A NUCLEAR–FREE MALAYSIA

Ronald McCoy

Introduction

If current trends continue, by the end of the twenty-first century, it is likely that the world’s population and the world’s demand for energy will have doubled. Even if there are major improvements in energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy supply, there will still be an overriding need to control population growth, reduce consumption and energy demand, and fundamentally transform the global economy into a low-carbon, ecologically sustainable system, that will totally discredit the god of economic growth.

Despite the machinations of the fossil-fuel-industrial-political complex, it is now undeniable that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion are the principal cause of global warming and climate change, which increasingly threaten planetary and human survival in the twenty-first century. This has spurred governments to find ways to reduce carbon emissions without undermining their economies, although many are still hesitant and will have to be dragged screaming to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen this December.

The Malaysian government is absolutely right to be concerned about climate change and to take measures to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate global warming, but opting for nuclear energy is not the right answer to climate change and energy supply security.

Our last speaker, Dr Mark Diesendorf, has presented convincing evidence and argued that nuclear energy is not a viable option for Malaysia. He has highlighted the numerous negative features of nuclear energy - the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear terrorism and reactor accidents; the inability of the nuclear industry to safely dispose of high-level nuclear waste and to contain escalating costs and delays in construction of nuclear power plants; and finite global uranium reserves.

At present, with Malaysia’s consistent record in nuclear disarmament initiatives, there is no danger that Malaysia will develop nuclear weapons, even if it does opt for nuclear energy. But one cannot be certain about future political and social changes in the country and region, which may lead to weapons proliferation in the future.

No case for nuclear energy

So, what is the government’s case for introducing nuclear-generated electricity, when national electricity reserves are still substantial and nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe. We in civil society believe that Tenaga Nasional Berhad (the National Power Company) has initiated plans to commission its first nuclear power plant by 2025. Surely, TNB and the government have no grounds to assume that it is a done deal. On 21^st June 2009, then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said that the government was willing to consider the use of nuclear energy, but not before exploring alternative renewable energy resources, such as biomass, solar, wind and hydro power. There is still no clarity that the government has formulated a national green energy policy. Any attempt to paint nuclear power as green technology will indicate environmental colour-

2

blindness. The 2006 report of the International Energy Agency has indicated that greenhouse gases can be reduced, without making a Faustian bargain with the nuclear industry.

As citizens, we are extremely concerned that there has not been a national debate over such a critical issue as nuclear energy, which has the potential to wreak havoc and destruction. We must adhere to the Precautionary Principle and heed Murphy’s Law. I have been hearing the argument that accidents are part of everyday life and that a plane crash cannot justify abandoning air travel. It is facetious to compare a plane crash with a nuclear accident, just as it is naïve to consult with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has a vested interest in promoting nuclear energy.

Realities of nuclear energy

Good intentions on the part of the government and TNB are not enough. Proponents of nuclear energy must avoid generating disinformation about its virtues. Instead, they must face up to the realities of nuclear energy and answer serious questions:

• What is the urgency in embarking on a nuclear energy project in Malaysia?
• What are the realities of nuclear power economics and time-frames for nuclear reactor deployment, relative to other means of reducing carbon emissions and generating electricity?
• What quantum of subsidies will be required to make nuclear energy economically feasible?
• What are the health, environmental, and security dangers associated with a reactor accident or a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant?
• Will it be possible to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials to nuclear weapons production or to a terrorist group?
• How do we cope with the depletion of global reserves of uranium?
• Most importantly, how do we manage the safe disposal of lethal radioactive waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years?
• Is it wise to embark on nuclear energy when there are alternative renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies?
• Is it not time for the Malaysian government to join with other governments in committing itself to holistically addressing climate change and opting for sustainable energy?

By far, the most objectionable feature of nuclear energy is the production of high-level nuclear waste that remains radioactive for several hundred thousands of years. The long-term management of waste only exists in theory. The world’s growing accumulation of nuclear waste continues to pile up in casks, along nuclear power plants in 31 countries, not one of which has yet been able to build a safe, functioning, geological repository anywhere in the world. The nuclear industry might have a case if and when it can provide a fail-safe method of waste disposal.

3

The half-lives of uranium and plutonium isotopes are virtually unending:

* U-238 : 4.51 billion years

* U-235 : 731 million years

* Pu-239 : 24,400 years

Such radioactive longevity goes far beyond the time horizons of any human institution, including governments and nation states. In other words, we will have to contend with life-threatening nuclear dangers from nuclear waste forever. This totally disqualifies nuclear energy as a feasible form of energy. In the long-term, nuclear energy must be phased out, not given a new lease of life.

