Imaginary Fears
James Lovelock
James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory and inventor of the electron capture detector (which made possible the detection of CFCs and other atmospheric nano-pollutants) has always been a strong and outspoken supporter of nuclear energy – and a person whose ideas I have the deepest respect for.
In the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the consequent damage to some of the Japanese nuclear plants, I asked James if he had reconsidered his stance on nuclear – if his opinions had changed.
In reply, he sent me an email outlining his reaction to the tragedy and, in particular, the reaction of the world’s press and the actions taken by many governments.
In James’ own words:
The reactions of the media and of Green lobbies to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami are in my opinion obscene.
The facts are these: There was an earthquake at the Richter 9 scale, which is about as bad as can ever be. It was followed one hour later by a tsunami with a height of 60 feet.
All 54 nuclear plants in Japan, including the five at Fukushima, shut down in an orderly manner immediately the earthquake occurred. Those at Fukushima were close to the Pacific Ocean and were overwhelmed by the tsunami wave. The reactors were designed to withstand such a wave and did so. Unfortunately, five out of six of the diesel engine back up electrical power supplies were put out of action; because of this it was not possible to pump cooling water to the shutdown but still hot reactors. Two of these reactors suffered a meltdown of their fuel, but the molten material was safely contained in the reactor vessel as its design required. Later, sea water was pumped into the damaged reactors to cool them further; this worked but the steam pressure inside the reactor vessel rose to levels that required the engineers to allow some steam to escape to the air. This carried some radioactive material with it, particularly volatile elements such as iodine. The total escape was about one fiftieth that from Chernobyl. No one was killed in the Fukushima disaster and no one in the neighbourhood of Fukushima has been injured by the escape of radioactive materials; some of the plant workers may have received doses well above normal safety limits, but no deaths or injuries have been reported.
Had Fukushima been a chemical plant and the accident allowed the escape of a small quantity of toxic gas, and if no one was hurt or killed, we would probably not have heard about it. But such is the fear of nuclear radiation and a fear endlessly stoked by the Media, Green lobbies and ignorant politicians, that a local event such as Fukushima became a global scare. What is inexcusable about this tiny event in the Japanese tragedy is the way that the media have used it to sell their stories and the politicians cravenly used public fear to justify closing their perfectly safe power stations. This act immediately increases the flow of carbon dioxide to the air. Carbon dioxide is a substance that, unlike the minute quantities of radioactivity, will if we do not see sense kill most of us.
How could we ignore the huge suffering of the Japanese people in their earthquake ordeal and instead spend days of media time wallowing in wholly imaginary fears as unreal and stupid as those of vampires, malign ghosts and Dracula. The earthquake and tsunami death toll was 23,000 and 500,000 Japanese have lost their homes. Bad as we have been, at least we in this Island can be proud that we did not behave like the Germans and Italians who shut down their nuclear power, nor as asinine as the Los Angles citizens who purchased the entire stock of potassium iodide, an antidote to radioactive iodine they falsely feared would blow upon them from Japan.
Sincerely,
Jim Lovelock
I totally agree with James Lovelock on this issue. Hysteria seems to replace rational thinking when it comes to the use of nuclear power! There was more hysteria reported even yesterday about a nuclear reactor near the epicenter of the Virginia earthquake that was not damaged or affected in any way. As far as political leaders are concerned, most just want to drill and dig up more resources from the earth with seemingly no concern for the environmental impact caused by these actions. We seem to be intent on destroying the earth with no regard for the future! Thank you Vivienne for sharing your letter with us and therefore bringing light to this issue.
Jeffrey Jordan
Comment by Jeffrey Jordan on 24/08/2011 at 4:21 pm
As per usual the media, as James says quite rightly, uses it’s power in society to cause panic and fear by informing the masses with incorrect and often fragmented information. The problem we have is not necessarily that the media portrays issues in this way, but that the public are so passive in the way they learn about current affairs. If they too had been worried enough to look into the issue in detail they would know what James has outlined here.
We are not in a situation where we can shut down power supplies, especially ones which are much better for the environment than fossil fuel sources. This combined with the Imaginary Fears of the public surrounding the use of nuclear energy is making the predicament of the human race in terms of climate change so much more perilous. If people cannot be willing to use power which has the ability to reduce carbon emissions, then what hope is there for the planet in the future at all?
Comment by James Emmett on 24/08/2011 at 7:30 pm
Looking at it logically. On the cost side of Germany’s nuclear shutdown we have a quantity of CO2 produced, tiny in the context of worldwide total emissions. On the benefit side we have one of the richest, most technologically advanced nations fully committed to decarbonisation without resort to nuclear. This will produce necessary real innovation which is vital because I’m afraid it is entirely possible that the “plug in some nukes and business as usual” approach either isn’t going to happen or isn’t going to work, and no amount of wishful thinking or sneering at the greens is going to help. So what is the problem with a genuine, full on exploration of other possibilities? If the CO2 from 10 power stations is going to lead to some “tipping point” then in that case we’ve probably had it already, which is in fact what James Lovelock was saying last time I heard him speak. Good to see him on such fine form here, anyway.
Comment by andy on 25/08/2011 at 12:12 am
Hi Vivienne
I’m a freelance writer for South African Elle, Marie Claire and Cosmopolitan. I’m writing a piece on your Ethical Africa Collection and would love to speak to you for it. Is there any chance you’d be available for a quick phone interview at some point next week? If so, perhaps you could drop me a quick email at the above address and I could send you more details on the piece?
