Doctor sounds alarm on risks of nuclear energy

`It looks as though all Africa might be gone in a week or so ... It seems to go quite quickly at the end, so far as we can ascertain. It's a bit difficult, because when more than half the people in a place are dead, the communications usually go out, and then you don't quite know what's happening."

So says a character in "On the Beach," Nevil Shute's 1957 novel in which, following a nuclear war, every person on Earth is dead or dying.

Preposterous? Dr. Helen Caldicott does not think so. She read the book as a girl growing up in Melbourne, Australia. Unlike many of us, she had the good sense to be frightened by the story, finding it all too plausible.

"I was 15 and lived in Melbourne where the book was set," she recalls. "A nuclear war began by accident, killing all the world's people, and the population of Melbourne was the last to die."

She has never stopped being frightened of that scenario. In 1971, she played a major role in opposing French atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific. A decade later, she left Harvard University, where she had been an instructor in pediatrics, to work full time on the prevention of nuclear horror, whether by war or accident.

Co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the recipient of 19 honorary degrees, Dr. Caldicott was named by the Smithsonian Institution as one of the most influential women of the 20th century.

In an appearance sponsored by more than 20 Southern California groups, Dr. Caldicott will deliver a lecture, "The Presidential Campaign and the Fate of the Earth," from 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday at the First Congregational Church, 241 Cedar Ave., in downtown Long Beach.

The free event is open to the public.

Meanwhile, via the Internet, I was able to do a question-and-answer exchange with Dr. Caldicott earlier this week. It went like this:

Q: As I was coming of age, we seemed to have the nuclear heebie-jeebies. There were duck-and-cover exercises in schools. The so-called Doomsday Clock was ticking away. But we no longer see that fear. What has changed?

A: The fear has certainly abated, but the danger, if anything, has increased since that time. Society as a whole is practicing psychic numbing.

Q. You have said the United States is the most dangerous country in the world in terms of nuclear policy. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

A. Because the U.S. processes more hydrogen bombs than any other country and because it has an official policy to fight and "win" a nuclear war against Russia. Its weapons are on hair-trigger alert and presidents (George) Bush and (Vladimir) Putin (now prime minister) have only a three-minute decision time to launch.

Of the 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, the U.S. and Russia own 97 percent.

Q. Please describe briefly, if that is possible, the Bush administration's policy on nuclear power. Is it more dangerous than the policies of Iraq and North Korea?

A. Nuclear power is a grave public health danger, far worse than tobacco. Over time, it will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease in all future generations from the massive quantities of radioactive waste currently being generated.

Therefore, it is dangerous in any country that possesses it. Reactors also manufacture 500 pounds of plutonium per year, fuel for potentially 100 nuclear weapons. Any country possessing a reactor owns a bomb factory. Plutonium remains radioactive for 500,000 years.

Q. Your critics say you are behind the times. They say nuclear plants can now safely provide us with emission-free electricity and that spent fuel can be reprocessed and reused as renewable fuel. Please comment.

A. Nuclear power is not emission free. This is a mendacious statement. The nuclear fuel chain from uranium mining, reparation of land, fuel enrichment and fabrication, reactor construction and decommissioning, and transport and storage of massive amounts of radioactive fuel over 500,000 years involves much fossil fuel.

With one or two decades, as the available uranium ore declines in usable concentrations, a nuclear reactor will collectively, therefore, produce as much CO2 as a similar sized natural gas electricity generator. Also, reactors continually emit radioactive gases and elements into the air and water as they operate.

Hence, it is medically dangerous to live near a nuclear power plant because you or your children are at risk of inhaling or ingesting radioactive elements which are carcinogenic. Locally grown fruit and vegetables also bio-concentrate these elements.

Q. Why is the reuse of spent fuel dangerous?

A. The reuse of spent fuel is catastrophically dangerous. It means separating plutonium from the radioactive waste, fabricating it into fuel rods and fueling a reactor with 5 to 15 tons of plutonium, which is cooled by liquid sodium, a highly reactive explosive material.

As 10 pounds of plutonium is critical mass, and as less than one millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, a loss of the volatile coolant could induce a massive nuclear explosion which could be seen from the moon, scattering deadly plutonium to the four winds.

I refer you to my book, "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer to Global Warming."

Q. John McCain has set a goal of 445 new nuclear reactors by 2030. Does this alarm you?

A. Extremely. He is clearly scientifically and medically ignorant.

Q. Barack Obama, meanwhile, says he will find ways to safely harness nuclear power. Is this possible?

A. No.

Q. Why do some European countries seem unafraid to use nuclear power.

A. Because they are governed by scientifically and medically ignorant politicians who are manipulated by the powerful nuclear industry. They forget Chernobyl even though 40 percent of European land mass is still radioactive and will remain so for 600 years. Hence, some European food is radioactive.

Q. Finally, please comment on Iran's quest for nuclear power.

A. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium for nuclear power. In fact, it is encouraged to do so by the world nuclear establishment. Israel has 200 to 400 nuclear weapons and as such is setting a very dangerous example for the Middle East.

Only if the major nuclear nations move rapidly towards bilateral, multilateral nuclear disarmament will they, by example, have the moral authority to discipline and cajole other small countries not to build nuclear weapons.

Tom Hennessy's column usually appears Sundays. The interview with Dr. Caldicott appears today in order to accommodate her upcoming appearance in Long Beach. The Hennessy column will resume its regular Sunday schedule Oct. 19. He can be reached at (562) 499-1270 or by e-mail at

Join the Conversation