If medieval man had resorted to nuclear energy, today we would still be burdened with managing his nuclear waste. This is not a legacy we should leave future generations of Malaysians. It would be morally wrong to embark on nuclear energy and subject them to nuclear dangers, when climate mitigation can be achieved through developing energy efficiency technologies and harnessing renewable energy.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Malaysia would do well to emulate Denmark, where a range of new technologies have made energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy feasible. Denmark, which derives most of its renewable energy from burning biomass, including biodegradable waste, aims to increase the proportion of renewable energy to 20 per cent in 2011 and to 30 per cent in 2020. It also derives a fifth of its electricity from its five thousand wind turbines, another renewable energy source.

Denmark has taken on the greatest share of the burden of achieving the total emissions target for the European Union under the Kyoto Protocol. Its energy policy focuses on research, energy saving, and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels. As early as 1990, Denmark set concrete targets, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8% between 2008 and 2012.

Denmark serves as an example of how a country can secure a high level of growth, without a corresponding increase in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. Although Denmark does not have any hydroelectric power or nuclear power, it tops the world in having the most energy-efficient and climate-friendly economy.

Denmark has achieved this by having a strong political focus on energy policy. A large part of its success in the field of renewable energy and sustainable energy technologies is based on a unique cooperative relationship between researchers, businessmen and politicians. Danish industry also has a long tradition of embedding the principle of sustainability into the development of its products.

4

Denmark’s focus on climate, which has impelled traditional industrial companies towards sustainable technology, is virtually a national endeavour. The best example of this is probably the development of wind turbines from pioneer projects, located in small machine shops, into a billion-dollar international industry. Wind turbines represent one of the most realistic possibilities for a renewable alternative to fossil fuels.

Both the Danish government and business sectors have shown a strong commitment to saving energy, as well as developing and implementing energy-efficient measures, such as insulating houses. The rules for new buildings promote energy efficient construction. By 2020, regulations for energy consumption in new buildings will be tightened by a further seventy-five per cent. The Malaysian government should encourage and reward architects who design energy efficient houses and buildings which are well ventilated and require little or no cooling.

Other energy-saving initiatives in Denmark range from carbon dioxide-neutral fuels in public transport to intelligent electricity meters, which give consumers greater control over electricity bills. Denmark has designed an electricity supply system that is capable of competitively handling wind turbines, which periodically swing from supplying more than 100 percent of energy requirements to no energy at other times. In 2009, Denmark has emerged as a dynamic, working laboratory, which combines new energy technologies with old fashioned common sense in its relationship with the environment. Malaysia should emulate Denmark’s dynamic and innovative approach in mitigating global warming.

A nuclear-free Malaysia

So, how do we remain a nuclear-free Malaysia? I have singled out Denmark, not only for its vigour and commitment to the environmental cause, but also for its ethos of social solidarity, transparency, accountability and common purpose. Denmark could be a beacon of light for Malaysia which is on the verge of making a momentous decision on energy. The wrong decision could have the most serious consequences. Nuclear technology is not to be trifled with. It’s not as inconsequential as purchasing a submarine that the country does not need. The worst it could do is to sink.

This conference was organised in order to inform public opinion and clarify the many serious issues associated with nuclear energy, so that decision-makers will learn about the realities of nuclear energy, understand that carbon emissions can be reduced significantly without resorting to nuclear energy, and discover that nuclear energy does not deserve to be considered as the last option in the country’s energy supply mix.

Deliberative, participatory democracy and public involvement in decision-making are not robust concepts or practices in Malaysia, ruled for more than fifty years by the same

authoritarian government, which has not only not nurtured public debate, but also punished dissent. My concept of decision-making and decision-makers will not coincide

5

with the government’s concept. Who are the decision-makers? Are they the politicians the electorate elects to office? Or are they the voters who vote the politicians in?

In many ways, the question of nuclear energy defines the relationship between the government and civil society. In many countries, nuclear energy would be an issue of great national importance, that would merit wide consultation, free discussion and open debate at all levels of society. The time is late, but it is not too late for Malaysians to claim back their country from those who would usurp their right to choose. The issue of

nuclear energy must be above partisan politics and business interests. It must not be turned into a money-spinner for some politically-connected company or a career-builder for those connected to the nuclear industry.

If the people of Malaysia seriously want a nuclear-free Malaysia, then they must be prepared to clearly voice their views and stand by their convictions. The stakes are extremely high, particularly for future generations.

