2013/06/30

Another Way to Think about Energy Poverty

The look of true energy innovation
When this civilization falls… the old folk crouching by their peat fires will tell their disbelieving children of standing naked mid-winter under jet streams of hot clean water, lozenges of scented soaps and of viscous amber and vermilion liquids they rubbed into their hair to make it glossy and more voluminous than it really was, and of thick white towels as big as togas, waiting on warming racks.
Ian McEwan
Saturday

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is worried about the billion people on the planet who live in “energy poverty.” An interesting thing about this figure is that it hasn’t changed much in 200 years. In 1813, the world population is estimated to have been about a billion. In 1913, it was about 1.8 billion. Two hundred years ago, no one had electricity and the only industrial form of energy was steam produced from burning coal and wood. One hundred years ago, the first electrical grids were being built and a few hundred million people were gaining access to electricity. Thus the really interesting trend in energy poverty is that the numbers, in a sense, have not improved at all. We now have a global population of about 7 billion, with six billion people not in energy poverty, and thanks to this fantastic achievement we live with toxic pollution and an ecological crisis. We could say it might have been better if the human race had focused on stabilizing the population at a couple billion, rather than trying to provide an unlimited amount of energy to whatever number of people the world population rose to. The historical trend reveals that the real problem has not been a shortage of energy, but rather over-consumption, over-population and unequal distribution of resources.

Population growth projections
And what is the IEA anyway? When you read media reports about it based on the agency’s press releases, it seems like it is a high-level, humanitarian UN agency. Perhaps it has a function similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the WHO. However, there is no UN affiliation at all, nor, apparently, even an indirect connection to democratically elected governments. After spending some time on its website, I found it hard to fathom why it exists and whose interests it serves.

The IEA was founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis in order to help countries [28 first-world countries] co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.

This sounds suspiciously like a fine way to say, in bureaucratese, the agency was founded in order to make sure that the rich nations of the world would never again get screwed over by a group of uppity second tier nations that decided to form an oil cartel.
Since its founding, the agency seems to have succeeded in its purpose. OPEC never again managed to disrupt the world economy, and the IEA has polished and greenwashed its image so well that it now gives the appearance of being among the best international organizations fighting poverty and taking on global warming.
In spite of its best efforts, the IEA has a few policy positions that would alienate environmental groups and other NGOs fighting poverty. Firstly, it recommends that nuclear energy be vastly expanded so that it makes up 24% of world energy supply by 2050. This conforms with the original goal of limiting the power of oil producing countries, but it is not the policy of any of the world’s major environmental groups. While no environmental group supports the expansion of nuclear, Ecowatch does give the IEA credit for advocating for a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies.
Lately, the agency has put much effort into bringing electricity to the last billion who don’t have it, and of course, on the surface, this seems like a wonderful idea. Everyone knows that electricity is the juice of a modern economy. We benefit from it, so why shouldn’t they? The trouble with this reasoning is that it considers only proximate causes of poverty. The poor look like they need electricity because their native cultures and lands have been wiped out by the ultimate causes - colonization and resource extraction. If they hadn’t been reduced to such poverty, the “need” for electricity would be much less apparent. It is unlikely they would ask for it if they knew the implications of what comes with it.
Towel warmer.
Electricity production brings a massive disruption of the environment and way of life, so there is great arrogance in the assumption that it always improves lives and is always wanted. Usually, it comes with the requirement to go along with the world system of enslavement by debt (a point which Lee Camp makes quite effectively here.) Five hundred years ago, the lives of Africans and Americans might have been nasty, brutish and short, but perhaps they were fine with that, especially when they could see that that the lives of newcomers from Europe weren’t much different.
It’s ironic that across the ideological spectrum in advanced countries there is agreement that we must preserve cultural diversity and recognize the contributions of pre-industrial and pre-agricultural ways of life, but many of those who pay this respect are also saying that everyone needs electricity now. They insist that everyone must be brought out of energy poverty, whether they asked for it or not.
This seemingly fine endeavor to bring electricity to the poor reeks of a more nefarious plan to bring nuclear plants and mega-dams to developing countries. India, for example, is going along for the ride in spite of the massive popular rejection of nuclear energy projects in every rural area where the government proposes building them. The IEA just seems to be working in conjunction with other forces that want to bring outdated concepts of national progress to the developing world.
The IEA is committed to countering global warming, but the goal of bringing electricity to a billion more people, plus the billion to be added soon to the population, cannot possibly be compatible with this goal. If they talk of a hypothetical future of tremendous gains in efficiency and problem-free nuclear energy for all, it might seem like a nifty idea on the website. The obvious problem is population growth and ecological destruction. The historical record shows that increasing the energy supply does not fix these problems. It might be the cause of both, and there is no reason to believe the future trend will be different.
I’ll be accused of being indifferent to the suffering of people who, in their present circumstances, obviously could benefit from having electricity. I don’t want anyone to go hungry, but in a more abstract sense, there is some comfort in knowing there are still people in this world who live without electricity, just as everyone did before the 19th century. Somehow, our species survived until that point without air conditioning, yet it is now considered to be a necessity and a right. Perhaps there is hope for the energy-poor in the likelihood that when the present system has exhausted itself, those who know how to live off the grid will inherit the world. 

2013/06/24

No Health Impacts Seen for Nuclear Workers in the Phase-out of Nuclear Power

What follows below is a bit of satire that shows a news report that the evacuees in Fukushima could only dream of seeing for real. The truth is that most people have too much heart to make callous dismissals of people being deprived of their homes and livelihoods, but this is what it would look like if we could turn the tables on the arguments that have dismissed worries about the impacts of the Fukushima meltdowns:

Fear is the Real Enemy:
No Health Impacts Seen for Nuclear Workers in the Phase-out of Nuclear Power

