Pax Christi Minnesota

Thoughts on Nuclear Proliferation

By Malini DeSilva

Since I recently finished my third year of medical school and have begun working on a public health degree, health is a topic I think of often. So, when I started to think about what I would talk about tonight, it seemed natural that whatever topic I chose, the health effects of nuclear proliferation should be incorporated.  As I started looking into current issues related to nuclear proliferation, I was surprised to find that environmentalists have recently been some of the most outspoken proponents of nuclear energy.  Tonight I am going to talk about the reemergence of nuclear power and how this relates to studies of the effects of radiation on human life. 

The Green Revolution, which is taking the US by storm, has been touting Nuclear energy as the solution to global warming. This form of energy is being billed as safe, cost-effective, and emissions free and the use of nuclear power is a part of many of the 2008 presidential candidates’ proposed energy plans. Environmentalists recruited in the nuclear push include James Lovelock, a well-respected environmental scientist. He recently made a statement that because of the environmental benefits, he would, “Welcome high-level nuclear waste in my backyard.” Even if nuclear power plants have reduced emissions making them appear more environmentally friendly than other sources of energy we currently have, this statement seemed a bit reckless to me because of the long-term problems of nuclear waste disposal, environmental pollution, and known and potential health risks associated with nuclear facilities.  There is a lack of long-term studies about the health effects of populations living near and working at nuclear power plants, however, we are aware of health and environmental problems that have taken place near other types of nuclear facilities. 

Throughout the United States, remnants of our very pro-nuclear past that have seeped into the present. In locations near current and former nuclear weapons manufacturing and testing sites, the long-term effects of radiation and nuclear spills have begun to be realized.  At the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state, one of the facilities that manufactured materials used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, nuclear waste was found to be leaching out of underground storage basins towards the Columbia River.  This area is currently the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site and the clean-up is expected to last until 2030 and cost more than $50 billion.  While this facility was used for nuclear weapons manufacturing and not nuclear energy production, the problem of nuclear waste disposal that has plagued the Hanford site is shared by the 103 nuclear power plants that currently exist in the US.  In other parts of the world, problems with nuclear energy facilities are also being realized. In the middle of July, an earthquake in Japan led to a low-level radioactive waste leak at a nuclear energy facility. Although we have limited information about the health consequences of people living and working in these nuclear power plants, there is a large body of information from long-term studies of populations exposed to atomic bomb radiation that are applicable to these facilities as well. 

The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established in Hiroshima in 1947 and in Nagasaki in 1948 to provide a comprehensive epidemiological and genetic study of atomic bomb survivors.  This was replaced by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) in 1975 which is an U.S.-Japan Joint Commission that continues to study the medical effects of atomic bomb radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The study population includes 200,000 people living up to 10 km away from the bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The geographic range of the project has enabled researchers to study the effects of both high dose and low-dose radiation exposure on populations. In the 60 years since the commission was founded, in addition to showing links between radiation exposure and cancer, immune deficiencies, and multiple other adverse health events, study results have provided regulatory commissions around the world with information to set standards for protection against medical and occupational exposures to radiation.  Unfortunately, further information that could be gleaned from the continued surveillance and study of the populations directly affected by the dropping of the atomic bombs is in jeopardy, as funding for the foundation continues to be cut by the US government.

Albert Einstein once said, “Concern for man himself and his fate must always be the chief interest of all technical endeavors… In order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind.” It is likely that he was speaking specifically about nuclear technology, which he helped pioneer.  The work of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation allows us to directly study the fate of man when confronted with effects of nuclear reactions.  While it may be possible for nuclear energy to replace the fossil-fuel based world in which we currently live, only a lapse of reason would allow this to happen without continuing to study the effects of radiation on human health. We are not able to change the events of our past, but we are able to learn from them. Continuation of the research started by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation is one way that we can learn from the loss of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and hopefully make changes for the future.

As we float the lanterns tonight, let us remember the effects of nuclear proliferation are not isolated incidents in our history but have long-term consequences which drift their way into our future.

Malini is a medical student at Mayo Medical School.  She is also currently obtaining her Master of Public Health at the University of Minnesota.  Malini shared her speech at the annual Peace Lantern Float Ceremony on August 5, 2007 in Rochester.