The prime minister has recently talked about “engaging” with the people. This has not happened, certainly not with regard to nuclear energy. It is not good enough to hold predetermined seminars and meetings among pro-nuclear groups with vested interests, including analysts, industrialists, and business people, or superficial interviews broadcast on television or published in newspapers.

I hope this conference will succeed in ringing alarm bells and making it clear that nuclear energy is not the answer to climate change or energy supply security. It would be foolish to try to resolve one problem by replacing it with another problem. .

Let us also not gloss over the huge economic cost of nuclear energy, which is difficult to determine. The nuclear industry does not follow transparent methods of accounting. Costs, such as accident insurance, waste disposal and decommissioning, are often buried in opaque government subsidies or conjured into debt legacies for future generations. Cost is rightly a problem with any public project, but the high cost of building a nuclear reactor would not become a key issue, if nuclear energy were the only option for mitigating climate change and addressing energy security. But it is not the only option.

Instead of a huge investment in nuclear power, it would be more productive for Malaysia to commit its limited resources to research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. As recent as 29 May 2009, two financial reports in the Business Section of the New York Times highlighted the incredible economics of building a nuclear power plant. The reports revealed two fiascos: the construction of a new reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, by the French company, Areva, and the virtual collapse of the once touted global flagship, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Both companies were overtaken by cost overruns amounting to billions of dollars and by long delays in completing construction schedules, extending into decades, not years.

6

This bodes ill for the nuclear industry, whether in France, Canada or South Korea, which is rumoured to be the country favoured by the government and TNB to build a reactor. After more than 50 years in business, the nuclear industry cannot get private funding or liability insurance, cannot deal with its radioactive waste, and now cannot demonstrate its ability to build new reactors within a contractual time-frame and budget.

The energy path to a sustainable future lies elsewhere. First, we must harness the massive potential of solar radiation, bioenergy, hydropower, wind energy, wave power, tidal

energy and geothermal energy, by investing in and advancing research and development in renewable energy.

Second, we must develop policies and technologies in energy efficiency, such as reducing energy use in buildings, increasing automobile efficiencies, expanding mass public transport, designing compact communities, and creating practices of industrial ecology that recycle materials and energy.

Third, we must redefine development in terms of human well-being and sustainable living patterns, not unfettered consumption and economic growth.

Malaysia must reject nuclear energy and not be deceived by trends in other countries. Nuclear energy will subject future generations to the grievous dangers of nuclear devastation and radioactivity that will last for thousands of years. This is tantamount to unintentional genocide on a grand scale in slow motion. Malaysia must not take such a path. It would be immoral and unethical to leave future generations with such a legacy.

________________________________________________________________________

PPSR/CETDEM Conference on Nuclear Energy: Does Malaysia Need Nuclear Energy?

10 October 2009

When the UN Security Council convenes its summit meeting on September 24 with US President Barack Obama presiding, the Council has a unique opportunity to pronounce itself on one of most vital issues before the international community: nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The Council – whose permanent members are also the nuclear-armed states party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – must ensure that the results of this historic meeting are more than words and more than a repeat of the statements that have been made over the years.

The Council must commit itself to substantive action towards the goal to which they have all committed themselves: the elimination of nuclear weapons. In addition, we urge the middle powers states on the Security Council to use this opportunity to speak up for all states that have forsaken nuclear weapons – the large majority of states.

Below is the statement by the Middle Powers Initiative on priorities we believe should be the focus of the Council summit.

Ambassador Henrik Salander
Chairman, MPI

» Click here for a PDF version of the statement

Statement by the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI)
to the UN Security Council

The Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) applauds President Obama’s convening of the 24 September 2009 UN Security Council Summit on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. This meeting presents an opportunity, first, to ensure that the 2010 NPT Review Conference strengthens the nuclear weapons regime and, second, to advance the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons. We urge all middle power states to work for an outcome that meets those objectives. Among many important steps in UN and NPT commitments, the MPI regards the following as the Council’s highest priority.

The Council should reaffirm that the proliferation of WMD constitutes a threat to international peace and security; call for adherence to the Additional Protocol as an established condition for nuclear commerce; and call for international regulation of nuclear fuel production and supply. The Council should also reaffirm that all UN members must fulfill their disarmament obligations; express support for the Secretary-General’s October 2008 five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament; and call on all states to shape their policies in light of the objective of reaching a nuclear-weapon free world.

The Council should call on all states possessing nuclear arsenals to halt the production of fissile material for weapons, and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty without conditions. It should further call for a halt to qualitative improvements that enhance the military capabilities of nuclear arsenals. The Council should also call upon the Conference on Disarmament to promptly embark upon its existing program of work in January 2010.