A joint research project of environmental NPOs has just released a comprehensive study of the health impacts on nuclear workers of recent shutdowns of aging nuclear reactors and cancellation of future nuclear projects.
Lucille van Pelt, spokesperson for Green Peas International, claimed that the study was the most comprehensive survey ever done on this topic. Environmental groups have long suspected that the main cause of health impacts was the fear and anxiety of nuclear workers felt about the closure of nuclear power plants. “They overlook the fact that no one has ever died because of the closure of a nuclear power plant. They have a visceral, emotional response to the issue, which makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about the true risks involved. I hate to say it, but it is mostly men who are affected. I’ll be accused of maternalism, but it is what it is.”
All of Japan’s nuclear reactors were shut down after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011. Recently, several power plants in the US have been shut down because of the prohibitive cost of repairs and upgrades, or the price competition from other forms of energy. Germany made a decision to get out of nuclear entirely, while in other parts of the world various projects are on hold or are suffering severe cost overruns.
Ms. van Pelt added, “The results of the study suggest we may have been far too conservative in the pace of the nuclear phase-out. The economic impacts are likely to be minimal and temporary as we shift to investments in renewable energy. Nuclear workers are no different than other members of the workforce. They can adjust to new technologies and new circumstances, if we give them sympathetic support and counseling. They talk about the economic benefits of 100,000 jobs in their sector, but the same can be said of gambling, drug dealing, and prostitution.”
In past studies of nuclear plant closures, some workers were found to be suffering from mental and physical health issues after losing their jobs. Some even faced the trauma of relocation. They blame public opposition and the changed energy policy for their conditions, and they say the causal relation is clear. Their ailments were extremely rare in the past when they had their stable jobs and homes.
Ms. van Pelt responded to this criticism by saying it was a classic case of the nocebo effect. The belief that something will cause harm actually does cause real symptoms. “It can be extremely difficult to untangle causes and effects in such a situation,” she says, “but it’s not like there’s some invisible energy force attacking their bodies and causing the ailments. It is more likely that the true cause of the suffering is the passive dependency of nuclear workers who expect to be compensated for their losses, or to have a job guaranteed for them. They are really suffering from what we could call phase-outphobia.”
The research paper concludes that this condition involves many symptoms of common psychological illnesses. While the nuclear industry has been built by the world’s richest governments and multinational corporations, it has been opposed by infinitely smaller non-profit organizations supported by small donations. Nonetheless, sufferers often have the delusion that their industry is the persecuted underdog. Once this idea becomes rooted, they look only at information that confirms their bias. It’s a vicious circle, according to observers of the phenomenon.
Ms. van Pelt added, “What has happened to these people is unfortunate, but lessons have been learned. These people deserve to have support and counseling to help them make the transition to a new life. Before that can happen they will have to put on their big boy pants and suck it up. The world has changed. The public no longer wants to live with the risks of nuclear, and the market has spoken. The private financial capital for nuclear projects just isn’t there anymore.”
The controversy continues.

References and inspiration for this article:

No one died because of the meltdowns?
“Last week, the police in the Futaba-gun region of Fukushima, which includes the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station and the town of Namie, confirmed that a handful of tsunami survivors who were trapped in the rubble probably starved to death as rescuers fled the scene for fear of radiation. A month passed before rescuers were able to venture back into the exclusion zone set up in a 12-mile radius around the nuclear plant; the bodies of Mr. Yokoyama’s parents were not discovered until the summer.”
Hiroko Tabuchi, “An Anniversary of ‘Heartbreaking Grief’ in Japan,” The New York Times, March 11, 2012.

“Given the readiness in which the medical profession accepts the cytokine mediated radiation fatigue response as being a biochemical fact, it appears extremely cruel of world nuclear authorities, including its associated medicos (if you can call them that) to quickly pull out their copies of DSM IV and ascribe a mental condition to civilian victims of nuclear disaster, whereas in hospitals around the world treating doctors are thoroughly familiar with this aspect of the radiation response.” Paul Langley’s Nuclear History Blog, June 23, 2013.

“A farmer who grew organic vegetables in Sukagawa, Fukushima Prefecture, hanged himself just 13 days after the onset of the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.”
Shameful selective memory regarding nuclear power issue,” The Asahi Shimbun, June 19, 2013.

“… official actions largely protected the public, and most continuing fears of health risks from radiation have little basis in fact…. Citizens of Japan are understandably traumatized by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. But to make intelligent decisions about radiation, it’s best to rely on facts -- and not let emotional or illogical fears get in the way.”
Robert Peter Gale and Peter Lax. “Fukushima Radiation Proves Less Deadly Than Feared,” Bloomberg, March 11, 2013.

“The primary health effect of Chernobyl has been widespread psychological distress in liquidators (workers brought in for cleanup), evacuees, residents of contaminated areas, and residents of adjacent non-contaminated areas. Several psycho-neurological syndromes characterized by multiple unexplained physical symptoms including fatigue, sleep and mood disturbances, impaired memory and concentration, and muscle and/or joint pain have been reported in the Russian literature. These syndromes, which resemble chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, are probably not due to direct effects of radiation because they do not appear to be dose related to radiation exposure and because they occur in areas of both high and low contamination.
Pastel, Ross H. “Radiophobia: Long-term Psychological Consequences of Chernobyl.” Military Medicine 167, no. 2 Suppl (February 2002): 134–136.

“The people are suffering, not only because of the earthquake and the tsunami, but also from severe radiation anxiety, real radiophobia.”
Shunichi Yamashita, former chief of the Fukushima Health Survey.

“Speaking at a March 12 symposium hosted by the Defense Strategies Institute, Paul Kudarauskas, of the EPA Consequence Management Advisory Team, said events like Fukushima would cause a ‘fundamental shift’ to cleanup. U.S. residents are used to having ‘cleanup to perfection,’ but will have to abandon their ‘not in my backyard’ mentality in such cases, Kudarauskas said. ‘People are going to have to put their big boy pants on and suck it up.’”
Douglas P. Guarino, White House Supports Rollback of Cleanup Standards for Nuclear Incidents, GSN,  NTI.” NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative. March 25, 2013.

2013/06/16

Were it not that I have bad dreams

Were It Not That I Have Bad Dreams

Why, then 'tis none to you. For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so… I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2

