Nuclear Power: the Future is Fearful
The following piece by Jill Sutcliffe is reproduced from Shrew : Feminism and Nonviolence, Summer 1978. Available from Lynn Blackmore, Some Friends Community, 128
Bethnal Green Road, London E2, England. (40 pence plus postage). Jill was a member of a study group on feminism and nonviolence which put together this issue of Shrew. In her article she looks at the links between feminist practice and a non-nuclear future.
If you are speaking to a wholly female audience it is of little use to discuss the scarcity of mercury or uranium, when using oil or water would result in a far more personal appraisal.
(Friends of the Earth Campaign Manual)
It's a common assumption made by men and internalised by women - that women cannot grasp scientific, mechanical or technical ideas. While trying to write about nuclear power, many women I spoke to felt unable to assess its future impact because they "didn't understand it".
Another gap in our feminist thinking is, I feel, in the area of "futures". While at a mixed conference a few years ago. I went to a workshop on "Utopian Futures". For most of the time it was composed of 12 men and me. The futures discussed - fantasy and otherwise - concentrated on factories, cities and social theory from the men, and alternatives to the family and domestics from me. Later I learned that most of the women had gone to the other workshop, a "here and now" practical discussion. But can we safely leave the future to the men?
Act of death becomes fact of life
I think we must try to overcome these blocks and think about the future; and that means thinking about nuclear power, because however remote it feels it is, in fact, already here. Whether we like it or not, 10-15% of Britain's electricity is now nuclear generated. There is a lot of disagreement about nuclear power, but everyone agrees that radiation is harmful. Uranium miners suffer an appalling rate of lung cancer, and nuclear power stations - which are essentially a refined form of the atomic bomb - inevitably produce radioactive waste materials, including plutonium, the most poisonous substance known. The radiations from these materials can kill instantly; they can produce various kinds of cancer that may take years to show up; and they can cause genetic damage that may not appear for generations. Some of the wastes can stay radioactive
for thousands, even millions, of years and they are being produced right now.
The method of disposal of these wastes will have to be permanent and infallible. The consequences of a major nuclear accident would be so frightful that there must be no mistakes either in the process itself or in the transportation of fuel or waste materials, or in the actual method of disposal, through human error, technical fault, sabotage or act of war. But accidents do happen; there have already been deaths at Windscale and Dounreay; there have been terrorist threats, leakages and thefts and these wastes are being produced when there is NO foolproof permanent method of disposal for them ...
Police State
As worrying for me, are the security measures that will be needed to protect these radioactive materials. Nuclear plants are already patrolled by armed guards with more powers than the police, and are staffed by a handful of specialist operators subject to very stringent security vetting. A veil of secrecy surrounds reports on safety, health and safeguards, and shipments of fuel and wastes go under armed guard.
As the number of plants increases, these measures will multiply surveillance of workers and infiltration of groups which might want to get their hands on nuclear materials (especially plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons). Power stations will become armed camps with military type security. A report published in America ( 1) states that in the event of a "nuclear incident" people would support the use of torture of dissidents. It's one danger that the Press hardly mentions - that reliance on nuclear technology means a totalitarian regime.
The main issue stressed by the media is the risk of "terrorists" getting hold of the material - as if it was not already held by "terrorists" holding other countries and the world to ransom! The blackmail is: we must have nuclear power to supply our energy needs; we have to arm guards to protect the stuff; when the uranium fuel runs out we must switch to plutonium; if the power station workers strike we send in the Army; if there are not enough workers we shall have to conscript; we must have Progress. there can be no turning back ...
So why is such a fearful future being pursued? With the prospect of exhausting coal and oil reserves, and the need to lessen dependence on Middle East oil suppliers, nuclear power was seen as the "cheap" answer to industry's energy needs, the side effects could be seen to later. However, uranium, the fuel of all existing nuclear power stations, is itself being used up, and may even run out before coal and oil! The major threats to world peace come from the "overdeveloped" countries protecting their supplies of cheap raw materials; how far are current events in Southern Africa being determined by that country's large uranium deposits?
Science and technology are predominantly male enclaves around which a number of myths have accumulated; one myth is that lay people can't understand and the information we're given - or lack of it - often ensures that we can't. Thus more and more decisions affecting all our lives are left to the scientific "experts", who frequently do not consider social, political or ecological factors at all. The more complex technology gets, the harder it is for ordinary people to get information or to exercise control over their own lives and power becomes increasingly centralised.
But despite the many dangers of dependence on nuclear power, no other alternatives have been seriously considered. A whole range of systems exist which are small-scale, safe, decentralised and which use renewable sources of energy,e.g wind, sun and water power. However, the money put aside for research into these sources is negligible compared to the nuclear budget.
Alternative scenario
It is here that I see a clear link between feminist practice and a non-nuclear future. Low technology systems should be easier to understand and would give people more control over their own lives, while questioning existing fuel policies means questioning the very basis of our society.
The switch to nuclear power is based on a projected increase of demand for energy; but do we need to use so much energy? How many of our present "needs" have been manufactured by the advertisers to secure profits for the produce? Wall-to-wall gadgetry with built in obsolescence; when it's worn out chuck it out? Is this the rationale for taking such a lethal course as nuclear power? What expectations are we in turn creating for the Third World? Shopping has become a form of mass entertainment with women as prime targets. Will the throwaway mentality end by turning the world into a nuclear dustbin? What an apt monument to this white male society and its values so destructive of life and the environment!
At Wyhl in Germany, in 1975, protesters occupied a proposed nuclear site; women brought snacks and spent whole days there with their children, knitting and crocheting. The action brought about a big change in attitudes; women were not staying at home and leaving matters to the men; when women's meetings were organised they had a tremendous response.
"Faced by armed and helmeted police, women called out: "Look here, we cannot talk to you while you're wearing those helmets. Take them off and we'll talk. We aren't revolutionaries in the pay of some power or outside agitators. We're women thinking of our future and our children's future. Take off those silly uniforms and join us. What do you need those riot sticks for? Are you going to use them on our daughters?"
Two companies of police, defying orders from their headquarters then refused to take action against the demonstrators.
On March 31, Annemarie Sacherer, a woman from a vinegrowing family, addressed 16,000 people at Wyhl: "The women from the Kaiserstuhl are united in a common cause. They have said: politics and the quality of life are not solely the concern of men. It is obvious to everyone at the moment that the health of our families and the future of our children are at stake. These last months have shown us that we are on the right path. We have not forgotten the thalidomide tragedy. We all know what happened to the deformed children and their families; their silence has been bought by the manufacturers. So that we shall not suffer a similar fate, we must defend ourseloves against the nuclear power industry which puts our health at risk. "(2)
1. Report on the impact of Plutonium on Civil Liberties by John Barton, Univ. of Stanford Law School
2 Article by Solange Fernex, Nonviolence Triumphant in The Ecologist, December 1975.