Shut down Indian Point!

Sumiteru Taniguchi, a boy of 16, was delivering mail on his bicycle on the day when the atomic
bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. He had severe burns, mostly on his back, for which he
underwent several surgeries. For several months, lying on his stomach, he says that he begged to
be killed. He also says that he cursed all parents, and those who fought in the war, and those
who failed to oppose the war. Despite more than 70 years of pain due to his burns, he may be
considered one of the more fortunate survivors of World War II. For decades, until his death on
30 August 2017, he was a prominent opponent of nuclear weapons. It may be assumed that he
never had any blood of innocents on his hands. He never again saw his country wage war. He
had time to remember and condemn Japanese propaganda telling them that Japan would win, and
that winning was right.

Many people today would not be forgiving of the people that Mr. Taniguchi condemned, on the
basis of the latter’s belief in the divinity of the emperor, the righteousness of Japan, etc. Do we
believe that we could prove our innocence, if an accident or an attack on Indian Point Energy
Center rendered a large area radioactive, and caused cancer and premature deaths for decades to
come?

I grew up in a country that had no nuclear power plants, and reached maturity before the
Chernobyl disaster. I never bought into the mixture of religion and ideology that some
Americans were exposed to since childhood (about the U.S. being favored by God, about the
‘American system’ being the envy of the world, about nuclear technology making it possible for
humankind to ‘colonize space’, etc.). Despite having spent more than 29 years in the U.S., and
with genuine compassion for present and future victims of U.S. policies, I do not believe that
adherence to any set of values can justify the kind of gambles that nuclear weapons and nuclear
energy entail.

Elsewhere, I try to address some pros and cons of ‘progress’, or various contending progressive
strategies. In the context of nuclear energy, and our continuing reliance on fossil fuels, I believe
that many people with different viewpoints can agree that we are causing far too much pollution,
wasting too many nonrenewable resources, working too many hours, and not even creating better
social environments for future generations.

Both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were faits accompli; they were not publicly argued for
in advance. Even in some of the countries that adopted nuclear technology, the decisions were
made ‘from above’. Whatever ‘defense’ is offered after the fact should be evaluated in this
context. One argument for Indian Point (IPEC) is that it provides up to 15 % or more of the
energy for New York area, and that shutting it down would force the prices up. The figures are
subject to dispute; however, it is undeniable that a nuclear disaster in this area would cause far
more harm, in health and in economic terms, than any ‘harm’ that an immediate shutdown can
cause.
I, for one, do not believe that it was a good idea to build as much within the New York area in the
first place. I also think that far too much of the world’s wealth is stored (in art treasures, etc.) in
this area, and far too much of the world’s ‘economy’ is controlled from here. Many critics of
nuclear power rightly point to feasible energy alternatives. I am not afraid to consider options
other than simply switching between ‘providers’. Some of us are ready to use less energy
overall, producing fewer of certain ‘goods’, working fewer hours, and repurposing more of what
is already here (including our free time). In other words, our present level of energy use per
capita should not be taken for granted. Also, it would not necessarily be more painful to move
more than 20 % of the people living in this area to other states in the U.S. (and elsewhere), and
do so in peace time, on an unhurried schedule, than to try to evacuate a far larger number of
people in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster!

Some may think that it is unfair to take for granted that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima
are in the cards for each and every nuclear reactor. I am prepared to concede that. Then again,
this is not how one should read the precautionary principle. Undeniably, much progress was
made throughout history by some people who took serious risks. However, we can make a lot
more progress, and in many different directions, if we, collectively, embrace higher safety
standards, and choose never to risk the likelihood of harm that we cannot compensate for, and/or
to clean up afterwards.

We rely on many other species to generate our nutrients and our oxygen; we benefit from
countless bacteria to help digest our food, and defend us against pathogens; bacteria clean up our
solid waste… Living among millions of species most of which evolve a lot faster than us, we
must recognize the possibility of benefiting from cautious withdrawal from certain ecosystems,
and we must be more prepared to learn from other species.

The opposition to nuclear energy is a global struggle, and there is need for global collaboration
and oversight. That said, we must recognize the singular risks involved in each (proposed) site.
The Hudson River and its basin are a unique ecosystem that holds enormous promise despite
centuries of human assault. In addition to depicting nightmare scenarios, we should try to
imagine benefits from a ‘humbler’ human existence in this region, choosing to be servants and
students of the flora and the fauna.

[To be continued. This document is not copyrighted. Distribute freely, but in full.]

Anseynol (a.k.a. Seyn Laproyen)

Feb. 2018, New York.