2012/08/19

Corporate Responsibility


With this post I have a rare occasion to make use of the French that I studied three decades ago as an undergrad. This post is mostly a translation of an article that appeared in Le Monde and other French language media this week, but it seems like it was not picked up for translation into other languages.
The story highlights one more example of the bad stuff that happens when we trust corporations to do the right thing. This story shows, in a strange way, that the American right wing nuts are correct when they say “regulations are killing us.” Yes, the way government regulation is done these days, it certainly will kill us. Even if you believe that corporations will act responsibly in most cases, when it comes to the safe handling of medical isotopes, it only takes one bad actor to ruin the show for everyone.

Le Monde, August 14, 2012
Virginie Lefour

A Belgian corporation that produces material for nuclear medicine has gone bankrupt and has abandoned several cubic meters of nuclear waste, according to statements by Belgian authorities on August 14. The announcement comes one week after the discovery of possible fissures in a Belgian nuclear reactor.
Best Medical Belgium, part of an American group of companies located in Fleurus, close to Charleroi in the south of the country, declared bankruptcy in May and was placed under judicial administration. On July 17, L’Institut belge des radioelements (IRE), owner of the local facilities rented by Best Medical, inspected these sites accompanied by specialists from l’Organisme national des dechets radioactive (ONDRAF) and from l’Agence federal de controle nucleaire (AFCN).
In a letter addressed to the judicial administrators, made public by the daily news organizations Le Soir and De Standaard, the director of the IRE, Jean-Michel Vanderhofstadt, gives a frightening account of the state of the facilities. The director writes, “We observed in many places not only a general state of disrepair of the installations and equipment, but also, in an indescribable disorder, a mass not only of metal pieces, cases, files, papers, tools, tubes, electric cables, solvent bottles, hardware… but also radioactive waste consisting, for the most part, of combustible material.”

Necessary to “intervene rapidly”

Mr. Vanderhofstadt continued by saying the situation described constitutes a “risk to the safety of other nuclear installations on the site, and, as a consequence, for the environment and the population nearby.” He describes seven cubic meters of plastic bags and fifteen containers of strontium 90 that were found among the debris. “There is no danger for the nearby area,” but it is necessary “to intervene rapidly,” declared the head of the AFCN, Willy De Roovere. The Belgian Minister of the Interior, Joelle Milquet, said the situation was unacceptable and has ordered ONDRAF to handle the materials as fast as possible.
ONDRAF has already placed the substances of most concern in containers. The organization added that the treatment of waste material and decontamination of the site will begin in September and could last five to seven years. The question of the safety of nuclear installations came to the surface last week in Belgium with the announcement that “possible fissures” have been discovered in the containment structure of the Doel 3 reactor, near Anvers. The operator of this reactor, Electrabel, announced that it has been shut down since early June, is not to be restarted before the end of September.

Readers can note that the reporter avoided giving any background information on the American parent company, or any explanation of why the facilities were left in such disarray.
With a few moments of internet searching, I was able to find that the parent company is Best Medical International, of Springfield, Virginia, USA. The Belgian operation had been in a deteriorating relationship with its union, and Belgium in general, according to a letter it posted to its employees earlier this year.
It seems that the international business world has turned very sour on Belgium. The head of the multinational human resources company, Adecco, advised corporations bluntly in April this year, “If you can leave Belgium, run!” Well, it looks like Best Medical took the advice a little too seriously.
One thing that is easy to overlook in this story is that although Best Medical Belgium is bankrupt, the parent company Best Medical will carry on. In fact, it can, in theory, increase future revenue because of the radioactive waste it left behind in its Belgian location. More isotopes spread around means more future cancer cases. People working in health care wish to prevent cancer and they have genuine concern for patients, but the medical industrial complex itself has no structural incentive to prevent cancer. It has more revenue when there are more cancer patients to offer the hope of prolonged life.

2012/08/14

Curiosity about Plutonium in Spacecraft


"You may leave here for four days in space
But when you return, it's the same old place"
Barry McGuire, Eve of Destruction