The Council should affirm the vital 2000 NPT commitment to the diminishing role of nuclear weapons in security policies. Good faith implementation of this commitment requires, at the very least, rejection of reliance on first use of nuclear weapons in the name of extended deterrence or counterforce doctrines. The council should also set in motion a process of reaffirmation and strengthening of security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, to be codified by the Council prior to the NPT Review Conference. The MPI also suggests that the Council consider asking the UN Secretary-General to appoint a special envoy to advance discussions on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

The Council should finally consider development of its own role in achieving and sustaining the verified and enforced elimination of nuclear weapons. A first step would be to establish a subsidiary body to this end. A more long-term but necessary step would be to support reform of the Council to make it more representative, transparent and accountable, since it cannot be left solely to the five NPT nuclear weapons states to respond to breaches of non-proliferation and disarmament obligations.

It is important to place achievement of a nuclear weapons-free world within a very broad agenda of peace and security. The abolition of nuclear weapons is necessary not only because they pose unacceptable risks, but also because the current regime, with nuclear haves and have-nots, does not give rise to an effective global order. Elimination of this system, and the weapons themselves, is needed in order to tackle the other serious problems facing our interdependent world, like environmental threats, wars and terrorism, financial instability, poverty and disease.

- September, 2009

Burning questions about our nuclear policy

Ronald McCoy Aug 19, 09 1:14pm

Climate change has spurred governments to find ways to reduce carbon emissions. The world needs safe, clean and affordable renewable energy, which is the only energy source that can combat climate change and advance ecologically sustainable development.

The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation has called for energy that is “reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound.”

The public should be very concerned about news in the media that the government has plans to introduce nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, in its response to the challenges of climate change, volatile fossil fuel prices, and depleting local gas deposits.

Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) is shortly expected to reveal its ambitions to commission its first nuclear power plant by year 2025.

The government is right to be concerned about climate change and future energy security. We, the people, have similar concerns. We are also concerned about the absence of a national energy policy.

A strong case for nuclear generated electricity has not been made.

National electricity reserves are still substantial and nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe. The government has a duty and a responsibility to widely consult the people of Malaysia, before risking an enormous capital outlay necessary for such a project, a project that carries inherent dangers, which will expose the population to serious economic, health, environmental and security risks. The Precautionary Principle has been sidelined.

Any country contemplating the introduction of nuclear energy must honestly and carefully examine and address the following issues:

• Economics of nuclear power and time-frames for nuclear reactor deployment.

• Health, environmental and security hazards.

• Alternative energy sources.

There is a lot of disinformation about the virtues of nuclear energy and its proponents need to answer serious questions:

• What is the urgency to embark on a nuclear energy project in Malaysia?

• What is the real cost of nuclear energy, relative to other means of reducing carbon emissions and generating electricity?

• What subsidies will be required to make nuclear energy economically feasible?

• What will be the health and environmental dangers of nuclear energy?

• How do we manage the safe disposal of lethal nuclear waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years?

Economics of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is not cheap. The early optimism and slogan, “Too cheap to meter,” have faded away. The cost of nuclear generated electricity is rising and is likely to continue rising in the foreseeable future. In the 1970s, nuclear electricity cost half as much as electricity from burning coal. By 1990, it cost twice as much.

Today, it’s about four times more expensive.

Nuclear power stations are highly capital intensive and each takes 10-15 years to construct, often plagued by construction delays and cost overruns. A 1000 megawatt light-water reactor can cost US$2-US$3 billion to build.

The cost of insuring for accidents, managing nuclear waste, and decommissioning nuclear power plants adds considerably to capital outlay.

In the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, construction delays and massive cost overruns increased business risks and forced US utility companies to cancel more than 130 nuclear power plant orders. It was utility executives and Wall Street financiers who stopped the expansion of nuclear power, not environmentalists or the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

Nuclear power demands significant subsidies. Studies in 2002 concluded that electric power utilities would not build nuclear power plants without government subsidies and guarantees to cap private investment.

Therefore, government subsidies would include underwriting the costs of nuclear fuel and the costs of constructing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning nuclear power plants, as well as guarantees that the output of electricity would be purchased at an agreed price.

Nuclear power plants are particularly risky for developing countries, which are often unable to afford delayed construction time frames and cost overruns. Malaysia would have to pay higher interest rates on their international loans, which would increase its dependence on foreign capital.