Thanks
Tabitha
Comment by Tabitha Lasley on 26/08/2011 at 3:51 pm
Dear Vivenne,
first I want to thank you to give me the opportunity to read Mr Lovelock opinion. I’m Italian and, as was recalled on the letter, we had a great social discussion on the nuclear topic that led to a vote. Important personalities were involved in the discussion and many scientists spoke in favor of nuclear power plants (i.e. Margherita Hack). Italians voted against nuclear power. I know, and never will deny, the vote wasn’t only on atom exploitation: it had a huge political influence.
But here it comes to the meaning point, at least for me. As the letter pointed out, not only the media spread a fuzzy and biased knowledge on the topic, but also the political class seams to be ignorant and to focus only on power, political power, keeping. In this scenario I would vote against nuclear power plants again and again. I know a few on the topic and I know that my knowledge is mostly erroneous (because as said it is kept erroneous). I also know that criminal associations buy and bury tons of dangerous and poisonous waste in the countries or throw them into the sea. Much before thinking whether I want my country to exploit nuclear power, I definitely deny to leave such a powerful and sensible matter to persons I can’t trust (at least because they deliberately misinform me).
This is the point of view of a simple and young citizen, who is quite worried about his future.
p.s.: If you didn’t have the chance to meet or know Margherita Hack, I’d like to recommend her to you, she’s quite revolutionary herself.
Comment by Alessandro on 28/08/2011 at 9:38 pm
Vivienne,
This is a subject matter than is definitely something I need to educate myself on, as I’m not sure if I can formulate an opinion on what i’m seeing just here, but thank you for posting as I can now look into this issue and then formulate an opinion and come back again!
Thank you,
Sam
Comment by Sam Varnham on 29/08/2011 at 11:15 am
I see it as a quite exclusive chance to read J. Lovelock’s recent words, thank you for that. I have been fascinated by the theory of Gaîa, and I believe I am still influenced by the ideas.
Though I think that Lovelocks later embracement of nuclear power as a solution to save the planet is unreasonable.
First it is in conflict with the Gaia theory: why would a kind of pollution be more acceptable than another one? I do not think Gaia likes the spreading of radioactive stuffs, unknown to her realm, all around her body and deep in her flesh.
What Lovelock call “green lobbies” are groups of concerned people, concerned by well fare and livelihood. Did not he mentioned the Nuclear lobby? driven by money I guess, or the stock exchange?
Remember this warning:
President Eisenhower warned the world against the hidden power of what he called the “military-industrial complex” in his “Farewell Address to the Nation” on January 17, 1961:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
The description of the Fukushima accident is quite shocking from the author of the Gaia theory, as if the whole was not relying on the part and tightly interconnected. It is true for a power plant too: a weak part is enough to trigger the big accident. If is not because it is just a small part, that failed, that the whole’s validity should not be questioned. Just the insane are not taken responsible for their whole being.
James Emmett has a good comment: «We are not in a situation where we can shut down power supplies,» and this is a major problem. Do you like to be in that position? The society is built up on the belief of growth, and growth is directly allowed by energy use, and cheap energy. Cheap in monetary terms, unfortunately quite costly in environmental and social impacts. Growth is also based on the denial of negative effects.
The behavior of society is that of addiction and addiction is leading to hysteria, not the hysteria mentioned by Lovelock, but that of being afraid to loose some of material eases of today’s material society. By the way, these material goods being hold by a minority of the world population mainly leaving in the western industrialized countries. (that is us with internet access etc..) are mostly squandered away.
In addition, a more important question, I think, is why do we use energy, before asking what energy to use.
I would not call the people reactions in Los angeles as insane, especially if you have kids you care of!.
Considering the inherent lack of transparency, heavily centralised character and long term danger of nuclear power, I would agree with Alessandro: keep away from that poisonous gift. Give solar access to all!
Even after all these years, the Sun never says to the earth:
“You owe me.”
Look what happens—with a love like that,
it lights the whole sky.
— Hafiz, the Great Sufi Master
In the end a real story of two young sisters. They played in the fields near their home, probably picking flowers, telling stories and creating marvelous worlds. Those candid promising youth could not see anything wrong in these games of those days. They know something else today, with reduced vitality because of a destroyed tyroid. How come? some downfalls of radioactive Iodium on their playground 2000 kilometers away from Tchernobyl.
Comment by Xavier on 15/09/2011 at 2:11 pm
Wow – some really different opinions here. I’ve read everyone’s thoughts and it’s difficult to find flaws in the reasoning on both sides. On balance, I think my own feelings are more in line with James Lovelock’s- if you look at the nuclear industry and the worst disasters that have occurred, these are localised events. The continued use of fossil fuels is a worldwide catastrophe – we need to find alternative energy sources now. If this is a greater reliance on nuclear energy, then the longer term aim must be to find safer alternatives. But we do have a pressing need right now to stop producing carbon – I think that takes precedence over the potential issues with nuclear power.
Comment by Andrew Baker on 14/11/2011 at 1:59 pm
I totally agree Andrew,
We need to swap to the best alternative NOW, instead of still using up all the oil that the world has left.
Yes its a multi-billion money making scheme, but the Government and the WORLD, we can’t eat money !
Sam
Comment by Sam Varnham on 14/11/2011 at 3:20 pm
Thank U 4 sharing the letter…
it seems we always look as single events and their consequences
but avoid looking at the bigger picture…
the nuke reactors.. the cars ..the smoking etc etc
but the biggest pollution is from the wars
the military arms the use of the fuels the chemicals and the human toll and sickness
then add the leaking nuk reactors
the artifical foods
the chemical soaked clothes
pesticides
so u could add thousands of other factors
but in the end
it seems the only thing that matters is MONEY ! and nothing else..
Lets all wake up and unite to Save our Planet EARTH…
Comment by Desert Flower on 22/11/2011 at 6:13 pm