The debate over nuclear energy seems to exhaust the patience and interest of the public. It’s one of those debates many people just steer clear of in order to preserve their mental health. It has joined company with the death penalty, abortion, and marriage equality—that category of passionate controversies in which neither side cedes one inch of ground. If you haven’t reached this point yet, go see the pro-nuclear propaganda film Pandora’s Promise (USA, 2013), read some reviews of it, then read the hundreds of online comments that pour in after the reviews. By that time, another line from Hamlet will come to mind: I'll no more on't. It hath made me mad.
In these arguments no one changes his or her mind, because the two sides talk past one another without realizing they are each motivated by a difference in their unspoken assumptions and values. They seem so self-evident that the need to state them is forgotten. As Hamlet remarked in the quote at the top, we could all be moral relativists. The universe doesn't care how much plutonium is on our planet, but we all have experiences and innate tendencies from which our values form. It is the breach of them that troubles us, what gives us what Hamlet called “bad dreams.”
I once debated nuclear energy with a friend who compared it to other forms of risk that we decide to live with. We were eating hamburgers in a restaurant and he asked why we don’t demand that such eateries be shut down because of the cholesterol inflicts on our arteries. I thought it was off the point, but we got distracted and the conversation moved on.
Later, I wondered how he could have made this equivalence between beef and plutonium, and I realized that for pro-nuclear people it’s a foregone conclusion that uranium and plutonium, and the whole witch’s brew of fission by-products, should be used regardless of the risk they pose to the ecosystem. It’s a given that we were right to exploit them and right to carry on producing them. Producing more energy is a good thing. Building nuclear power plants provides jobs and profits, and energy keeps the economy going. In this belief system, it is madness to suggest these goals are not the ones to be pursued.
In my world view, cholesterol is a natural substance that has been in human blood since the time before we were even human. Mammalian blood evolved with it, and it is like numerous other biological chemicals that have benefits to our reproductive success in evolutionary terms, but downsides in terms of individual longevity. On the other hand, no living thing evolved in the presence of plutonium. It has no nutritional value. The radioactivity of the earth had to decrease over a couple of billion years before life became possible. The risks of consuming nutrients like cholesterol can’t be compared to the risk of deliberately exposing living things to the radionuclides produced by industrial activity.
Nonetheless, for my friend there was an equivalence. The ongoing presence of nuclear pollution in the world is taken as a given. The genie ain’t going back in the bottle. Debating the issue at this fundamental level is like rehashing the European conquest of the Americas. For some people this history actually still provides a worthwhile lesson about how global capitalism has to change in order to avoid an ecological catastrophe. For others it’s a done deal. It was inevitable, it happened, it’s going to keep happening. Get over it. We will use nuclear fuel to finish what the conquistadors started. Endless growth in consumption is assumed, and we are going to provide the energy for it. We will keep producing plutonium to fuel the rockets that will take us to places Columbus never dreamed of.
It took me a while to realize that this was the fundamental question about nuclear energy. The pro-nuclear side believes that the discovery of the energy potential of uranium was a gift to mankind. We would have been fools not to exploit it. In contrast, the anti-nuclear side believes that this new form of energy was a temptation to an evil that we should have resisted.
The French philosopher, Jean-François Lyotard, described and invented a term for such kinds of radical divides in outlook and opinion. They are about much more than just disagreement. They concern the absence of shared ground upon which there could be disagreement. This difference is what Lyotard calls a “differend”. When there is a differend between two parties, there is no way in which differences can be meaningfully discussed and resolved. Any attempt at debate must adopt the framework of one of the parties, which is likely to be the framework of the side that has the advantage of power. A typical example of this occurs when the justice system of a capitalist country attempts to resolve resource ownership disputes between corporations and indigenous people. The latter have no concept of ownership of the land and its resources in their traditions, so they are destined to lose in any dispute over “ownership.”
There is no small irony in the fact that nuclear energy supporters’ views have a lot of overlap with conservative, pro-business political views, and conservatives claim that these views are underpinned by traditional religious beliefs. The anti-nuclear side is more aligned with secular progressive politics. Nonetheless, it is the pro-nuclear side that fails to see the use of nuclear energy as an affront to God. The anti-nuclear side is the one that recognizes nuclear energy as a temptation to evil, to get something for nothing, to toss aside humility and place ourselves above God in the pursuit of comfort and power.
Every religion and every culture has their parables and myths that teach the moral lessons of humility and living within a covenant with the social and natural environment. Mankind’s experience with nuclear energy is often compared to the story of Prometheus stealing the fire of the gods for mankind’s use. It can also be seen in Sisyphus. The promise of unlimited energy seems to say that we could now get that rock up the slope with the push of a button. The most applicable moral may be in the story of Odysseus tying himself to the mast while he sails past the Island of Sirens. Everybody knows that something too good to be true must be a false promise. All the energy for my lifestyle for just a few grams of waste product? There must be a catch.


Odysseus and the Sirens, 1891, 
painting by John William Waterhouse.

One need not be a scholar of religion or antiquity to grasp this truth. Street level experience teaches us to be wary of all the common cons that come our way—propositions from over-friendly, attractive strangers, free samples from a drug dealer on a street corner, emails from deposed ministers who need help getting funds sent overseas. Plutonium, a primordial element born in the formation of stars, announced itself like a spam email from across the universe, and we clicked on the link attached within. We’ve been sending money for a long time now, waiting for the promised payoff.
We can’t debate nuclear energy without knowing how we got it and what it does to living cells, yet it seems like many do. It might seem more reasonable to exploit it if you don’t know that life evolved over two billion years up to the 20th century with almost no contact with radioactive chemicals. (But wait. Let’s pause here to let the pro-nuclear people finish their lecture about bananas and natural background radiation…)
Yes, there has always been natural background radiation and life has evolved with it and learned how to repair the damage it causes. Yet the point remains that, until the 20th century, uranium was safely buried under the ground, diluted in ores and, for the most part, out of contact with the ecosystem. More significantly, plutonium, because it was a primordial element that had almost completely decayed away, existed in quantities so small that it never had any impact on living things.
In the 20th century, some nations, tempted to obtain unlimited energy and military power, began to dramatically increase the amount of uranium in human hands, which put it at risk of poisoning the ecosystem. At the same time, plutonium was manufactured out of uranium. Uranium ore was brought to the surface of the earth, concentrated and purified. It was enriched so that its most radioactive isotopes could be concentrated to critical levels that don’t exist in nature—the levels that allow for the exploitation of nuclear energy to produce heat or explosions. Plutonium was also created by neutron bombardment of uranium in a cyclotron or in a nuclear reactor.
The basis of the nuclear energy debate is in how the decision to exploit uranium is perceived. It is either a gift to mankind or the end of mankind. If you really think it was a gift, the thing that is going to take humanity on a science-fiction trip to an inter-galactic civilization, then the anti-nuclear argument will seem like insanity to you.
Once this fundamental position is acknowledged, it’s pointless to argue about how many lives were shortened by the Chernobyl catastrophe, or how many will be by Fukushima. If you are pro-nuclear, it’s all about getting a minority of humanity to an advanced technological future, so it is assumed and permissible that there will be sacrifices along the way (an assumption in this belief system that is seldom admitted). The human sacrifices are all worth it, just as they were to the Aztecs who sacrificed their enemies, as they were to Cortez when he slaughtered the Aztecs in their turn, as they were to Noble Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger when ordered the bombing of Southeast Asia to save it from communism. It can all be rationalized by saying there will always be, actually or hypothetically, more people dying from an evil ideology, particulate smog, or poverty because they don’t have access to the electricity that nuclear energy could provide. If millions of people developed cancer from global weapons testing fallout, it doesn’t matter because the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, in addition to giving the world plutonium, gave the world medical isotopes for treating cancer. In this futile vision of progress, like boats endlessly beaten back by the tide, the next technology always promises to fix the damage of the last technology. 
For the anti-nuclear side, it is equally pointless to get into an argument about numbers. The numbers are based on hypothetical conjectures about the past, present, and future effects of phenomena that are influenced by multiple variables. The “greater good” argument is irrelevant because it is always conjecture and an excuse, while the emphasis in the anti-nuclear stance is on a principle. Once you’ve taken the position that it is wrong to exploit uranium and plutonium, wrong to place ourselves above God or break the covenant with the natural world, wrong to accept that human sacrifices are necessary, you don’t need to engage in an un-resolvable argument that seeks to definitively quantify the harm. Let’s just tie ourselves to the mast as we sail past this one. In a time of global ecological crisis, idealism is the new realism. The true prize is over the horizon.

