Rid the world of nuclear weapons, waste

by Julia Lutsky

This article was reprinted from the February 8, 1997 issue of the People's Weekly World. For subscription information see below. All rights reserved - may be used with PWW credits.

The atom bombs dropped by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II marked the opening of the nuclear era. It was only a matter of time before the USSR successfully developed and tested an atom bomb and nuclear power became the queen piece in their global chess game.

As each side demonstrated a weapon or capacity, the other claimed it needed more money for "defense." Ronald Reagan was probably the first to articulate the successful U.S. policy of defeating the Soviet Union by outspending it. When told the policy would likewise bankrupt the United States, he is said to have responded with a laugh, "Yes, but they will go broke first!"

The Cold War is over now but nuclear armaments remain with us; military contractors who grew rich on the arms buildup do not willingly relinquish their fortunes. This year, according to the Brookings Institute, total U.S. nuclear weapons spending will exceed $34 billion. Older more clumsy weapons remain in stockpiles - decaying and dangerous; today's nuclear weapons are so small they can be assembled by a proficient nuclear physicist - or a terrorist.

The continued buildup of nuclear arsenals was denounced last December by General Lee Butler (ret.), Commander-in-Chief U.S. SAC (1991-94), at the National Press Club in Washington: "The terror-induced anesthesia which suspended rational thought, made nuclear war thinkable and grossly excessive arsenals possible during the Cold War is gradually wearing off. A renewed appreciation of the obscene power of a single nuclear weapon is coming back into focus as we confront the dismal prospect of nuclear terror at the micro level ... [Is] the world better served by a prolonged era of cautious nuclear weapons reductions toward some indeterminate endpoint ... or by an unequivocal commitment on the part of the nuclear powers to move with much greater urgency toward the goal of eliminating these arsenals in their entirety[?] I use this forum to make my most direct public case for elimination as the goal, to be pursued with all deliberate speed." He was speaking on behalf of 60 top generals and admirals from 17 countries.

Some progress has been made in this direction during the last year: In July, the World Court at The Hague gave the advisory opinion that the threat or use of nuclear weapons violates international law and that nations are therefore obliged to work toward their complete elimination. In August the Canberra Commission's report on the elimination of nuclear weapons presented a plan for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In September the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) banning further nuclear testing of nuclear weapons was signed at the United Nations.

In October Malaysia introduced a resolution at the General Assembly of the United Nations calling for a Convention to abolish nuclear arms. And in December, General Butler spoke at the Press Conference in Washington.

The dawn of the nuclear age had a peaceful side too - the generation of cheap and abundant power. Nuclear plants sprang up as technology developed to utilize the new found capacity of the atom. The indestructible and lethal waste produced by these plants was stored haphazardly near the sites of the plants themselves; permanent resting places for it could await the development of the technology necessary to build them. Then, in 1979, escaping radiation from the explosion at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant put the lives of thousands in danger. Plans for future plants were revised or dropped altogether: nuclear power brought with it the danger of contamination and death.

In 1986 the era of nuclear power ended when Chernobyl exploded in what is today Ukraine. Nuclear power plants remain - but there will be no new ones. The bright future of cheap energy from the atom is over and nuclear waste mounts in dumps throughout the land. It is carted from plant to dump by truck secretly so as to avoid publicity - and the possibility of hijack.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently looking into the means to be taken to dispose of 50 tons of plutonium left in cold war nuclear weapon stockpiles. Plutonium is not a natural element. It is created by human skill and effort - and it is indestructible. The presence of gallium in the plutonium complicates its disposition even further. Originally added to keep the plutonium stable over wide ranges of temperature, gallium generates large amounts of radioactive wastewater if it is removed using current known methods - and it must be removed.

The DOE has decided that some of the plutonium should be mixed with uranium and used as fuel - called Mixed Oxide or MOx - in existing nuclear power plants. Gallium interferes with the conversion itself and causes chemical problems when the MOx is used. The remainder of the plutonium is to be mixed with radioactive waste and "vitrified" into glass at a plant in South Carolina which already processes nuclear waste.

At the high temperatures required to mix plutonium with glass any gallium present becomes a gas which adheres to the sides of the furnace leaving behind a permanent radioactive metal coating. Neither procedures reduces the amount of plutonium: one makes use of it but creates more nuclear waste; the other simply makes it useless for reconversion to weapons.

It is clear that if we do not rid ourselves of the idea that nuclear power is the future we will destroy life and contaminate the planet for millions of years to come. Nuclear waste remains - and may be the greatest environmental problem with which we are faced in the new century.