The Boom and Bust of Uranium Towns.
The proponents of Nuclear Power would like to tell you that nuclear energy would solve all our energy problems. But the fact of the matter is that not only do they not solve our problems, they create a permanent underclass of people similar to the notorious Bush "Guest Worker" program or the H1-B program. And that is on top of the problem of where to store the waste so that it is permanently safe and will not contaminate our environment.
The objectives in this debate are simple. Rachael Carson was never anti-pesticide; she pushed for a system where the manufacturers had to prove that their product was safe to use. Our goal is simple -- we should do the same with nuclear energy. The burden of proof should be on the nuclear industry to prove that nuclear energy is safe. The fact of the matter is that people do not want to be bothered with whether what they buy at the store is safe or not. And the same is true with the nuclear plant one mile away.
This month's Mother Jones (pages 11-13) discusses what the workers who actually mine the uranium for the nuclear companies have to go through. Specifically, they focus on the towns of Naturita, Nucla, and Uravan, CO. These are small towns located in southwestern Colorado. These towns are completely dependent on the nuclear energy and are subject to boom and bust. For instance, the populations of Nucla and Naturita were as high as 1,000 each in the 1970's. However, overnight, with the news of the accidents of Three Mile Island and Chernybol, their numbers dropped down to 1,400 between them overnight.
But what happened to them is nothing compared to what happened to Uravan. That town was so contaminated that it was ordered razed, and 80 cancer survivors filed and lost a lawsuit against Union Carbide, although the plaintiffs are still appealing that case.
The article quotes one former worker -- George Gore, who said:
In 1977, I was told by a doctor that I would be dead in two years if I didn't get out of Uranium mining. Almost all of the people I grew up with -- all of them dead. It's one of the tragidies of the Cold War. And now we want to try it again.
And to underscore how completely economically dependent those towns are on the nuclear industry, there are two alternatives -- the local elementary school had to close down, and the nearest alternative employers are the Telluride resorts that are a 60-mile drive back and forth. And that is even longer, considering that you have to make your way through blizzards and winding roads every day.
People should not have to worry whether their job is safe or not. Therefore, the burden of proof should be on the nuclear industry to prove that their product is safe. The burden of proof is on the nuclear industry to solve the storage problems that this entails. The burden of proof is on the nuclear industry to prove that the people actually mining the stuff can do so and not develop severe health problems within two years. That is even worse than CAFO's, which also have a rapid turnover of workers in their industry.
In order for us to support switching to a nuclear economy, the nuclear industry has to solve these problems. As long as workers are dying of premature cancer, they will not be meeting the burden of proof to show that their industry is safe. As things stand now, the nuclear industry is one of the most non-sustainable in the country, given the constant turnover of workers due to health. Therefore, switching to a nuclear energy program would be an act of structural violence of the type that Michael Nagler talks about. You can read my reviews of his work, "Search for a Nonviolent Future" here. It would be an act of violence because it would create situations where people would have to work in slave labor conditions similar to the people that we outsource our jobs to overseas.
For a society to be just, everybody must benefit. As long as there is a situation where there is a permanent underclass of workers in this country, we will not be living up to our ideal of equality and equal opportunity here.
And any arguments based on economic development are based on a false choice. There are plenty of alternatives that are not unsafe. For instance, bringing in a department store or a factory can help with the local economy by creating a pull factor, creating jobs, and expanding the tax base. Wind and solar farms can expand the local tax base and provide revenues for farmers; typically, the company pays the farmer so much to put their wind farm on his property. Developing a strong school can create a pull factor by bringing in young families and young people.
Obamathon