The true cost of any power source must include external costs, which too often do not appear on balance sheets. External costs of nuclear power would include the cost of environmental damage and the cost of compensation for a nuclear accident during routine operations, as well as long term costs associated with nuclear waste management and decommissioning.

There are few reliable sources of objective data on the costs of constructing and running new nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry is known for its creative methods of accounting and lack of transparency.

Real costs, such as accident insurance, maintenance of reactor security, radioactive waste disposal and decommissioning, are commonly buried in generous government subsidies or conjured into legacies of debt for future generations.

Claims by the industry that nuclear energy is cheap are often based on unverifiable bottom-line figures or ‘justified’ by analyses with hidden assumptions that are highly favourable to nuclear power. For example:

• By choosing an unrealistically low interest or discount rate, nuclear energy with its high capital cost and low operating cost can be made to look much less expensive.

• By choosing certain accounting methods, such as one based on historical costs, the high annualized capital cost of nuclear energy can be disguised by shrinking the capital cost component.

• By ignoring the huge government subsidies, nuclear energy is made to look less expensive.

As recent as May 29, 2009, two financial reports in the business section of the New York Times emblazoned the incredible economics of nuclear power by highlighting two financial fiascos - first, the construction of a new nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, by the French company, Areva; second, the virtual collapse of the once highly touted global flagship, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Both companies were overtaken by billion-dollar cost overruns and decades-long delays in construction.

This bodes ill for a 50-year old industry, whether in France, Canada or South Korea, that it cannot secure private investment or liability insurance, cannot deal with its radioactive waste, and now cannot demonstrate the ability to build new reactors on time and within budget. In other words, financing nuclear energy is a bottomless pit.

A recent study in the United States, which focused on business risks and cost of new nuclear power stations, identified the following significant risks:

• Capital costs for building new nuclear power plants have been rising much faster than inflation. The longer the lead time in building, the greater the risk of cost overruns.

• Major construction delays, causing billions of dollars in cost overruns.

• High capital costs and long lead times for construction often result in a ‘risk premium’ which increases the cost of capital.

• New nuclear power plants will require very high electricity rates.

• High electricity rates, required to service high capital costs, may drive customers to reduce electricity consumption and resort to energy efficiency and conservation.

• High electricity rates may increase production costs and render the economy less competitive.

Economically, it would be far sounder and more advisable to invest Malaysia’s limited resources in the research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technology.

Health, environmental and security hazards

These hazards include the following:

• Radioactive nuclear waste

• Nuclear reactor accidents

• Nuclear terrorism

• Nuclear weapons proliferation

Radioactive nuclear waste

High-level nuclear reactor waste remains radioactive for thousands of years. After more than 50 years, the nuclear industry is still looking for a method of safely disposing of its radioactive waste. At present, the world’s growing accumulation of nuclear waste continues to pile up in casks, alongside nuclear power plants in 31 countries. No country has yet been able to build a safe functioning long-term radioactive waste repository anywhere in the world.

This lethal waste will have to be managed safely for several hundred thousands of years. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,400 years (or 244 centuries or 24.4 millennia). This totally disqualifies nuclear energy as a safe and clean form of energy. If medieval man had
resorted to nuclear energy, we today would still be burdened with managing his nuclear waste. This is not a legacy we should be leaving future generations of Malaysians.

Finding satisfactory geologic repositories has proved to be an intractable problem. Very few countries have even identified possible sites. It is estimated that 2,000 new nuclear power plants will need to be built to replace coal-fired power stations. To dispose of nuclear waste from the 2,000 nuclear power stations, it would require establishing a new repository, the size of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, every two years in the foreseeable future. This would be an impossible undertaking.

Reprocessing or recycling nuclear waste

The long-term management of high-level radioactive waste exists only in theory. Proponents of nuclear energy are blithely claiming that nuclear waste can be reprocessed or “recycled” into fresh fuel and that this will ensure a continuous supply of nuclear fuel and reduce the need for underground repositories.

The use of the Integral Fast Reactor or fast breeder reactor, as a solution to the problem of nuclear waste, is at best a theoretical possibility. Its selling point is that it has the capacity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and ‘breed’ plutonium, using an onsite reprocessing plant. Proponents claim that all of the reactor’s waste will be consumed onsite. This claim is false. It only applies to most of the long-lived transuranic elements, such as plutonium-239, but not to the major part of the nuclear waste, including medium-lived fission products, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, which form the major part of the waste and will have to be managed for several centuries.