Reference

Jean-François Lyotard, The Differend: Phrases in Dispute (University of Minnesota Press, First Edition, 1989)

Updated on 2021/03/01

2013/06/05

Childhood Thyroid Cancer Rate: Fukushima compared with the USA

Kyodo News reports today that there are now 12 confirmed cases of thyroid cancer in Fukushima Prefecture among persons 18 or younger. Researchers at Fukushima Medical University believe that the cases are not related to the Fukushima catastrophe because after the Chernobyl catastrophe cases emerged only after four or five years.
The report lacks any comparisons or interpretations that could help people understand this situation. I’m not a medical researcher or a professional journalist, but it took me less than thirty minutes to find some statistics that provided valuable perspective on these children in Fukushima who have thyroid cancer.
Anyone can go to the websites of the American National Cancer Institute and look up cancer incidence by age, race, region and various other criteria. If you go to this site and look up the rate of thyroid cancer for people under 20 of Asian ancestry, you find a rate for the year 2009 of 0.9478 per 100,000.
If it is reasonable to assume that most underlying causes of thyroid cancer are the same in Japan and the USA, we would expect the same rate to be found in Japan. I will leave it to the professional, paid reporters of Kyodo and other Japanese media groups to look up the data on Japanese government websites.
The Kyodo report says 174,000 people 18 or under were included in the survey looking for thyroid cancer. According to the American data, we would expect to see one or two cases of thyroid cancer in this group, not 12 with 15 additional suspected cases. It is difficult to think of a difference between American and Fukushima diet, environment and genetic background that would account for this large increase. The only significant difference between the two places is that one had a nuclear power plant triple meltdown and spent fuel pool melt, and the other did not. If researchers didn’t know about the meltdowns, they would suspect that there had been an undetected exposure to radioactive iodine. The six fold increase just jumps off the chart.
Skeptics will say the raw numbers (2 expected, 12 found) are too small to confirm a statistically significant trend. It could be random variation. If you throw confetti in your room, some floor tiles will have no confetti land on them, some will have two, some will have twelve, etc... The year 2007 and 2013 are just different floor tiles. Furthermore, these 12 cases of cancer can be presented as either a frightening jump in the incidence rate (a six-fold increase!), or they can be portrayed as insignificant (a change from 0.01% to 0.07% of 100,000 people). It is possible that a few cases were found simply because every young person in a population of 174,000 was screened, but to go with that reasoning you would have to believe that a certain number of American children have thyroid cancer but just slip through the system undetected and die with the cause unknown.
Another obvious explanation, which seems to be beyond the powers of imagination of researchers at Fukushima Medical University, is that the Soviet research on Chernobyl was flawed. Researchers there may have simply missed the early cases or deliberately avoided looking for them – the well-documented pattern described in Chernobyl: Crime without Punishment. It seems like it is time for Japanese authorities to wake from their complacency and admit the possibility that something dreadful has happened to the children of Fukushima Prefecture, something that would justify large damage rewards for everyone who gets thyroid cancer from now on.

NOTE: A few days after I wrote this post Asahi Shimbun came through with some figures on thyroid cancer rates in Japanese children before 2011. In 2007, Miyagi Prefecture (neighboring Fukushima) and three other prefectures had a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 children, a little less than twice the rate in the USA. 

2013/05/30

Disparate Views of the Closure of a Uranium Enrichment Facility

I’ve begun to wonder if the nuclear industry is its own worst enemy. Its public relations operations continually insist on downplaying the dangers of nuclear energy and on refusing to acknowledge the horrific environmental problems that have been created by seventy years of nuclear fuel production and spent nuclear fuel accumulation. Some hazards may be debatable, but the toxic legacy left by uranium enrichment facilities like the one in Paducah, Kentucky, are beyond deniability.
The alarming dangers posed by such facilities have been described by government agencies, environmental groups, journalists and writers, and by the citizens who have to live next to them. The nuclear industry, if it has any hope of being taken seriously as an energy alternative, and gaining any public trust, has to come clean and cut the evasions, omissions and obfuscating glosses on the real extent of the damage and risks.
An excellent case in point is the news released this week by World Nuclear News regarding the closure of the USEC uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Kentucky. This is contrasted below, side by side, with a report from Ecowatch on the same topic.
It is notable that WNN claims to employ “experienced journalists,” given no byline (I suspect they are probably grateful to have their names left off the reports), who have, apparently, access to the top experts of the global nuclear industry. These “experienced journalists” exhausted the topic of the Paducah plant closure by writing a whopping 463 words, while the writer from Ecowatch wrote 2,500 words describing in much more detail the alarming state of the Paducah facility.
The “experienced journalists” of WNN say the Paducah enrichment facility was built when “the USA's nuclear naval and power programs grew from wartime research and development.” I couldn’t think of a more evasive and dishonest way to describe the billion-dollar project to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is cosmetology, not journalism.
They go on to say the plant had to close because the Department of Energy “concluded there were not sufficient benefits to taxpayers.” The plant “will now be prepared for closure.” A remaining workforce will “perform transition activities and meet regulatory requirements… in a cost-effective manner.”
The Ecowatch report reveals exactly what these pleasantries refer to: another story of a corporate termites feeding on a privatized asset, then leaving taxpayers and citizens with the toxic excrement (in this case, crystallized uranium hexafluoride). This business behavior is well-known, most famously because of the leveraged buyouts led by Mitt Romney when he worked for Bain Capital. As David Stockman put it, “The whole business was about maximizing debt, extracting cash, cutting head counts, skimping on capital spending, outsourcing production, and dressing up the deal for the earliest, highest-profit exit possible.” It’s bad enough when it’s a matter of office supply retailers, but in this case we are talking about a large-scale contamination of the land with some of the longest-lived and most toxic materials known.
The two reports are below, with the most notable sections in bold print.

From World Nuclear News
From Ecowatch
From the WNN website: The goal of WNN is use plain English to place comprehensive coverage of nuclear power in context using background information, expert commentary and links to relevant authoritative sources. Because they are researched from original source and written in-house by experienced journalists… The WNN service … draws on the WNA's global network of contacts in industry, academia, research institutes and intergovernmental agencies that includes key personnel in enterprises that account for virtually all of the world's uranium mining, nuclear fuel manufacture, equipment production and nuclear power generation.
From the Ecowatch website: EcoWatch is a cutting-edge news service promoting the work of more than 1,000 grassroots environmental organizations and activists worldwide, and showcasing the insights of world-renowned environmental leaders.
EcoWatch focuses on the issues of water, air, food, energy and biodiversity, and promotes ongoing environmental campaigns including climate change, fracking, mountaintop removal, factory farming, sustainable agriculture and renewable energy. News is provided on a global and local scale.
May 28, 2013
[463 words]


USEC is to wind up operations this month at the Paducah plant it leases from the US Department of Energy (DoE). The 1950s facility is the last remaining gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant in the world.
Paducah was built between 1950 and 1952 at a cost of around $800 million as the USA's nuclear naval and power programs grew from wartime research and development
Given that USEC's American Centrifuge project is only at the stage of pilot operation, the closure of Paducah will leave the company without any enrichment capacity of its own. USEC said it would meet its commitments from existing inventory and purchases from Russia - from the downblending of decommissioned weapons or Russia's nuclear fuel export firm Tenex via a deal signed in 2011 to cover USEC's orders in the timeframe of 2013-2022.

Bob Van Namen is USEC's senior vice president and chief operating officer. He said the company had looked at possible ways to continue enrichment at Paducah, but the DoE "concluded there were not sufficient benefits to taxpayers." The government department owns the facility which it leases to USEC to operate.
The Paducah site will now be prepared for closure. Van Namen said USEC anticipates maintaining a workforce at Paducah "into next year to support ongoing operations, perform transition activities and meet regulatory requirements." He added that USEC wanted to make the transition to a shut-down state in a cost-effective manner: "The company and our workforce have unparalleled experience that should be drawn on."
Vice president of enrichment operations Steve Penrod said: "We want to thank our employees and the entire Paducah community for their efforts to support continued enrichment at the plant. Although the community has known about this possibility for a number of years, we recognize that the Paducah area will soon feel the real impact of this decision and its effects on many individuals and families."