 The landing of the NASA Mars rover, Curiosity, was big news on August 6, 2012, but in the media fanfare there was scant discussion of the implications of it being powered by 4.8 kilograms of plutonium-238. When it was launched last November, NASA was not keen to inform the public about the risks involved, what the nation needs to do to maintain the supply, or the disturbing history of failed launches of and crash landings of other rockets and satellites loaded with nuclear materials.
In fact, NASA is in a public relations bind right now because the continued exploration of deep space requires nuclear-fueled probes, but supplies of plutonium-238 are soon to be depleted, as reported by NPR last year when the Mars rover was launched. The only way to get more is to lobby for a new program of plutonium production, but NASA knows the American public has little appetite for the expense, nor for revisiting the dark times of the Cold War when plutonium production left a legacy of damaged health of nuclear workers and environmental pollution at numerous sites. Furthermore, the public is conscious of the odds of launch failures and disasters, and so it is not a good thing to remind them that the rocket on the launch pad has a payload of plutonium that could melt and fall back to earth if the launch fails. Thus NASA’s strategy is to mention the plutonium shortage as little as possible, and not lobby for funding too loudly. Instead, NASA, and other space agencies, play up the romance of boldly going to new frontiers and the importance of new endeavors. It is unthinkable that the space program could be halted just because of the public’s reluctance to produce the required plutonium.
One can suggest at this point the unthinkable, that the space program is just not worth it if it involves the costs and dangers of making and handling plutonium. Space will always be there. What’s the hurry? Let’s wait until we figure out a safe way to do it, or not do it at all. The physicist Michio Kaku has said NASA's renewed interest in not only nuclear powered probes, but the more dangerous nuclear propulsion "… is not only dangerous but politically unwise. The only thing that can kill the U.S. space program is a nuclear disaster. The American people will not tolerate a Chernobyl in the sky."
The drawback to arguing against space exploration is that whoever makes it is immediately on the defensive, accused of being against progress, or the type who would shoot down a child’s dream to be an astronaut. Here in Japan, my children are exposed to a steady stream of news features and documentaries about JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) and Japanese astronauts on NASA missions. The JAXA headquarters in nearby Tsukuba holds tours and events for children every summer. There is a popular manga and anime series called Space Brothers (Uchuu Kyoudai) about two young men living their childhood dream of joining a NASA mission. My children are all hooked. This is how space agencies, and the associated military, chemical and nuclear industries behind them, cynically play the public relations game. It is all packaged as benevolent scientific progress for mankind, and it takes advantage of the child’s desire to transcend the ordinary and engage in imaginative play. Through these education programs and works of fiction, children all know the amusing factoids about food in tubes and what happens to farts on the space shuttle, but no one teaches them about the Radioisotope Heater Unit and what is required to make one.
One can stand up to this onslaught and suggest that progress might lie in learning how to clean up our planet and live on it within its ability to sustain us, but the brilliance of this propaganda system is that whoever does so will be seen as a cynic who just wants to deprive children of their dreams. It’s less cynical than building those dreams on concealed truths, but this point will also go unmentioned along with some facts about what is needed to produce a few kilograms of plutonium-238 for a single space mission.
Plutonium can exist in several isotopes, all of which vary in the length of their half-lives, the intensity of the life-damaging radiation they emit, and in their applications. The number of protons in an atom’s nucleus defines the atom, but the number of neutrons can vary to make different isotopes of the same atom. Plutonium-244 (the number being the total number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus of the isotope) is found in trace amounts in nature, but almost all plutonium now on earth was created by human activity over the last seventy years. In this sense, it is said to be something that no life form has evolved with. Since it damages chromosomes, there is a good argument to be made that it should never be created or used, no matter how well we imagine that its contact with living things can be managed safely.
Various isotopes of plutonium can be created by bombarding other radioisotopes with neutrons. For example, the fissile isotope plutonium-239 used in nuclear weapons is made by bombarding uranium-238. In this way, plutonium for weapons is inextricably linked to the “peaceful” uses of the atom because nuclear fuel in in light water reactors (enriched uranium) used for generating electricity is bombarded with neutrons, leaving behind nuclear waste containing plutonium that can be used to make bombs. The isotope required for space missions is plutonium-238, which emits higher radioactive energy and has a shorter half-life than plutonium-239.  Nuclear waste contains only small amounts of plutonium-238, so it can’t be obtained directly from this source. However, spent nuclear fuel contains neptunium-237, and this can be separated from the spent fuel and irradiated to create plutonium-238. A 100-kg sample of spent fuel can yield 700 grams of neptunium-237.
Once you understand what is involved in obtaining a small quantity of plutonium-238, you understand why space agencies are so reluctant to talk about it, even though they need to play politics to get more funding. Production involves numerous problems such as cost, safety, security, and the ongoing problem of cleaning up contaminated environments and storing the plutonium waste already in existence. Space Daily reported in 2003, Historically DoE has a bad track record when it comes to protecting workers and local water systems from radioactive contaminants… During the Cassini RTG fabrication process at Los Alamos 244 cases of worker contamination were reported to the DoE.”
A nation that wants to send a probe deep into space where the sun don’t shine on solar panels (i.e. Jupiter, Uranus and beyond) needs the entire infrastructure of a large nuclear industry. Spacecraft require a small amount of plutonium-238, which requires the production of enriched uranium, which requires a fleet of civilian nuclear reactors that will provide the nuclear waste from which to make the plutonium-238. The nuclear waste has to be moved around to various facilities, with tight security and all the associated risks. And of course, only a few self-anointed countries are allowed to engage in this production process. The Soviets used polonium 210 (the same isotope that was used to murder the Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006) on many satellites and the Lunokhod series of moon rovers, one of which exploded on the launch pad in 1969. A country needs to be a major nuclear power to be in the space exploration business, so if you’re a child in Iran, which the major nuclear powers won’t allow to produce enriched uranium, or just a country without the resources for (or the wisdom not to spend resources on) space exploration, the dream of being an astronaut has been denied to you.

So what are the risks?

There is a lot of controversy over the risks involved in sending payloads of plutonium into space. NASA says that the fuel is packed into ceramic and graphite-coated pellets that have been tested to resist impact and melting in the event of an explosion on launch or a fall from orbit. Critics point out that the risk is not easily understood because the small amount of plutonium-238 involved is very radioactive compared to other isotopes of plutonium.
Not all radioisotopes release, by mass, equal amounts of radiation. Plutonium-239 has a long half-life of 24,110 years, but 277 times less energy that plutonium-238, which has a half-life of 87.7 years. Wired Magazine, that consistent cheerleader of all technological progress, commented about this isotope being aboard rockets:

The plutonium (which is, not to worry, non-weapons-grade Pu-238) undergoes nuclear decay, providing heat to warm MSL’s electronics and keep it churning out data even at night.

It may not be weapons-grade, but the writer is gullible to NASA PR saying that it is safe, and he fails to notice the glaring omission in this quote:

They [NASA] point out that NASA has reliably used nuclear generators for 26 missions over the last 50 years.

