Ira Helfand/John O. Pastore: Prescribing real change in U.S. nuclear policy
01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, September 27, 2009
IRA HELFAND JOHN O. PASTORE
BOSTON
WEDNESDAY MARKED the first appearance of President Obama at the U.N. General Assembly. The president also chaired a special session on arms control and nonproliferation Thursday at the U.N. Security Council, where he introduced a U.S.-drafted resolution calling for steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons.
In his U.N. appearance, President Obama once again tried to prove he is serious about nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. But will the nuclear-weapons bureaucracy get the message this time? It appeared to have missed his message in April.
Speaking in Prague on April 5, President Barack Obama laid out a vision for the future of nuclear weapons that won plaudits across the political spectrum. Obama told the world it was time to work towards a safer world free of nuclear weapons. “We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone,” he said, “but we can lead it, we can start it.”
Surprisingly, nowhere was that speech better received than at the Pentagon, which appeared to believe that the centerpiece of Obama’s nonproliferation policy is this sentence from the Prague speech: “As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”
Ask Pentagon officials about the other part of the speech — where Obama stated “clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” — and they remind you he said it may not happen in his lifetime.
President Obama is a fit and trim 48-year-old. As doctors, we are pleased to report that Barack Obama has every chance of living another 40 or even 50 years — even if we would encourage him to quit smoking. As former presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility, we are also greatly concerned that nuclear weapons, a threat to human life and health, might be around just as long.
Rather than seeing the Prague speech as the end of the nuclear-weapons era, the Pentagon thinks it is a green light to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, even though existing warheads have been shown to be reliable for another 20 or 30 years.
It appears that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used a June meeting of the National Security Council, ostensibly to discuss arms-control negotiations with Russia, to press for a Cabinet-level agreement to support modernization of the U.S. nuclear-weapons stockpile.
Only Vice President Joe Biden voiced opposition to the plan, on the grounds that it would make a mockery of the president’s Prague Agenda. The effort by Gates, and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright, was beaten back — for now.
The upcoming administration Nuclear Posture Review, according to one expert who was briefed by a senior Pentagon official, looks likely to recommend revived support for a new generation of nuclear warheads.
The president needs to engage in this process to make sure the Nuclear Posture Review reflects, rather than overshadows, the agenda he laid out in Prague. Congress, too, can play a role: Sen. Jack Reed chairs the Senate’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and is a member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. Both these committees have responsibility for many of the important steps toward a nuclear-weapons-free world that make up the Prague Agenda. Along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the powerful Budget Committee, they should make clear that President Obama’s non-proliferation initiatives would be wasted if the price for Pentagon support is a new nuclear warhead, and clinging to a large U.S. nuclear arsenal dedicated to a wide range of missions.
Without significant reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles, and U.S. ratification of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the U.S. will not be able to lead the world away from nuclear weapons and toward greater security. Let’s hope that the call for action toward a world free of nuclear weapons at the U.N. last week is taken to heart by those in Congress and the administration who can help make it reality.
Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Replies
Nuclear reactor nightmare: Could it happen in the U.S.?
Posted: Mar 14, 2011 10:55 PM by CBS News
As workers in Japan struggle to limit the release of dangerous radiation from the nation's earthquake-stricken nuclear reactors, some in the U.S. are wondering: Could the same thing happen here?
Some experts say yes.
"We have 23 nuclear reactors that are the same design as the Fukushima plants that have failed," Dr. Ira Helfand, past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and a long-time critic of nuclear power, told CBS News.
A database maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shows that 23 of 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. are boiling water reactors that use GE's Mark 1's radioactivity-containment system, the same system used by the reactors at the troubled reactors at the Fukushima Dia-ichi plant in Japan, MSNBC reported. The reactors are in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
Calls to GE were referred to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. In an email to CBS News, it confirmed that some plants use the same basic system as the Japanese plants, but added that "specific elements of the safety systems will vary."
According to Dr. Helfand, some of the U.S. plants with containment systems similar to the ones in the Japanese reactors are built on fault lines, including one near New York City.
"The Indian Point reactor just north of New York City is built on a fault capable of generating a magnitude 7 earthquake, but it was only built to withstand a magnitude 3 quake," he said. "If the Indian Point reactor experienced a major meltdown, the entire New York metropolitan area, with 20 million people, would be at risk."
Complete Coverage: Disaster in Japan
Meltdown risk rising at Japanese nuclear plant
Nuclear meltdowns explained
The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on the central California coast, which is within about 60 miles of the San Andreas Fault, and even close to other faults, was built to withstand a 7.5 earthquake, according to owner Pacific Gas and Electric. The company maintains that the faults in the region are not expected to produce any larger quakes.
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko was asked at a press briefing by CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid whether reactors in the U.S. could withstand a quake similar to the 9.0 event in Japan. He offered a vague response: "At this point what I can say is we have a strong safety program in place to deal with seismic events that are likely to -- to happen at any nuclear facility in this country."
What steps, if any, should be undertaken by people living near a power plant in the U.S.?
"I would want the nuclear facility to be honest with me and tell me if this is the same kind of reactor design as the ones in Japan," Dr. Jerome M. Hauer, former director of emergency management for New York City, told CBS News. "And what are they doing to ensure that the flaws that this earthquake exposed are being dealt with. If anything happens to the plant, how are you going to deal with them?"
In its email to CBS News, the Nuclear Energy Institute said it was premature to draw conclusions from Japan's nuclear crisis about the U.S. nuclear energy program.
"Japan is facing what literally can be considered a 'worst case' disaster and, so far, even the most seriously damaged of its 54 reactors has not released radiation at levels that would harm the public," the email said. "That is a testament to their rugged design and construction, and the effectiveness of their employees and the industry's emergency preparedness planning."
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.