US legacy infrastructure

In western Kentucky, Paducah has operated since September 1952 and has capacity of 8 million SWU per year, compared to US reactor needs of 12.7 million SWU per year. The plant was built in less than two years, at a cost of around $800 million as the USA's nuclear naval and power programs grew from wartime research and development. It is located across the Ohio River from the Metropolis conversion plant in southern Illinois, which turns uranium from solid to gaseous forms for the enrichment process. That plant is owned by Honeywell and General Atomics and operated by their joint venture ConverDyn.
Paducah is the world's only remaining gaseous diffusion enrichment plant, and the only US-owned enrichment facility in the USA (the other being Urenco's LES facility, which was inaugurated in 2012). Metropolis is the USA's only conversion plant.

Researched and written
by World Nuclear News




May 22, 2013
By Geoffrey Sea
[2,571 words]

Disaster is about to strike in western Kentucky, a full-blown nuclear catastrophe involving hundreds of tons of enriched uranium tainted with plutonium, technetium, arsenic, beryllium and a toxic chemical brew. But this nuke calamity will be no fluke. It’s been foreseen, planned, even programmed, the result of an atomic extortion game played out between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the most failed American experiment in privatization, the company that has run the Paducah plant into the poisoned ground, USEC Inc .
As now scheduled, main power to the gargantuan gaseous diffusion uranium plant at Paducah, Kentucky, will be cut at midnight on May 31, just nine days from now—cut because USEC has terminated its power contract with TVA as of that time [“USEC Ceases Buying Power,” Paducah Sun, April 19, page 1] and because DOE can’t pick up the bill.
DOE is five months away from the start of 2014 spending authority, needed to fund clean power-down at Paducah. Meanwhile, USEC’s total market capitalization has declined to about $45 million, not enough to meet minimum listing requirements for the New York Stock Exchange, pay off the company’s staggering debts or retain its operating licenses under financial capacity requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Paducah plant cannot legally stay open, and it can’t safely be shut down—a lovely metaphor for the end of the Atomic Age and a perfect nightmare for the people of Kentucky.

Dirty Power-Down
If the main power to the diffusion cascade is cut as now may be unavoidable, the uranium hexafluoride gas inside thousands of miles of piping and process equipment will crystallize, creating a very costly gigantic hunk of junk as a bequest to future generations, delaying site cleanup for many decades and risking nuclear criticality problems that remain unstudied. Unlike gaseous uranium that can be flushed from pipes with relative ease, crystallized uranium may need to be chiseled out manually, adding greatly to occupational hazards.
The gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge, TN, was powered-down dirty in 1985, in a safer situation because the Oak Ridge plant did not have near the level of transuranic contaminants found at Paducah. The Oak Ridge catastrophe left a poisonous site that still awaits cleanup a quarter-century later, and an echo chamber of political promises that such a stupid move would never be made again. But that was before the privatization of USEC.
Could a dirty power-down at Paducah—where recycled and reprocessed uranium contaminated with plutonium and other transuranic elements was added in massive quantities—result in “slow-cooker” critical mass formations inside the process equipment? No one really knows.
Everybody does know that the Paducah plant is about to close . Its technology is Jurassic, requiring about ten times the energy of competing uranium enrichment methods around the world. The Paducah plant has been the largest single-meter consumer of electric power on the planet, requiring two TVA coal plants just to keep it operating, and it’s the largest single-source emitter of the very worst atmospheric gasses—chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
The plant narrowly escaped the selection process that shuttered its sister plants in Tennessee and Ohio long ago. A 2012 apocalypse for Paducah workers was averted only by a last-second, five-party raid on the U.S. Treasury involving four federal entities pitching together to bail out USEC financially, a deal so arcane that knowledge of Mayan astrological codices would be required to grasp its basic principles. The plot would make for a great super-crime Hollywood movie in which Kentucky’s own George Clooney and Ashley Judd could star, if only the crafting lawyers and bureaucrats had made the Code of Federal Regulations as easy to decipher as bible code, or half as interesting.
“The deal” that saved Paducah operations for a year, past one crucial election non-coincidentally, probably consumed more net energy than it produced by stupidly paying USEC to run depleted uranium waste back through the inefficient Paducah plant—like a massive government program paying citizens to drink their own pee as a way to cut sewerage costs and keep medics employed prior to a Presidential contest. The deal never would have passed muster if it had been subjected to environmental or economic reviews of any kind, but it wasn’t. The “jobs” mantra was chanted, and all applicable laws from local noise-control ordinances to the Geneva Conventions were waived.
But the deal expires on May 31, in nine days. USEC and DOE have both said that discussions for a new extension deal continue, but rumors of a new deal were dashed on May 7, sending USEC stock into a flip-flop, when in an investor conference call , the company announced that no extension had been agreed, with very pessimistic notes about even a “short-term” postponement. That accompanied news that USEC had suffered a $2 million loss in the first quarter of 2013, largely attributable to the power bill at Paducah, which USEC says it’s under no obligation to keep paying.
Showing no enthusiasm whatsoever, USEC CEO John Welch said on May 7:
“While we continue to pursue options for a short-term extension of enrichment at Paducah beyond May 31, we also continue to prepare to cease enrichment in early June.
Meanwhile, the Kentucky DOE field office in charge, managed by William A. Murphie, has advertised a host of companies “expressing interest” in future use of the Paducah site, with no explanation of how the existing edifice of egregiousness will be made to disappear. “Off the record,” the Kentucky field office has floated dates like 2060 for the completion of Paducah cleanup.
That’s two generations from now and kind of a long time for the skilled workforce and other interested parties to hang around. Even the 2060 date assumes that costs can be minimized by evacuating the diffusion cells before power-down—the scenario that seems certain not to happen because no one has the funding for it. Flushing the cells of uranium hexafluoride gas is the only sensible way to power-down, but it’s costly and time-consuming. At the Piketon, Ohio, plant a semi-clean power-down has cost billions of dollars and has taken twelve years and counting to accomplish. (Murphie will have to explain why he paid USEC so much money for the extended power-down at Piketon, while simultaneously asserting that a Paducah power-down can be accomplished swiftly and cheaply). Clean power-down also requires that workers and supplies be available on demand, and in the Paducah case, there simply isn’t time.
According to reliable sources, contracts are being prepared for the work of placing the plant into what Murphie calls “cold storage”—a term of his invention. But those contracts won’t take effect until October when fiscal 2014 funds are available. “Cold storage” at that point means closing the doors, posting guards outside, and otherwise walking away.
Can there yet be an extension deal to hold over the plant until 2014 funds are available? Probably not, because USEC may not last that long, the equipment in the plant has been run to decrepitude with no attention to maintenance, there isn’t sufficient time to make the arrangements, and a second end-run around environmental compliance would likely generate lawsuits.