Yes, reliably in 26, but unreliably in the two mishaps mentioned below that NASA neglected to point out to the Wired journalist. This would amount to 28 missions, with a record of 1 failure for every 14 successes. NASA’s recent estimates of failure probability give much more favorable odds than the actual record, especially if you include the Challenger and Columbia disasters which, fortunately, did not carry radioactive payloads (as far as we know).  
If you think of a rocket exploding high in the atmosphere and scattering 4.8 kilograms of material throughout the vast expanse of the earth’s atmosphere, that may seem insignificant. But, in fact, it is a massive release of radioactive energy, and some experts say the impact has been significant.

Not all radioisotopes are created equal.
Plutonium-238 is 277 times as radioactive as plutonium-239, so…
plutonium-238 on the Mars rover Curiosity
4.8 kilograms
plutonium-239 used in the bombing of Nagasaki
6.4 kilograms
amount of plutonium-238 that has the same radioactive energy as the plutonium-239 used in the Nagasaki bomb
6.4 ÷ 277 = 0.0231 kilograms
energy equivalence of 4.8 kilograms of plutonium-238
4.8 x 277 = 1,329 kilograms of plutonium-239
Curiosity radioactivity payload equals how many Nagasaki bombs?
1,329 ÷ 6.4 = 208

In spite of the invention of ways to contain plutonium within ceramic pellets and graphite, NASA’s own Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mars Science Laboratory Mission finds there is still a chance of environmental release of plutonium in various accident scenarios. It might be foolish to spend much time on a discussion of the probabilities of various scenarios because the methodologies and assumptions involved render the undertaking an absurd game. Nonetheless, NASA concludes “… there is an overall probability of 4 in 1,000 that the MSL mission would result in an accident with a release of PuO2 [plutonium dioxide] into the environment.” About a less likely scenario it states, “The risk assessment also indicates that in at least one very unlikely ground impact configuration, FSII with a total probability of release of 9.2 x 10-5 (or 1 in 11,000), a mean area of 86 km2 could be contaminated above 0.2 microcuries/m2… Land areas contaminated at levels above 0.2 microcuries/m2 (or 7,440 becquerels/m2 ) would potentially need further action, such as monitoring and cleanup.” For mixed use urban areas, this cost is estimated to be $562 million per km2. These estimates include no guess about how far above 0.2 the levels could go. But note that when a radiological disaster does occur, this level of 0.2, or 7,440 becquerels/m2 is suddenly deemed too low to require action. By the standards set for Chernobyl, places with less than 37,000 becquerels/m2 were considered weakly contaminated. Recommended evacuation (that included permission to leave in the old system of Soviet restrictions on movement) began at 555,000 becquerels/m2. Compulsory, compensated evacuation began at 1,480,000 becquerels/m2. The Japanese authorities have been similarly complacent since the Fukushima disaster.
In addition, the NASA report mentions, but finds incalculable, the costs of relocation, loss of employment, damage to fishing and agriculture, and health care. Finally, the report concludes with an interesting rationalization for the risks imposed on the public. “The individual risk estimates are small compared to other risks… in [the year] 2000 the average individual risk of accidental death was about 1 in 3,000 per year, while the average individual risk of death due to any disease, including cancer, was about 1 in 130.”
Consider how this logic appears when a drug dealer in your neighborhood turns his house into a methamphetamine lab and contaminates the area. He is likely to rationalize the imposition of risk, which you were not able to have a say in, as only a negligible increase in the risks you already face in your life. It would be better if official agencies of government did not sink to this level of reasoning.
As mentioned above, earlier NASA missions loaded with plutonium failed. The worst one occurred in 1964 with the SNAP-9A Radioisotopic Thermo Generator (RTG). 950 grams of plutonium-238 was widely dispersed over the earth when the satellite containing the RTG fell back to earth. Comparative data on this event can be found in the FEIS of the Mars Science Laboratory Mission.


Global releases of plutonium (Curies)
Pu 239
Pu -238
weapons tests
444,000
9,000
SNAP-9A accident*
*
17,000
(25% fell on Northern Hemisphere, 75% on Southern)
Chernobyl accident**
Plutonium-239, 241: 2,351
400
Plutonium-240:     194,594

plutonium reprocessing (1952-1992)
discharged into oceans
100,000
3,400
TOTAL
740,945
29,800
Total fallout from all isotopes
740,945 + 29,800 = 770,745
Percentage of total fallout from SNAP-9A accident
770,745 ÷ 29,800 = 4%

NASA states the following equivalence:
Plutonium-238 is 17.12 Curies/gram, Plutonium-239 is 0.0620 Curies/gram
* NASA considered the inventory of plutonium-239 on SNAP-9A too small to include.
** NASA did not consider the releases of plutonium-239, 240 and 241 from Chernobyl to be worth mentioning or looking up, but the author calculated them from the data in becquerels given in Zhang et. al. According to this source, the plutonium releases from the Fukushima disaster are estimated to be five orders of magnitude less than the Chernobyl disaster, making them too small to include here. The conversion factor is 1 Curie = 3.7 x 1010 becquerels.

Plutonium released from Chernobyl (converted to Curies in the table above):
plutonium 239 and 240
8.7 x 1013 becquerels
plutonium 241
7.2 x 1015 becquerels
         
This single mishap of the SNAP-9A unit, involving less than a kilogram of plutonium, accounts for 4% of the plutonium-derived radioactivity released into the environment since the start of the nuclear age. Another part of NASA’s website, not the FEIS, explains these failures with great understatement and typical omission of inconvenient facts. The failure of the satellite in 1964, involving the SNAP-9A Radioisotope Thermal Generator (RTG) is described this way:

Status: Mission was aborted because of launch vehicle failure. RTG burned up on re-entry as designed.

