NUCLEAR GUARDIANSHIP FORUM, On The Responsible Care of Radioactive Materials
Issue # 1, Spring 1992, p. 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Debate On Nuclear Guardianship

           Two letters dialogue about the problem of "solutions"

     From Hannover, Germany, comes a negative response to the idea of
     Nuclear Guardianship, as summarized from a letter to the editor
     which appeared in the "Heute Konzpet" described by NUX, CH-4112
     Fluh, Switzerland, tel: 061 75 22 72, a publication of the
     Swiss-based Forum for Responsible Uses of Science. Issue 669-70,
     March 1991.

     Earlier materials about Nuclear Guardianship explicitly stated
     that "With respect to all parties, citizens, public interest
     groups, corporations, utilities, and governments, we choose
     strategies that are based on cooperation for the public good and
     the integrity of the biosphere."

     Anna Masuch of Hamburg University speaks to a concern held by many
     others about this statement. She asks: What advantage would
     nuclear power stations and their administrators derive from a
     "private group" offering to rid them of the burden of dealing with
     nuclear waste? They would likely be most satisfied with such a
     solution. In Germany the idea of "privatizing" nuclear waste has
     been haunting us. So she says NO to the Guardianship concept: "We
     will only talk about nuclear waste when all production has
     ceased."

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

     Response from Joanna Macy, of the Nuclear Guardianship Project:

     To say that all production of radioactive waste must stop before
     we discuss its care is an understandable position, frequently
     taken by anti-nuclear activists. They believe that the problem
     must be viewed as inherently hopeless, in order to serve as a
     weapon to be used against the nuclear producers. They fear that
     citizen talk about guardianship will encourage governments and
     corporations to produce yet more nuclear waste.

     There are problems with this approach:

       1. First, its effect on citizens themselves is to promote a
          sense of futility. When nothing can be done about a problem,
          one naturally enough turns away from it. Fatalism sets in.
          Hopelessness breeds ignorance about both the extent of the
          danger and what can be done about it. All initiative is left
          to the producers, who assume they have free rein to continue.

       2. On the other hand, when citizens feel they have a conceivable
          role to play in relation to a problem, they are emboldened to
          look at it. Realism sets in. As we glimpse what it will mean
          for us and future generations to guard the wastes, we are
          more likely to stop tolerating their continued production.

       3. Citizen reluctance to seek responsible ways of caring for
          existing waste leaves government and industry free to pursue
          methods of disposal driven by their own financial and
          political considerations. It also leads government and
          industry specialists to believe they are alone in facing the
          problem realistically. A top official at the Waste Isolation
          Pilot Project (WIPP) site in Carlsbad, New Mexico, said to
          me, "The protesters yell `Not in my backyard!' They want to
          wish the stuff away; but we know it exists. We know it's real
          and has to go somewhere."

     Nuclear production will only cease when we as a people, of all
     nations, perceive its costs. We will only perceive these costs, I
     believe, when we open our eyes both to the necessity and the
     feasibility of long-term guardianship.