Captains Log: A Heck of a Long Time
As to when the site might be cleaned up for “future use” under a “cold storage” scenario, nothing has even been rumored. I think we are talking Star Trek dates. Or consider the half-life of natural uranium, which is about four and a half billion years.
Until such time, the Paducah plant will either sit like a massive metallic boil on the planet, or be demolished and scavenged for semi-precious metals like the Oak Ridge facility. But the plutonium, americium and neptunium at Paducah may nix the latter possibility. The dirty power-down arranged by Murphie would make it impossible to prevent transuranic atmospheric release during demolition.
I propose a bronze encasement for the whole fandango, with a plaque that reads: WRECK OF THE U.S. USEC GREATEST FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT PRIVATIZATION IN WORLD HISTORY  IN MEMORIUM

At least that would help Murphie comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. Call it a learning experience.
Interested observers are still awaiting some rabbit to be pulled from Murphie’s hat, as he produced one year ago in 2012. To gauge that possibility I sent Murphie an e-mail on May 10, asking him where he was going to get the money to pay for clean power-down with the cut-off date only weeks away as reported by USEC. Specifically, I wrote: “What’s up with that?”
And, within hours I received a reply, probably because I had copied Mitch McConnel’s chief of staff on my correspondence. Murphie wrote:
“As you are likely aware, the Paducah procurement process has begun involving the USEC facilities. I suggest you look at the DOE CBC home page regarding the proposed IDIQ business opportunities and keep an eye on it for updates. As for the funding question, the DOE did submit a request to Congress that includes language regarding the potential USEC facilities return [a fiscal year 2014 request].
That’s a very interesting reply because, aside from the vacuous PR about fantastic “business opportunities” at a site of nuclear catastrophe (maybe a lollipop factory!), it confirms that DOE does not have some secret stash of funds to evacuate the diffusion cells at Paducah, at least until fiscal year 2014, at least five months too late. Murphie is still calling the certain closure of the Paducah monstrosity “potential,” meaning he can’t yet pay for it. I asked Murphie to resolve that dilemma in a follow-up e-mail, but alas I had used up my entitlement to one response per five years and so got none.
I admit that some pretty cool proposals for Paducah “future use” have been cooked up by Murphie and his PR people. In mid-2012, Kentucky state legislators sought an exemption from the state’s moratorium on nuclear power (a giveaway to coal interests), so that Paducah could become a research center exploring the use of nuclear explosives in fracking for oil and gas. Hot diggity!
“Discussions” between DOE and USEC about extension may indeed be ongoing. But I imagine they are like the proverbial separation negotiations between the gold-miner and the gold-digger. The gold-digger demands maintenance for the lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed, or she’ll walk. The gold-miner looks at the lump of iron pyrite he’s been left with and says: “You already got everything I had.

Murphie’s Law
So how did it come to this? Since the plant was originally scheduled to cease operations on May 31, 2012, why didn’t USEC and DOE have plenty of time to plan for orderly and funded clean power-down, which was precisely what the sleazy one-year extension deal was supposed to give time to accomplish.
The answer is that the entire uranium enrichment enterprise of the U.S. has become a sham operation, a sham designed to funnel U.S. Treasury funds to private companies including USEC and its partners, a sham designed to convert any problem or scandal into additional contractor award fees, a sham designed to keep the fig-leaf of a privatized USEC Inc. from blowing away and exposing all the naughty bits.
Those became the goals of the operation, not enriching uranium, developing new technology or achieving safe operations or cleanup of the sites. Murphie’s Law is that if anything can go wrong, it will boost contractor award fees, for a select group of companies hand-picked by Murphie himself. Thus, the principal “cleanup” contractors at Piketon are Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), both of which are suppliers to USEC’s fake “American Centrifuge Project,” and B&W is a strategic partner of USEC with a large share of USEC preferred stock, poised to take over USEC’s operations if the latter goes under.
And USEC is going under, by design, leaving its bondholders, pensioners and U.S. taxpayers holding one very empty bag. USEC stock has now lost 99% of value since its bubble peak in 2007. USEC’s auditors issued a “going concern” letter in March of this year, warning that the company appears to have no viable business plan moving forward. The New York Stock Exchange issued a delisting warning to USEC in May of 2012, and a second warning on a separate deficiency in May of 2013.
If USEC is delisted, about half a billion dollars of debt to bondholders becomes due immediately, and at least $100 million in pension obligations are owed in Ohio and Kentucky each. But the entire company is only worth about a twentieth of its debts, or about 1 percent of the cost of the new commercial plant it pretends it will build. USEC’s 2013 shareholders meeting, at which the crisis might come to a precipitous conclusion, was postponed from April to June, presumably to give the company a chance to depart from Paducah without adding a nuclear crisis to its public liabilities. USEC is now an empty shell about to be shucked: the company’s dissolution and the Paducah plant’s decommissioning have been timed to coincide.
Once USEC has departed Paducah, it will no longer be in the uranium enrichment business, as it will operate no enrichment facilities. The company, which was created by statute for the sole purposes of enriching uranium and developing new technology, will be doing neither. It will only be an international uranium broker, ironically a front for Russian uranium interests. Imagine if the U.S. Postal Service decided to hoard its U.S. government subsidies, exit the mail delivery business and become only a marketing agent for Russian stamps. That analogy precisely applies to what USEC is doing, in stark violation of the USEC Privatization Act.
But USEC has had two quite powerful politicians in its service, from the states in which it has operated, men who control the Republican caucuses in both chambers of Congress—John Boehner of southern Ohio and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. If Congress had appropriated the funds to pay for Paducah power-down in a timely fashion, for fiscal year 2013, then the USEC house of cards would have come down one year earlier. There could not have been rumors of federally-financed extension deals, or stock speculation runs premised on talk of a USEC buyout, or shipments of “spare parts” from Piketon to Paducah just to make it look like USEC is a going concern.
In short, if Bill Muphie’s office had secured the funds and let the contracts to do a clean power-down of Paducah starting June 1, then the jig would have been up for USEC months ago, the company might already be in liquidation, and hundreds of millions of dollars in continuing federal subsidies to USEC might not have been wasted. For its part, USEC has even now failed to announce a date certain for Paducah closure, although cancellation of its power contract was an effective extortion tactic for wheedling additional dollars from federal coffers.
So Murphie didn’t secure the funds and didn’t issue the contracts, and kept right on doing federally-paid PR work to falsely suggest there could be a smooth economic conversion at Paducah. Boehner and McConnell ate it all up while chanting the “jobs” mantra, for it reinforced their narrative that USEC Inc. is the best thing since sliced atoms. To keep a large campaign contributor out of bankruptcy court for a few more months, the Paducah plant was permitted to reach the current crisis state. And the people of Kentucky were sent straight to nuclear hell.
Nine days.

Sources:

Geoffrey Sea, “Countdown to Nuclear Ruin at Paducah,” Ecowatch, May 22, 2013.

Geoffrey Sea, "Slow Cooker Comes to a Boil," Ecowatch, May 28, 2013.

David Stockman, “Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer,” The Daily Beast, October 15, 2012.

Paducah enrichment plant to be closed,” World Nuclear News, May 28, 2013.