It would also take time for a breeder programme to make a significant contribution in energy terms. Despite its name, the breeding process is not ‘fast.’ The word ‘fast’ refers only to the speeds of the neutrons that cause the fission. In fact, it can take years to breed as much plutonium as is initially put into the reactor.

The so-called ‘doubling’ time can be in excess of 20 or 30 years, especially when one takes into account the cooling, reprocessing and fabrication processes.

So, although fast breeders appear to be attractive and may make waste management theoretically possible and may extend the lifetime of uranium resources, there are a number of problems with such an option. Reprocessing increases the volume of radioactive waste and generates enormous heat, which is difficult to control and therefore prone to dangerous leaks and explosions. Fast breeders have proved to be problematic and have been shut down in the United States, Germany, Britain, France and Japan. They are therefore not available commercially and are unlikely to be so for at least two decades.

Nuclear reactor accidents

Murphy’s Law dictates that nuclear reactors are not ‘fail-safe’ - “If anything can possibly go wrong, it will go wrong.” Because reactors contain highly radioactive nuclear material at high temperatures, they must be cooled continuously. A technical fault or an operational error may result in a core meltdown and a steam or chemical explosion, leading to the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

In 1986, a steam and hydrogen explosion at a nuclear power station at Chernobyl in Ukraine released large quantities of radioactive materials that permanently contaminated land, water and crops in much of Europe. Tens of thousands of people in Ukraine died from cancer years later.

In addition to Chernobyl, there have been other nuclear accidents:

• A fire in Windscale, Cumberland, in 1957 prompted a name change. Windscale was disguised and renamed Sellafield in Cumbria.

• A partial core meltdown in Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979.

• A nuclear accident at Tokai-mura nuclear plant in Japan in 1999 resulted in two workers receiving lethal doses of radiation.

• A narrowly avoided catastrophic accident at the Davis-Besse reactor in the United States in 2002, when undetected corrosion nearly penetrated a pressure vessel which could have caused a complete reactor core meltdown.

• In 2003, the French nuclear safety agency had to deal with the emergency shut-down of two reactors which had been damaged by flooding after torrential rain.

Nuclear terrorism

Since Sept 11, 2001, a terrorist attack on any nuclear facility has become more likely. Although the nuclear industry claims that the structure of a nuclear power station would withstand the impact of a jumbo jet or car bomb, this has not been tested. It is more likely that a terrorist attack would involve the capture of a nuclear power station by terrorist groups, with sufficient technical knowledge to initiate a core melt-down or set off conventional explosives inside. The transportation of high-level nuclear wastes, by land or sea, would also be vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Nuclear weapons proliferation

Introducing nuclear energy into any country gives it the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. I am confident that Malaysia will not develop nuclear weapons, but it might lead to regional suspicions and security instability in the future.

Conclusion

Before risking a huge investment of several billions of dollars in a potentially dangerous and ruinous project, the Malaysian government has a duty and responsibility to hold an open national debate that is inclusive, rational, and therefore legitimate, not only about nuclear energy but also about a national energy policy.

Nuclear energy cannot be justified until all its dangers have been eliminated, particularly until there is a proven safe method of waste disposal.

Participatory democracy and deliberate public involvement in decision-making are not robust concepts or practices in our society. The government and TNB seem to have unilaterally decided that Malaysia will have a nuclear power plant by year 2025.

The prime minister recently talked about “engaging” with the people. This has not happened, certainly not with regard to nuclear energy.

It is not good enough to hold pre-determined seminars and meetings among pro-nuclear groups with vested interests, including some analysts, academics, industrialists, business people, or even the biased International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Neither is it good enough for the media to publish or broadcast brief, superficial views, even from opponents of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is a high stakes issue which must rise above partisan politics. It must not be turned into a money spinner for politically connected companies or a career builder for those connected with the nuclear industry.

Instead, it is about responding holistically to the challenges of climate change, ecologically unsustainable development, and wasteful living patterns.

It is about turning to renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, and acknowledging the enormous burdens and risks of nuclear energy and the folly of promoting it as a solution to climate change. The energy path to a sustainable future lies in a different direction.

First, we must invest resources in research and development in green technology and harness the massive potential of renewable energy - solar, wind, wave, bio-energy, hydro power - and make them commercially viable and more affordable. Solar photovoltaic power is commercially available, but can be developed further to make it less expensive for urban and suburban use.

Second, we must nurture a culture of energy conservation and develop technologies in energy efficiency, by reducing energy use in better designed houses and buildings, increasing automobile efficiencies, expanding mass public transport, designing compact communities, and creating practices in industrial ecology that recycle materials.