On the other hand, the loss of the Apollo 13 lunar module in 1970 was described differently. People familiar with the story of this failed mission know that the astronauts survived by staying in the lunar module as long as possible, but it was discarded from the main capsule just before re-entry. The lunar module crashed into the South Pacific along with its payload of plutonium-238 in the SNAP-27 RTG. In this case, NASA describes the loss this way:

Status: Mission aborted on the way to the moon. RTG re-entered earth's atmosphere and landed in South Pacific Ocean. No radiation was released.

In the latter case, NASA specifies that no radiation was released, but in the former case there is no mention of whether radiation was released. In fact, the failure of the SNAP-9A was one of many “lessons learned” in the history of nuclear technology. NASA admitted that a large volume of plutonium was released into the earth’s atmosphere, and they subsequently developed solar energy technology, as well as the ceramic and graphite casings for plutonium pellets which, presumably, meant that the plutonium aboard the Apollo 13 lunar module went to the bottom of the sea encased in its protective shells to safely decay through several half-lives of 87.7 years. The same presumption of safety holds for numerous other payloads of plutonium that have been launched into space since 1970. The Cassini space probe, for example, launched in 1997, carries 36.2 kilograms of plutonium-238.
The health effects of the 1964 accident, and the potential effects of future accidents, have  become controversial. According to a study titled Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear-Powered Satellites, the 2.1 pounds [950 grams] of Plutonium-238 in the SNAP-9A dispersed widely over the Earth. “A worldwide soil sampling program carried out in 1970 showed SNAP-9A debris present at all continents and at all latitudes.” (cited in Grossman, K.)
Dr. John Gofman, a scientist on the Manhattan Project who later broke ranks with the nuclear establishment, claimed the 1964 accident, on its own and added to the effects of fallout from weapons testing, contributed to a rise in global lung cancer cases. Yet his findings were contested by Snipes et. al. Gofman claimed that most of the lung cancer cases would occur in smokers because they clear particles from their lungs much more slowly than non-smokers. These critics claimed that an assessment of the risk of plutonium would have to be based on healthy individuals. Nonetheless, Gofman still found there is a substantial risk for non-smokers, well-known because of American government studies of non-smoking dogs and rats sacrificed for research (Bair & Thompson). The risk is more acute for the “plutonium workers” who have to handle and transport the nuclear material produced for the civilian and military nuclear complex. When it comes to the general population, proponents on either side of the controversy could never agree on how much plutonium people have ingested and what the effects could be. Regardless, one can make a value judgment and question the wisdom of introducing into the world a known toxic primordial nuclide that has not been present during the evolution of life.

Other great moments in space exploration

The 1978 crash of the Soviet satellite Cosmos 954 spread uranium-235 debris over 77,000 square miles of Northern Canada. There was a media uproar at the time (like there never was about the American SNAP-9A accident), and debates in parliament about the assault on Canadian sovereignty, but the incident was quickly resolved and brushed out of public awareness. There was a joint Canadian and American cleanup, Operation Morning Light, that lasted one year, and the discovery of some highly radioactive debris, but also official assurances that the accident would have no health effects, that all the dangerous material had “harmlessly” disintegrated, melted, vaporized, neutralized or dispersed in such dilute amounts as to not be a concern. During the cleanup, only an estimated 0.1% of the radioactive fuel was recovered, and the fragments of the satellite that were found gave off a deadly 1.1 sieverts per hour. The rest of the radioactive fragments are still out there over the Great White North, at the bottom of Great Slave Lake, or the remainder of the uranium dispersed high in the atmosphere to have its controversial and unknown effects on human health. This is how it was described six years later in the journal Health Physics:

It was estimated that about one-quarter of the reactor core descended over Canada's Northwest Territories in the form of sub-millimeter particles. The other three-quarters apparently remained as fine dust in the upper atmosphere. Each particle contained megabecquerel quantities of the fission products 95Zr, 95Nb, 103Ru, 106Ru, 141Ce and 144Ce, as well as traces of other fission and activation products. Laboratory tests indicated that these radionuclides would not dissolve significantly in drinking water supplies or in dilute acids. Contamination of air, drinking water, soil and food supplies was not detected. The dose equivalent to the GI tract for an individual who might have inhaled or ingested a particle could have been as high as 140 mSv.

Gary Bennett, an American expert on nuclear power and propulsion, described how the Cosmos accident disrupted the consensus on nuclear power in space that existed in the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). In a paper tellingly entitled Reaching the Outer Planets – with or without the UN, he states that the agreement at the time “...represented not only a consensus of international technical experts but also a succinct statement of the US position.” But then for the Canadian delegation, and other concerned countries, the Cosmos accident had changed everything. If such a crash had occurred over a populated area, the effects could have been horrendous. By 1981, Bennett says, “…several delegations, led by the Canadian contingent, had introduced working papers proposing new or different technical principles.” Bennett laments, “To a number of people on the US side, it appeared almost as if the Canadian delegation had decided to punish the US rather than the Soviet Union for the accidental reentry of the Soviet Cosmos 954 reactor.”
Bennett notes that differences within different US departments and agencies led to the State department signing on to principles that banned nuclear power in space. They essentially prohibited the nuclear devices now in use on Curiosity and Cassini. He blames this sorry state on the lack of technical expertise on UN committees and the lack of resolve of US negotiators. The result occurred because “… beliefs and wishes and ideology seem to count for more than technical reality.” This is the blind spot of career scientists in institutions such as NASA. Whenever the outcome is unsatisfactory, it is the other side that has been emotional and ideological, while their own self-interests and emotions are not acknowledged - they are believed to be a neutral “technical reality.” There is no acknowledgement here that the UN principles were a value judgment that simply said no to the risks involved in putting nuclear materials in space.
 However, we know that the US went ahead with its program and continued to launch nuclear devices into space. Bennett is disappointed that the US chose a passive aggressive approach by voting for the UN principles while intending to ignore them because they were deemed to be non-binding. “In short, the US may have voted for the principles, but it does not intend to abide by them.” He quotes from a Clinton administration memorandum (not cited):