2013/05/26

Review of "The Dragon's Tail: Americans Face the Atomic Age"

Review:
The Dragon’s Tail: Americans Face the Atomic Age, by Robert A. Jacobs, University of Massachusetts Press, 2010, 176 pages

There’s nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons… [but] I am prepared to grovel, to humiliate myself abjectly, because, in the circumstances, silence would be indefensible. So those of you who are willing: let’s pick our parts, put on these discarded costumes and speak our second-hand lines in this sad second-hand play.”
- Arundhati Roy, 1998

In 1998, the year Pakistan tested its first nuclear weapon, and a quarter century after India's first test, the novelist Arundhati Roy wrote the passage above in her essay Pokharan: The End of Imagination.[i] After this humble introduction, she proceeded to write something highly original - an additional 5,000 words that must be one of the most articulate and moving essays ever written against the possession of nuclear weapons. She demonstrated that while the message may be old, there are always new ways to express it and a new generation that has to learn what their elders may feel has become too tiresome to revisit.
These thoughts about Roy’s essay came to mind as I read The Dragon’s Tail: Americans Face the Atomic Age,[ii] by American historian Robert Jacobs. Nuclear threats are arguably as dangerous now as they were at any time in the past, so silence is still indefensible, and Jacobs too has found a way to make a fresh contribution to the history of the atomic age for a new generation.
Older people who remember the early Cold War may find this book covers familiar ground, but they must know that this book is not written for them. Knowledge of this era will die on the shelves if it is not kept alive in the minds of successive contemporary scholars and reinterpreted for each new generation. It is easy to forget that freshman university students in 2013 were born in 1995. They have no living memory of the first Gulf War, Apartheid, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Vietnam War. They were just starting to learn how to read when airliners crashed into the World Trade Center. People over the age of forty tend to assume these events are common knowledge, and they don’t realize how difficult it is for young people to grasp how there could have been such deep animosities across ideological lines during the Cold War.
Jacobs limits his coverage to the time between Hiroshima and the end of atmospheric weapons testing in the 1960s. The analysis of the historical events and their impact on culture is so good that readers will be left hoping for one or two sequels about the late Cold War period of the 70s and 80s, and the contemporary age consisting of threats by loose nukes, non-state entities building a bomb, aspiring nuclear states, Fukushima, and cell phones with built-in Geiger counters crowd-sourcing fallout data.
People coming of age in the 21st century are not likely to have much awareness of nuclear history because they have no link to a pre-nuclear world. They didn’t live through a time when everyone was talking about this new frontier in the history of humanity, about this new danger that could destroy civilization, and much of the ecosystem, in the span of a few hours.
Nowadays, the person on the street is unlikely to know how many nuclear weapons there are in the world and who owns them. From now on, all generations will have to be consciously taught nuclear history if they are to understand the implications of the weapons (functional or not) and the waste we are leaving behind for them. 50,000 years from now, when the future inhabitants of the earth are trying to understand the implications of their local nuclear waste dump, no one will be speaking 21st century English, or any other language now spoken. The Dragon’s Tail and other such chronicles of these times will have to be passed down like Greek myths, translated by successive generations of scholars.
The Dragon’s Tail begins with an explanation of how the atomic bomb was understood as a profound break with the past. Whereas we used to be in the hands of God, or a fate beyond our control, we now had the power to decide if Armageddon would occur today. In the social sciences, the first reaction to this problem was to dwell on the sorry, violent nature of man rather than to build the political structures that might constrain it.
From these early conceptions, the bomb soon took on mythical and magical properties. Because radiation was intangible yet so destructive, it took a role in popular culture whenever there was a need to display something transformative, awesome and powerful. The Nevada desert, home of weapons testing, came to represent the magical, other-worldliness of everything connected to the new technology (think of alien landings mythology associated with Area 51,[iii] The X-Files,[iv] and the two places where the Freudian id was given free reign – Las Vegas and the Nevada Test Site).
Films, comic books, novels and consumer goods all picked up the atomic motif (the 1982 documentary Atomic Cafe[v] was a chronicle of this era for the previous generation). Godzilla  and Spiderman are two of the familiar fictional supernatural beings created by radiation, but Jacobs describes many more examples − some well-known, others obscure and forgotten. Some are fantasies that portray radiation as having transformative powers unrelated to its real effects, while others are grounded in accurate representations of the effects of radioactivity and the implications of nuclear warfare. There are so many examples described in The Dragon’s Tail that readers come to see the essential role that nuclear physics played in modern realistic and fantasy science fiction. These genres wouldn’t exist without it, and they pushed aside traditional fantasy genres because, when writers had radiation to work with, they didn’t need wizards and magic spells. The arrival of Harry Potter in 1997 might be taken as a sign that the novelty of radiation had run its course in the public imagination.