Third, we must reform economic development in the face of the failure of the current global market economy, redefine human well-being, and cast away mindless consumption.

Investing in nuclear energy will severely deplete resources for research and development in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Nuclear energy will confer on future generations of Malaysians a lethal, radioactive legacy that will last for hundreds of thousands of years. It would be tantamount to radioactive poisoning on a grand scale in slow motion.

We owe it to future generations to ensure that this does not happen.

Dr RONALD S McCOY is the founding president of Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility and the co-president of International Physicians for the Preventive of Nuclear War (IPPNW).
This paper was presented at a public forum on “Burning Questions about Malaysia’s Nuclear Energy Policy” on Aug 18, 2009 at the KL and Selangor Chinese Assembly H

Atonement for the hibakusha

By DATUK DR RONALD MCCOY

Every year on Aug 6, people gather in Hiroshima to remind the world of a human tragedy that should never occur again.

THE atomic bomb was secretly developed during World War II at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, United States, by a group of scientists led by J. Robert Oppenheimer. Joseph Rotblat was the only scientist who resigned from what was known as the Manhattan Project when he realised that the work on the bomb was continuing although the war was nearly over.

Three deadly atomic bombs were put together. The first was tested in the desert north of Almagordo in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, at 5:29:45am. Nobel laureate physicist I. Rabi, who witnessed the Trinity test, later described it:

“Suddenly, there was an enormous flash of light, the brightest light I have ever seen or that I think anyone has ever seen. It blasted; it pounced; it bored its way right through you. It was a vision which was seen with more than the eye. It was seen to last forever. You would wish it would stop; altogether it lasted about two seconds.

“Finally, it was over, diminishing, and we looked toward the place where the bomb had been; there was an enormous ball of fire which grew and grew and it rolled as it grew; it went up into the air, in yellow flashes and into scarlet and green. It looked menacing. It seemed to come toward me.”

woman offers prayers after releasing a paper lantern in the Motoyasu River with the backdrop of the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima on Thursday. – AP

Oppenheimer was moved to recall words in the sacred Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

On Aug 6, the second bomb, called “Little Boy”, was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima at 8.15am. Over 70,000 people were killed instantly and about the same number were injured. Three days later, “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki at 11:01am, instantly killing 40,000 people.

By the end of 1945, 220,000 people in both cities, mostly civilians, had succumbed to burns, radiation, leukaemia and other diseases. The casualties included 22,000 Korean conscripts.

Today, 64 years later, the cancer rate among the survivors continues to rise. Surviving victims are known as hibakusha, a Japanese word that literally means “explosion-affected people”. Memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki emblazon the names of hibakusha who have died, updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings. In August 2008, there were 258,301 names in Hiroshima and 145,984 in Nagasaki.

The “ethical” justification by the United States for what is inherently immoral, a war crime and a form of state terrorism, is based on the claim that the bombings led to the rapid conclusion of the war and the saving of thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Japan.

The fundamental issue is whether such an argument can justify the deliberate plan to obliterate two cities and kill thousands of civilians and ignore the fact that the bombings were militarily unnecessary, that they violated international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and they appeared to have the markings of a diabolical military and scientific experiment.

Every year on Aug 6, the Mayor of Hiroshima leads a ceremony in the Peace Memorial Park to assuage the bitter memories of the world’s first nuclear explosion in war and plead for the abolition of nuclear weapons and an end to militarism and war.

A massive column of billowing smoke, thousands of feet high, mushrooms over Nagasaki after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Aug 9, 1945. – AP

The mayor delivers a Peace Declaration, which is conveyed to every country in the world, expressing Hiroshima’s wish for a world free of nuclear weapons. At exactly 8:15am, the Peace Bell is rung and the sound of sirens is heard all over the city. The whole of Hiroshima is silent for one minute.

World leaders visiting certain countries in Europe often feel obliged to visit sites like Auschwitz and other concentration camps, where 20 million people – of which six million were Jews – were gassed or died of disease or starvation. Perhaps weighed down by feelings of guilt, they do not make similar gestures by visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No serving United States leader has ever done so. Perhaps, Barack Obama will be the first.

It is uncommon to find former enemies joining in common atonement of a shared human tragedy in war. Yet, that is what Hiroshima and Nagasaki symbolise – a recognition and acknowledgement of our common humanity in which we can find redemption and the political will never again to repeat the same mistake.

Their citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have rebuilt their lives, have dedicated their cities – once again whole and thriving with life – to peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons. They urge us all to forgive and atone, but never to forget that never again shall there be another such cruelty. Never again shall there be hibakusha.