… the proposed position does not confer US approval of any specific provisions of the Principles, but only declares that US policy and practice is consistent with their overall objective and intent, which is the safe use of NPS in outer space.

Nuclear Propulsion Rockets


It is risky enough that we launch small amounts of plutonium into space in order to give a little heat and electricity to long-lasting probes and Mars rovers, but a truly awesome risk is posed by the temptation of using nuclear reactors to launch the rocket itself, or propel a spacecraft to Mars at high speed. This was seriously attempted in the 1960s in Project Orion (for more detail see the BBC documentary To Mars by A-Bomb: The Secret History of Project Orion), but it was scrapped because of the hazards and the frightening radiological accidents that happened beyond public awareness, and the because it would accelerate the arms race with the Soviets. However, the fact that this dream was abandoned once is no guarantee that it won’t be taken up again. In fact, the renewal of nuclear propulsion was behind George Bush’s attempt to dream big, aping Kennedy’s initiative to put Americans on the moon, in announcing that he wanted a manned mission to Mars. Furthermore, nuclear devices in space have not only peaceful purposes. They would be an essential part of any space-based defense system, and this is further reason why other states are suspicious of American plans and why the United Nations, through COPUOS, has tried to downplay the dangers of a space-based arms race.
The history of nuclear propulsion research is still not fully known because many of the files are still classified. In the book Area 51, journalist Annie Jacobsen focuses less on the speculation about freaky aliens at the secret Nevada Test Site and more on what is known about the real events that happened there. These are frightening enough without having any UFOs in the picture. The Kiwi test, which actually occurred in Area 25, was a test to see how badly the environment would be affected by a failure of a nuclear propelled rocket. Engineers designed a small-scale deliberate failure, then watched what happened when they blew up the small reactor core in the rocket. Here is how it is described in Jacobsen’s book (pages 309-310):

On January 12, 1965, a nuclear rocket engine, code-named Kiwi, was allowed to overheat. High-speed cameras recorded the event. The temperature rose to "over 4,000 degrees C until it burst, sending fuel hurtling skyward, glowing every color of the rainbow," Dewar wrote. Deadly radioactive fuel chunks as large as 148 pounds shot up into the sky. One ninety-eight-pound piece of radioactive fuel landed more than a quarter mile away.
Once the explosion subsided, a radioactive cloud rose up from the desert floor and "stabilized at 2,600 feet" where it was met by an EG&G aircraft "equipped with samplers mounted on its wings." The cloud hung in the sky and began to drift east then west. "IT blew over Los Angeles and out to sea," Dewar explained. The full data on the EG&G radiation measurement remains classified.
The test, made public as a "safety-test," caused an international incident. The Soviet Union said it violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which of course it did.

The one other occasion when witnesses to a nuclear explosion described fuel going skyward in “every color of the rainbow” is the explosion of the Chernobyl reactor (see The True Battle of Chernobyl, 0:01:20-0:02:10). The Kiwi test, like the unplanned Rocketdyne meltdown near Los Angeles in 1959, suggests that Three Mile Island is on record as the most serious American nuclear accident only because it is the accident that the public has information about.
The controversy of nuclear power in space is not something that can be resolved by pursuing the correct data on risk assessment, or looking for a way to quantify the harm done by the global population’s inhalation of plutonium particles. These numbers are unknowable. What is clear is that further space exploration will not happen by known methods without the continued processing of plutonium and launching of it into space. For those whose careers are invested in space exploration, and the millions of dreamers and enthusiasts of space travel, it is unthinkable that space exploration could just stop because we are afraid to live with the risks of plutonium processing.
I suspect, however, that most of the 7 billion people on earth don’t even think about space exploration, and wouldn’t care much about it if they did. For others who are informed and primarily concerned about taking care of the planet we inhabit, space exploration has little to offer, especially if it worsens ecological problems. I haven't discussed here the additional harm done by CO2 emissions of rocket launches and rocket fuel chemicals. Certainly, we obtain valuable data from satellites about the minute details of what we are doing to the ecosystem, but they really only confirm simple truths that we already know.
Supporters of space exploration tell us constantly of the necessity of breaking new frontiers, of constantly going beyond, but most of the talk is vague and the logic is circular. We need to keep going farther to develop STEM (education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics), and we need STEM in order to keep going boldly to the next frontier.
People like Peter Diamandis typify the views of what has come to be called the techno-optimists – wealthy high-tech entrepreneurs who get juiced up annually on mutual self-adoration and wonderment at the TED conference. He effuses, with the redundant adjective in the title, Curiosity’s Successful, Glorious Triumph on Mars:

What the success of Curiosity highlights is the importance of our being bold and audacious. It takes big risks to drive breakthroughs. Financial risks, technical risks, and when it comes to funding billion dollar programs - political risks….