By the dawn's early light: Bomb tests were
visible to motel guests in Las Vegas

The trivia about atomic monsters is interesting enough, but this book excels in its analysis of the role that fiction came to play in real-world conceptions and understandings of the atomic era. There were official attempts to get the public to take up roles as citizen-soldiers who could survive a nuclear attack, and the public was initially receptive. For a while, a Los Angeles television station actually live-broadcasted nuclear tests in Nevada. But eventually the absurdity of public information programs became apparent, and the official appeals were weakened by their own contradictions. The hydrogen bomb tests that began in 1954 made it ridiculous to suggest that there would be anything worth living for after a U.S.-Soviet nuclear exchange. Children wouldn’t be able to just duck and cover then get back outdoors to “clean this place up” (as one famous government film reel declared). Jacobs makes it clear that it was popular culture that helped the public process their fears and honestly confront reality. Fiction gave more honest and informative depictions of the nuclear dilemma than non-fiction reporting.
Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove[vi] (1964) is a well-known example of such fiction, but Jacobs wisely steers clear of it and digs up the more obscure, and arguably more important, creations that came before it. Others have written about Dr. Strangelove, but who remembers a 1954 episode of the television series Medic?[vii] We can thank Jacobs for reminding us that the information available wasn’t all just ridiculous Department of Energy newsreels deceiving a gullible population. In this era, the American public was exposed to a diverse range of information which might compare favorably with the quality of what we presently get from twenty-four-hour cable television news.
In the episode of Medic, (recently issued on DVD) the prime time audience was shown the suburban aftermath of a nuclear attack on a large city some distance away. Nothing in the story is sugarcoated like the information in government leaflets. The hospital is visited by irradiated, blinded children, and other children who need to be told that mommy is “still in the city.” Morphine has to be denied to people with grotesque injuries so that there will be some for those patients who still have a chance of being alive in a few days.
In an episode of another television series, Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone,[viii] a group of superficially friendly neighbors are confronted with the news that nuclear war has started. As they fight over scarce resources and a place to shelter, bitter resentments emerge, and by the time the false alarm has been confirmed, their once-peaceful relations have been destroyed. Rod Serling appears at the end to remind the audience, “For civilization to survive, civilization has to remain civilized.”
Such simple truths were nowhere to be found in the official line about nuclear weapons, which focused instead on concerns such as how to defend one’s fallout shelter from the unprepared victims who might want to fight their way in. Jacobs comes to the strongest point of his thesis when he identifies the origins of the counter-culture movement in the way children of the fifties noticed the gap between propaganda and reality. Fiction shed light on a truth that the government and the older generation wanted to look away from, and this was the origin of the baby boomers’ rejection of their parents’ values. The counter-culture movement might seem to have stemmed from the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, but it was the “duck and cover” safety drills of the 1950s that made the post-war generation doubt that adults could be trusted. The official pamphlets and newsreels had the opposite effect of making children feel safe. The hypocrisies and contradictions of nuclear defense drills planted the seed of the rebellion that would come in the sixties.
Jacobs illustrates this point effectively with an analysis of a piece of sci-fi schlock that less astute observers would dismiss as an unimportant B-grade movie. Who would have thought that The Blob[ix] (1958) could really be about so much more than a small town terrified by an expanding mass of jelly? The film revealed the emerging cultural shift triggered by a totally new kind of existential threat, and the adults who were incapable of recognizing it. While the fifties are famous for television shows like Father Knows Best[x] (1954-60), it was also the era of James Dean and the Beat Generation, precursors of the sixties counter-culture. Millions of people were tuning out of the square society being handed to them. In The Blob, a new genre emerges – that of the youth who must save themselves and the world while authority figures snooze and fumble in the face of a new threat they can’t even recognize.
Jacobs’ coverage is limited in this short book to the first two phases of the Cold War – the period of testing fission bombs, and the next period of testing massive hydrogen bombs. The analysis stops at the time when atmospheric testing ended, almost entirely, in 1963. Of course, the Cold War didn’t end then. Weapons testing moved underground, both literally, and figuratively in the collective subconscious. It was out of sight and out of mind, but the existential threat never went away. There would be a shortcoming in Jacobs’ book only if it left some readers with the impression that the story was over when the baby boomers grew up and the Cold War came to its conclusion in 1991. In future studies, we can hope that Jacobs will apply his talents to a book about the culture of more recent nuclear history.
In the present age we are preoccupied with the ecological crisis, and we’ve grown complacent about the threat of nuclear war. It didn’t happen during the worst crisis in 1962, so we have mistakenly assumed that we’ve figured out a way to avoid the worst in every scenario that might arise. As the Cold War heated up in the 1980s, there were new films about nuclear threats such as War Games[xi] (1983), The Day After[xii] (1983, which is credited with changing President Reagan’s thinking about nuclear deterrence, which led to drastic reductions in Soviet and American stockpiles[xiii]), Special Bulletin[xiv] (1983), and Threads[xv] (1984). These confronted mass audiences (after a two-decade lull) again with serious messages about the futility of possessing nuclear weapons. Since then the message seems to have stalled. Nuclear weapons in subsequent films showed the planet-saving meteor-buster of Armageddon[xvi] (1998), or the terrorist’s ticking time bomb defused by agent Jack Bauer in 24[xvii] (2001-2010). This is the most that popular culture can come up with while we live with the aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear waste that has nowhere to go, and proliferation risks that are inextricably linked to an energy industry believed by some to be the solution to global warming.
Another false impression that readers might get from The Dragon’s Tail is an understanding that nuclear catastrophe was avoided only because of bottom-up resistance that drew its inspiration from popular culture. Jacobs cannot be blamed for choosing this focus for his book, but there are questions to be asked about how much it was bottom-up pressures that prevented worse outcomes. What influenced Soviet and American leaders to make them realize they had to step back from the brink? When they managed to agree on a moratorium on testing from 1959-60, then on the end of atmospheric testing three years later, they might have been influenced by films like The Blob and The Day the Earth Stood Still[xviii] (1951), or by citizens who had been moved to action by such stories. Another possibility is that it was initiatives by elite intellectuals that opened up East-West dialog and changed thinking in both Washington and Moscow. The Russell-Einstein manifesto of 1955[xix] led to the Pugwash Conferences (in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada) where top Western and Soviet scientists met for the first time. It’s also possible that the enormous expense and danger of the nuclear buildup was so obvious that Khrushchev and Kennedy didn’t need rocket scientists or science fiction writers to tell them it couldn’t go on. Then again, it’s just as likely that the worst was averted only because of luck and chance decisions like the one made by the captain of a Soviet submarine who decided in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis that, despite the pressure on him to press the button, he didn’t want to start World War III.[xx]
None of this quibbling is to take away from what Robert Jacobs has achieved with his study of the culture of the early Cold War era. The Dragon’s Tail serves as an excellent point of entry for anyone who wants to learn about this field and related aspects of the nuclear age.

Endnotes



[i] Arundhati Roy, Pokharan: The End of Imagination, Dianuke.org, May 2013. Originally published elsewhere in 1998. http://www.dianuke.org/pokharan-the-end-of-imagination-arundhati-roy/.

[ii] Robert A. Jacobs, The Dragon’s Tail: Americans Face the Atomic Age (University of Massachusetts Press, 2010). Japanese publication: Robert Jacobs (author),Takahashi, Hiroko (editor), Nitta, Jun (translator), Kaku no Anzen Shinwa to Amerika no Taishu Bunka (Gaifusha, 2013). ロバート・A・ジェイコブズ (), 高橋 博子 (監修), 新田  (翻訳)ドラゴン・テール――核の安全神話とアメリカの大衆文化. 凱風社 (2013/4/22).

[iii] Annie Jacobsen, Area 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base (Back Bay Books, 2012).

[iv] Chris Carter (producer), The X-Files, 20th Century Fox Television, 1993-2002.

[v] Jane Loader, Kevin Rafferty, Pierce Rafferty (directors), The Atomic Cafe, Libra Films, 1982.

[vi] Stanley Kubrick (director), Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Columbia Pictures,1964.

[vii] John Meredyth Lucas, James E. Moser (directors), Flash of Darkness (episode title, aired February 1955) in Medic, (television series, aired 1954-1956), NBC Television, Timeless Media Group DVD release: 2011.

[viii] Rod Serling (creator and director), The Shelter (episode title, aired September 1961) The Twilight Zone, CBS Television, 1959-1964. Nuclear holocaust was a recurring theme of the series in other episodes such as A Little Peace and Quiet and Shelter Skelter (from the 1985 series of the same name).

[ix] Irvin Yeaworth (director), The Blob, Paramount Pictures, 1958.

[x] Peter Tewksbury (director), Father Knows Best, CBC Television, 1954-1960.

[xi] John Badham (director), War Games, United Artists, 1983.

[xii] Nicholas Meyer (director) The Day After, ABC Television and Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1983.

[xiii] Eric Schlosser, Command and Control (Penguin Random House, 2013), p. 451.

[xiv] Edward Zwick (director), Special Bulletin, NBC Television, 1983.

[xv] Mick Jackson (director) Threads, BBC, 1983.

[xvi] Michael Bay (director), Armageddon, Touchstone Pictures, 1998.

[xvii] Joel Surnow, Robert Cochrane (creators), 24, 20th Century Fox, 2001-2010.

[xviii] Robert Wise (director), The Day the Earth Stood Still, 20th Century Fox, 1951.

[xix] Josehph Rotblat, “The 50-Year Shadow,” The New York Times, May 17, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17Rotblat.html?ex=1270785600&en=37bef79604f97228&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&_r=2&

[xx] Edward Wilson, “Thank you Vasili Arkhipov, the man who stopped nuclear war,” The Guardian, October 27, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-stopped-nuclear-war.