EDITOR'S COMMENT:

After sending out the post on NukeFree.Org, I received a letter from John White, a long-time NHNE reader, who wished to offer a supportive view of nuclear power. Wrote John:

"Will you allow a counterpoint to the stance of NukeFree.Org? I agree with them on stopping the federal subsidy because I'm against all corporate welfare. But as my commentary states (see below), the nuclear power industry is already saving the butts of millions of people who otherwise would be freezing in the dark. And the criticisms offered by NukeFree.Org are based on leftist politics, not science."

What follows is my response to John's letter and then his short essay in support of nuclear power. If you would like to share your thoughts with John, you can reach him at <JWhite8011@aol.com>. If you would like to share your thoughts with me, you can reach me at <nhne@nhne.org>.

--- David Sunfellow

------------

Hi John,

I can't in good conscience promote nuclear power as a viable source of energy -- especially when it comes to the construction of new plants which, when the real world costs for construction, operation, and long-term waste storage are figured in, make nuclear power far more expensive than other forms of energy, both conventional and alternative. And more dangerous.

That said, I do think nuclear energy deserves to be acknowledged for the contribution it has made -- and continues to make -- to help us transition to more Earth and people-friendly forms of energy. Because of your personal familiarity with nuclear power, because of the valid points you make, and because of your stature in the spiritual/alternative-minded community, I'll share your letter with other NHNE readers. Since this is not an issue I want to spend time debating or moderating, I will, however, need to include a way for readers to contact you about your perspective. Do you have an email address I can include with your "New Age Or Nuclear Age" piece?

Concerning: "And the criticisms offered by NukeFree.Org are based on leftist politics, not science."

This, as far as I know, is not true. The research I've done suggests all of the concerns NukeFree.Org itemize are legitimate: a concern for tax-payer corporate funding, the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to terrorist attacks and human error, the exceedingly embarrassing (and dangerous) problem of nuclear waste containment, transportation, and disposal, and the sad (albeit enlightened) fact that no private insurance company will underwrite nuclear power plants. I also think they make a valid point by suggesting that investing in more nuclear power plants now would siphon resources -- money, attention, and a sense of urgency -- away from the developing viable alternative sources of energy.

Anyway, send me an email address that folks can use to express their support and/or contrary points of view and I'll share your thoughts on this important topic...

David

--------------

NEW AGE OR NUCLEAR AGE?
By John White
<JWhite8011@aol.com>

"How can you, a New Age advocate and spiritual teacher, favor nuclear weapons and nuclear power?" I've been asked that by critics of them. Here's my answer.

When I began working for a nuclear utility in 1981, I was hired partly because of my background as a nuclear weapons officer in the Navy during the Vietnam era. (I'm now retired.) My naval training showed me the horror of those weapons, up close and personal. I've literally had my finger on the red button which could launch fiery kilotons of death to submarine crews -- men whom, if I met them today at a social function, I'd probably like very much, despite differing ideologies. I long for the day when global politics will safely allow the world to disarm and eradicate all nuclear weapons.

And likewise for nuclear power, although I don't mean to imply I have a horror of it. Quite the opposite. Nuclear weapons are designed to be destructive; nuclear power is designed to be constructive. Yet no one can deny there are problems associated with nuclear power plants, so if a safer, cheaper form of electric generation someday allows us to phase out nuclear power, well, that will be fine with me. One Chernobyl is enough. Until then, however, nuclear weapons and nuclear power remain necessary for the security and well-being of America.

I'll elaborate.

My attitude toward nuclear-generated electric power was formed during the winter of 1978. Prior to that, I was uncertain about it, even with my nuclear weapons background. The late '70s was a time of oil embargoes and energy crises. There was loud debate across the land, raising some doubts in my mind.

Then in February 1978, most of New England was shut down by a nor'easter which dropped several feet of snow over the countryside. A three-day state of emergency was declared in Connecticut, where I live. Thanks to the region's nuclear generation capability, power continued flowing to homes and businesses. My family and I, in our all-electric home, stayed snug and warm while the Midwest, with its coal-fired plants, experienced brownouts and blackouts because coal piles were frozen solid and rivers were so iced over that coal barges couldn't get in. For the Northeast, nuclear power carried the day, as it has many times since then.

So in both those aspects of applied nuclear physics -- weapons and power plants—I say "Go, nukes!" but with those limiting conditions on my approval. And I say so now because we recently observed the 62nd anniversary of the end of World War II. The atomic bomb brought the war to a quicker end. As horrible as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was -- I've stood at Ground Zero in Hiroshima and felt heartsick as I looked at the mementos of nuclear destruction housed in the museum there -- the alternative of not dropping the bombs would have been far worse for American forces -- and for the Japanese, both military and civilian, as well. It is to the enormous credit of America that, for all the nuclear saber-rattling the world went through during the four-decade Cold War which followed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we've been able to avoid another such event because of America's military strength.

In the 1970s, my hopes for a better world and my concern for the environment led me to install a $4,000 solar hot-water array on my roof. It was an expensive and sorry learning experience. The efficiency of the well-recommended unit was poor. By the time I removed it in the mid-'80s, I hadn't come even close to payback and the manufacturer had gone belly-up. It's now three decades later, but alternate forms of electric generation are still a long way from replacing fossil fuel and nuclear power, both technologically and commercially. In that regard, at least, the New Age is far away. On the other hand, Nuclear Age weapons and power have helped to hold things together for America and the world. It's time for their critics to acknowledge that.

Don't stop that R&D work, you alternate energy advocates -- America needs it. Don't stop that peacebuilding, you global village advocates -- the world needs it. The New Age in its best sense has much to recommend it, but we'll get there via the Nuclear Age.

............
 
John White is an author in the fields of consciousness research and higher human development. His 15 books include The Meeting of Science and Spirit, What Is Enlightenment? and A Practical Guide to Death and Dying and have been translated into ten languages. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Saturday Review, Reader's Digest, Science of Mind, Esquire, Omni, Woman's Day, New Age and other newspapers and magazines. He lives in Cheshire, Connecticut.