He fails to mention the risks taken by the low-level workers who actually handle the plutonium and get contaminated in the process. When you are at the lofty heights of the technological elite who get to stare off into the distance of humanity’s glorious future, the gritty details of how humanity gets there are of no import. The techno-optimists are the conquistadors of the modern age. They are optimists in the same way the Hernan Cortes had a positive view about the conquest of Mexico. It goes without mentioning that most of humanity will be used, abused or ignored in the great march of progress. Yet at least the Spanish conquistadors had the sense to covet places that could sustain life, something which we can’t say about people who want to go to lifeless planets.
 Diamandis goes on to say:

I spend much of my time as Executive Chairman of Singularity University and as CEO of the X PRIZE Foundation.  At SU we teach attending graduate students and executives about exponentially growing technology. More importantly, we speak about the importance of taking risk to truly create breakthroughs and the importance of failing early and failing often - the Silicon Valley formulation for innovation.

What is not mentioned here is that humanity actually has not been afraid to take risks, and we seem to be adept at failing spectacularly. In truth, we are quite reckless. While the ecosystem we depend on collapses, Diamandis and his kind have their heads in the clouds envisioning a melding of human minds with robots. Our energy problem is not that fossil fuel supplies will soon be depleted but that catastrophic climate change will occur first. There is nothing more urgent than facing the escalating disasters caused by climate change and the unresolved problem of nuclear waste storage. Outer space can wait. If it seems too sad to tell our children to put this dream on hold, that’s unfortunate, but the unavoidably mature thing for adults to do. Instead of asking our children if they want to be astronauts when they grow up, it is time for the human race to ask itself what it wants to be when it grows up.

References and Other Resources


Bair, W.J., Thompson, R.C. “Plutonium: Biomedical Research.” Science. Vol. 22. February 1974: 715 722. DOI:10.1126/science.183.4126.715 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/183/4126/715.short

Bennett, Gary L. “Reaching the Outer Planets – with or without the UN.” Aerospace America. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. July, 1996. http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/aeroamer.pdf

Gofman, John D., “The Plutonium Controversy.” The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). July 19, 1976 vol. 236, No. 3 pp. 284-288. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=346814

Jacobsen, Annie. Area 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base. Back Bay Books, 2012. The passage cited here quotes Dewar, James, To the End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket, University Press of Kentucky, 2004.

Johnson, Thomas (Dir.). The Battle of Chernobyl. Icarus Films. 2006.

Newman, Lee S., Mroz, Margaret M., Ruttenber, James A. “Lung Fibrosis in Plutonium Workers.” Radiation Research 164, pp. 123-135.  2005. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oerp/pdfs/2001-133g25-1.pdf

Nuclear Energy Agency, and Jan-Olof Snihs. Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Powered Satellites. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1990. Cited in Grossman, K. Nukes in Space in the Wake of the Columbia Tragedy. http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/03/0224176.html

David F.S. Portree. "The Last Days of the Nuclear Shuttle." Wired Magazine. September 20, 2012. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/nuclear-flight-system-definition-studies-1971/

Sykes, Christopher (Dir.). To Mars by A-Bomb: The Secret History of Project Orion. BBC. 2003.

Tracy BL, Prantl FA, Quinn JM. “Health impact of radioactive debris from the satellite Cosmos.” 954. Health Physics. 1984 Aug;47(2):225-33. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6480350


2012/08/03

The Air-Conditioned Nightmare I


The future always seems to happen in Japan first. It was the first, and hopefully last, country to be struck with nuclear weapons. It was the first to be attacked with karaoke music. Japan has given the world otaku culture – video games, manga, maid cafes, 48-member female pop bands – the cultural products of and for a newly evolved, more autistic, infantilized kind of human being, a new species more object-oriented than people-oriented, more detached from reality, incapable of emotional response to outrages unfolding in their environment.
The latest item on this list of firsts is the fact that Japan is now the first industrialized country to hit the wall in terms of its energy supply. With no native resources, it decided to go nuclear fifty years ago, and for a while it worked. The nuclear buildup was an economic boon as it created jobs within its own sector and supplied the energy needed by industry. Economic growth took off. Nuclear fuel was believed to be carbon free, and relatively cheap, so it helped the national balance of payments. But building 54 nuclear reactors on a land of earthquakes and tsunamis was never a good idea, and now the dream has died. Nuclear is no longer a viable option. Even if Japan continues running a few plants, other earthquakes are sure to bring further problems, so the whole industry is in inevitable decline. Meanwhile, importing fossil fuels will just continue to run up a trade deficit that adds to the vicious cycle of industrial decline and contributes to global warming. Alternative energy supplies might be a solution, but for now they are over the horizon.
Public discourse on this dilemma is reaching new levels of alarm. The problem is no longer a remote disaster that might start in a few decades. It is happening all around us, but in a slow motion fashion that makes it difficult for some people to feel the sense of crisis. Paul Gilding sees it as a coming war, but a different kind of war than what we have ever known:

We can choose this moment of crisis to ask and answer the big questions of society's evolution -- like, what do we want to be when we grow up, when we move past this bumbling adolescence where we think there are no limits and suffer delusions of immortality? Well it's time to grow up, to be wiser, to be calmer, to be more considered. Like generations before us, we'll be growing up in war -- not a war between civilizations, but a war for civilization, for the extraordinary opportunity to build a society which is stronger and happier and plans on staying around into middle age.
- Paul Gilding, 2012 The Earth is Full

