Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 6/22/09

The Myth of Peaceful Nuclear Power

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (# of views)   4 comments
Author 14729
Message Karl Grossman
Become a Fan
  (7 fans)
President Barack Obama's declaration June 4 in his speech in Cairo that "any nation--including  Iran--should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power" ignores a central issue. There is no "peaceful nuclear power." Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are two sides of the same coin.

Physicist Amory Lovins and Attorney L. Hunter Lovins wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: "All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions.

"Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball.

 "A large power reactor," they note, "annually produces"hundreds of kilograms of plutonium."  Civilian nuclear power technology, they conclude, provides the way to make nuclear weapons, furnishing the material and the trained personnel.

Indeed, that's how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a nuclear reactor to be used for "peaceful purposes" and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons.

"Human society is too diverse, national passion too strong, human aggressiveness too deep-seated for the peaceful and warlike atom to stay divorced for long,"? oceanographer Jacques Cousteau emphasized. "We cannot embrace one while abhorring the other; we must learn, if we want to live at all, to live without both."

The organization Beyond Nuclear (www.beyondnuclear.org), on whose board I sit, focuses on this connection. The organization warns that the "insistence on supplying the technology, materials and know-how for civilian nuclear programs perpetuates the danger that nuclear weapons may also be developed--with speculation over Iran a case in point."  

"The "unofficial" nuclear weapons states all developed weapons from civilian nuclear programs," it notes. "At least 32 additional countries could do the same using uranium and plutonium from their civilian programs."

The only real way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout the world is by putting an end to nuclear technology. Such a move might seem radical but consider the even more radical alternative: a world in which scores of nations have nuclear weapons.

 There are parts of the earth designated "nuclear-free zones." If we are to have a world free of the terrible threat of nuclear weapons, this designation should be extended to the entire planet: no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power.

To keep using carrots and sticks, by trying to juggle through the 2lst Century to prevent nuclear proliferation, we are on the road to inevitable nuclear disaster. A nuclear-free world is the only way humanity will be free of the specter of nuclear war.  

Is it possible to put the atomic genie back into the bottle?  Anything people have done, other people can undo. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction offers the best of reasons for doing so.

In Prague in April, Obama, in a remarkable declaration, said: "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

That's only half of what needs to be done. There needs to be a world, too, without the nuclear power plants that provide the means for any nation--or terrorist group--to get nuclear weapons.

What about controls of the International Atomic Energy Agency?  The IAEA was formed as a result of President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN in 1953.  He proposed an international agency to promote civilian atomic energy and, at the same time, to control the use of fissionable materials a dual role paralleling that of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In 1974, the AEC was abolished after Congress concluded that the two roles were a conflict of interest. But the IAEA--set up in the AEC's image and riddled with the same conflict of interest--continues to operate.

With its mission "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy," it unabashedly boosts nuclear power at the same time it tries to police that same power.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Karl Grossman Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro Close-Up.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

New Book Concludes: Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer

Siemens' Abandoning Nuclear Power

Murdoch Media Empire: A Journalistic Travesty

Fukushima: A Month of Media Disinformation

The Cancer Epidemic: Its Environmental Causes

What Could Truly End the Space Program: A Nuclear Disaster Overhead

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: