alignment’’, International
Studies, J.N.U.)
(All India Institute of Medical Sciences)

(Assistant Editor, The Hindustan Times)

(Assistant Editor, The Hindustan Times)
(Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses)
(Physician)
(Editor, DETENTE)
(Physician)
(Hindi novclisUDclhi University)
(institute of Economic Grawth, Delhi University)

(Architect)
(Journalist)
(School of International Studies, J.N.U.)
(Member of Parliament)

(President, People’s Union for Democratic Rights)
(Centre for the Study of Developing Societies)
(Retd. Army Officer)
(Lecturer, Delhi University)
(Centre for the Study of Regional Development, J.N.U.)

Mr. Radhakrishna

(Chairman, Gandhi Peace Foundation)

Mr. Syed Shahabuddin
Mr. P.C. Sondhi

(Member of Parliament)
(Centre for Studies in Science Policy, J.N.U.)
(Industrialist, Jalandhar, Punjab)

®

Mr. Soli Sorabjce

(Advocate, Supreme Court)

~

Justice V.M. Tarkundc

(President, People’s Union for Civil Liberties)

(Ms.) S. Varadarajan
Professor Anil Vidyalankar ,

(Student, Delhi University)
(National Council of Educational Research & Training)
(Cartoonist/author)

Dr. Dhirendra Sharma

Mr. O.V. Vijayan

Professor J.P.S. Uberci
Dr. Bharat Wariwalla

(Delhi School of Economics)
(Indian Council for Research on International EconomicRelations}

The Appeal is sponsored by the Committee For A Sane Nuclear Policy (COSNUP)
17 November, 1983

16

L

New Delhi
Media
RF_OH_2_PART_1_SUDHA.pdf