While contemplating such things a few weeks ago on a hot summer day (35 degrees centigrade and 70% humidity at my home in Narita, Japan), the phrase “the air-conditioned nightmare” came to mind. It is the fitting description for what this country faces every day now. We need the cool air to maintain our lifestyles and do the jobs that put food in our bellies. Junior high school students, already on the education treadmill on which they mindlessly join the chase of “good” jobs in air-conditioned factories and offices, need the cool air in the summer cram schools they attend. Air conditioning enabled places like Japan, Southern China, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam and the American South to catch up to the industrialized North. And we are all stuck here, unable to see any way to climb down out of the air-conditioned nightmare.
But where did this phrase come from? I knew I had heard it before, but had no idea who coined it. It turned out that it was the title of a 1945 travelogue by Henry Miller. I must have come across it when I read Tropic of Cancer, Black Spring and Tropic of Capricorn in the early 80s, or it may just be a phrase used elsewhere as it became an effective way to allude to our alienation from nature.
Henry Miller lived as an expatriate American writer in Paris in the 1930s, and returned to his native New York in 1939. With war breaking out in Europe, he had returned only reluctantly, and did not have a nice re-acquaintance with his homeland. Nonetheless, on a trip that must have inspired Jack Kerouac a few years later, he set out on an automobile trip across the country, writing of the grim American landscape he found in Depression-era America on the eve of world war. He found only some hopeful signs for the future of humanity in a few exceptional individuals whom he encountered.
There is no trace here of “the greatest generation” that defeated fascist enemies on two fronts in Europe and Asia, except some sympathy for the young people who would be called on to do the fighting. Instead, Miller saw dictators and tyrants on all sides, saying “We have our own dictator, only he is hydra-headed.” (p. 18) What is striking for the modern reader is to see how many passages of The Air-Conditioned Nightmare resemble writing from The Occupy Movement and the environmental movement. The seeds of discontent were really born in the post-WWI era, when capitalism accelerated in the new age of the automobile, the airplane and the atom. Lately, it all seems to have been discovered anew by a generation that had no awareness of the disasters that befall capitalist economies from time to time.
Of course, Miller wasn’t the first to be discontented with modernity, but he seems to have had a keen sense of the arrival of a new kind of global dread that would follow the next war. He seems to have been scientifically illiterate – he was clueless even about what was under the hood of his car – and he couldn’t have known about the Manhattan Project and the coming atomic age as he drove through the New Mexico desert, but he knew something awful was in store:

A great change had come over America, no doubt about that. There were greater ones coming, I felt certain. We were only witnessing the prelude to something unimaginable. Everything was cock-eyed, and getting more and more so. Maybe we would end up on all fours, gibbering like baboons. Something disastrous was in store - everybody felt it. Yes, America had changed. The lack of resilience, the feeling of hopelessness, the resignation, the skepticism, the defeatism - I could scarcely believe my ears at first. And over it all that same veneer of fatuous optimism - only now decidedly cracked. (p.13)

    Seventy years before Gilding produced the quote above about ecological catastrophe, Miller preferred to talk not about war between dictators and democrats, but man’s coming war with his own nature – the need to invent a better form of social organization than the materialism offered by both communism and capitalism:

A new world is not made simply by trying to forget the old. A new world is made with a new spirit, with new values. Our world may have begun that way, but today it is caricatural. Our world is a world of things. It is made up of comforts and luxuries, or else the desire for them. What we dread most, in facing the impending debacle, is that we shall be obliged to give up our gew-gaws, our gadgets, all the little comforts which have made us so uncomfortable. There is nothing brave, chivalrous, heroic or magnanimous about our attitude. We are not peaceful souls; we are smug, timid, queasy and quaky. (p. 17)

We are accustomed to think of ourselves as an emancipated people; we say that we are democratic, liberty-loving, free of prejudices and hatred. This is the melting-pot, the seat of a great human experiment. Beautiful words, full of noble, idealistic sentiment. Actually we are a vulgar, pushing mob whose passions are easily mobilized by demagogues, newspaper men, religious quacks, agitators and such like. To call this a society of free peoples is blasphemous. What have we to offer the world beside the superabundant loot which we recklessly plunder from the earth under the maniacal delusion that this insane activity represents progress and enlightenment? The land of opportunity has become the land of senseless sweat and struggle. The goal of all our striving has long been forgotten. We no longer wish to succor the oppressed and homeless; there is no room in this great, empty land for those who, like our forefathers before us, now seek a place of refuge. Millions of men and women are, or were until very recently, on relief, condemned like guinea pigs to a life of forced idleness. The world meanwhile looks to us with a desperation such as it has never known before. Where is the democratic spirit? Where are the leaders?

As Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, Communists, we are all on one level. That is one of the reasons why we wage war so beautifully. We defend with our lives the petty principles that divide us. The common principle, which is the establishment of the empire of man on earth, we never lift a finger to defend. We are frightened of any urge which would lift us out of the muck. We fight only for the status quo, our particular status quo. We battle with heads down and eyes closed. Actually, there never is a status quo, except in the minds of political imbeciles. All is flux. Those who are on the defensive are fighting phantoms.... What is the greatest treason? To question what it is one may be fighting for. (p. 21)

Man in revolt against his own cloying nature - that is real war. And that is a bloodless war which goes on forever, under the peaceful name of evolution. (p. 22)

There are experiments which are made with cunning and precision, because the outcome is divined beforehand. The scientist, for example, always sets himself soluble problems. But man’s experiment is not of this order. The answer to the grand experiment is in the heart. We inhabit a mental world, a labyrinth in whose dark recesses a monster waits to devour us. Thus far we have been moving in mythological dream sequence, finding no solutions because we are posing the wrong questions. We find only what we look for, and we are looking in the wrong place. (p. 22)

… the toiling masses of humanity look with watery eyes to this Paradise where the worker rides to work in his own car… they want the lethal comforts, conveniences, luxuries. And they follow in our footsteps – blindly, heedlessly, recklessly. (p. 33)

The worst is in the process of becoming. It is inside us now. Only we haven’t brought it forth. (p. 42)

We tell the story as though man were an innocent victim, a helpless participant in the erratic and unpredictable revolutions of Nature. Perhaps in the past he was. But not any longer. Whatever happens to this earth today is of man’s doing. Man has demonstrated that he is master of everything – except his own nature. If yesterday he was a child of nature, today he is a responsible creature. He has reached a point of consciousness which permits him to lie to himself no longer. Destruction now is deliberate, voluntary, self-induced. We are at the node: we can go forward or relapse. We still have the power of choice. Tomorrow we may not. It is because we refuse to make that choice that we are ridden with guilt, all of us, those who are making war and those who are not. We are all filled with murder. We loathe one another. We hate what we look like when we look into one another’s eyes. (p. 175)

Why is it that in America the great works of art are all Nature’s doing? There were skyscrapers, to be sure, and dams and bridges and concrete highways. All utilitarian. Nowhere in America was there anything comparable to the cathedrals of Europe, the temples of Asia and Egypt - enduring monuments carved out of faith and love and passion. No exaltation, no fervor, no zeal - except to increase business, facilitate transportation, enlarge the domain of ruthless exploitation. The result? A swiftly decaying people, almost a third of them pauperized, the more intelligent and affluent ones practicing race suicide, the underdogs becoming more and more unruly, more criminal-minded, more degenerate and degraded in every way.

The men of the future will look upon the relics of this age as we now look upon the artifacts of the Stone Age. We are mental dinosaurs. We lumber along heavy-footed, dull-witted, unimaginative amidst miracles to which we are impervious. All our inventions and discoveries lead to annihilation. (p. 228)

Other passages from The Air-Conditioned Nightmare resonate for millions of expatriates and migrants who have experienced being uprooted and feeling alienated wherever they find themselves. We want to speak about the world as citizens of it, not as representatives of governments or stale cultural molds and stereotypes. We who live in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster want to speak about it, and want Japanese to speak about it, as a problem of humanity.

Though I became what is called an expatriate, I look upon the world not as a partisan of this country or that but as an inhabitant of the globe. That I happened to be born here is no reason why the American way of life should seem the best. That I chose to live in Paris is no reason why I should pay with my life for the errors of the French politicians. To be a victim of one's own mistakes is bad enough, but to be a victim of the other fellow's mistakes as well is too much. (p. 17)

The only artists who were not leading a dog's life were the commercial artists; they had the beautiful homes, beautiful brushes, beautiful models. The others were living like ex-convicts. The impression was confirmed and deepened as I travelled along. America is no place for an artist: to be an artist is to be a moral leper, an economic misfit, a social liability. A corn-fed hog enjoys a better life than a creative writer, painter or musician. (p. 16)

I was frequently reminded of the fact that I was an expatriate, often in an unpleasant way. The expatriate had come to be looked upon as an escapist.... Nobody thought of calling a man an escapist in the old days; it was the natural, proper, fitting thing to do, go to Europe, I mean. (p. 16)

I had the misfortune to be nourished by the dreams and visions of great Americans - the poets and the seers. Some other breed of man has won out. The world which is in the making fills me with dread.... It is a... false progress, a progress which stinks. It is a world cluttered with useless objects which men and women, in order to be exploited and degraded, are taught to regard as useful. The dreamer whose dreams are non-utilitarian has no place in this world. Whatever does not lend itself to being bought and sold, whether in the realm of things, ideas, principles, dreams or hopes, is debarred. In this world the poet is anathema, the thinker a fool, the artist an escapist, the man of vision a criminal. (p. 24)

If it takes a calamity such as war to awaken and transform us, well and good, so be it. Let us see now if the unemployed will be put to work and the poor properly clothed, housed and fed; let us see if the rich will be stripped of their booty and made to endure the privations and sufferings of the ordinary citizen; let us see if all the workers of America, regardless of class, ability or usefulness, can be persuaded to accept a common wage; let us see if the people can voice their wishes in direct fashion, without the intercession, the distortion, and the bungling of politicians; let us see if we can create a real democracy in place of the fake one we have been finally roused to defend; let us see if we can be fair and just to our own kind, to say nothing of the enemy whom we shall doubtless conquer over. (p. 25)

To end, some comments from an itinerant man at the Grand Canyon whom Miller affectionately described as a “desert rat.” This voice from seventy years ago is priceless because it sheds light on a loss that modern people are no longer aware of, and it speaks volumes about the beginnings of our reckless endangerment of the planet that sustains us.

The automobile had done one good thing, he admitted, and that was to break up people’s clannishness. But on the other hand, it made people rootless. Everything was too easy - nobody wanted to fight and struggle anymore. Men were getting soft. Nothing could satisfy them anymore. Looking for thrills all the time. Something he couldn’t fathom - how they could be soft and cowardly yet not frightened of death. Long as it gave them a thrill, didn’t care what happened... He had seen lots of cars turn over in the desert, racing at... a hundred and ten miles an hour. (p. 222)

All passages from
The Air-Conditioned Nightmare
by
Henry Miller
New Directions Publishing 1945

See also Part II of this article.