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has worked faithfully to rid the world of its nuclear weapons since 1980, spurred on by its Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.

In 1970, the world’s governments agreed to abolish nuclear weapons through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but they have not lived up to their promises. Today, 23,000 nuclear weapons remain in the arsenals of the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and now, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The continued possession of nuclear weapons means the risk of their use by accident, miscalculation or intent. It also stimulates others to acquire them. The abolition of nuclear weapons is possible, necessary and increasingly urgent.

IPPNW recently launched an International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican). Its aim is zero nuclear weapons. Ican is focused on mobilising ordinary citizens around the world to support and take action for nuclear abolition, and convincing governments to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention to ban nuclear weapons, in the same way that chemical and biological weapons have been banned.

Today, the world is seriously concerned about global warming and climate change. By a strange quirk of changing circumstances, the nuclear industry is promoting nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. Some states are buying into this seriously flawed promotion, including Malaysia, despite the problem of radioactive nuclear waste, which will last for thousands of years, as there is no method of safely disposing of the waste. So-called “fast breeder reactors” are merely theoretical solutions to waste disposal.

Introducing the peaceful use of nuclear energy into any country increases its capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Every additional country with this capacity increases the probability of nuclear war.

It is highly unlikely that Malaysia’s strong support for nuclear abolition will change, but the introduction of nuclear energy will create a perception among our neighbours that we have enhanced our capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

This in turn could trigger policies in other South-East Asian countries to develop nuclear weapons, leading to a regional nuclear arms race.

As we remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we owe it to the hibakusha to work unrelentingly toward a verifiable and enforceable nuclear weapons convention that will lead to a world without nuclear weapons.

Next week: Nuclear energy – green or black?

> Datuk Dr Ronald McCoy is a past president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Letter to NST on Deaths in Police Custody

5 March 2009

The Editor
New Straits Times
31 Jalan Riong
59100 Kuala Lumpur

Dear Editor,

I refer to the recent reports in the NST on the death of Kugan Ananthan on 20 January 2009, while in police custody at a police station in Subang Jaya. In the first post-mortem, carried out on 21 January at the Serdang Hospital, the cause of death was reported to be “fluid in the lungs.” Yesterday (4 March), the NST reported on the findings of a second post-mortem on 25 January by a pathologist in the University of Malaya Medical Centre, who recorded multiple V-shaped burn wounds, bruises and contusions of the skin, and haemorrhage into the gall bladder, pancreas, adrenal glands, and the brain. The certified cause of death was acute kidney failure, precipitated by the release of myoglobin from damaged skeletal muscles, as a result of blunt trauma.

The discrepancies between the two post-mortem reports raise serious concerns about the reliability and competence of the first pathologist and about the possibility of a false first report as a result of police pressure. A medical report that does not stand up to scrutiny, especially in the investigation of a custodial death, is an extremely serious matter that demands the close attention of the attorney general’s office and the disciplinary bodies of the Malaysian Medical Association and the Malaysian Medical Council.

In July 2008, the Dewan Rakyat was informed that there were 1,535 deaths in prisons, rehabilitation centres, and detention centres for illegal immigrants, between 2003 and 2007. Of these deaths, 85 occurred in police lock-ups.

The 2004 Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police focused on the prevalence of sudden deaths in police custody. The Dzaiddin Commission, as it came to be known, noted a significant level of abuse of power and little regard for civil liberties or human rights by the police. The Commission concluded that self-regulation of police conduct had often failed and recommended the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

However, the government appears to have supported the police force in its opposition to the setting up of the IPCMC, because it has refused to establish such a commission. This can only undermine public confidence in the police and give the impression that the government is tolerant of physical abuse of prisoners which may result in extra-judicial killings. This harks back to the death of 31-year-old Steve Biko in police custody in apartheid South Africa in 1977. It is high time to set up the IPCMC.

The government has also failed to set up coroner courts to hold inquests into custodial deaths. Such courts would include a forensic department made up of highly trained professionals, capable of delivering credible and accurate reports, without fear or favour, that will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. Malaysians expect and deserve nothing less.

This custodial death of Kugan Ananthan is a grim reminder that there are systemic weaknesses in our institutions of law and order and a wake-up call that institutional reforms are urgently needed. It is also a reminder that people in police custody are exposed to physical abuse and that the Ministry of Home Affairs is unwilling or unable to put an end to such murderous brutality. Not long ago, a former deputy prime minister was brutalized by the head of police, who was eventually brought to book. The implication is that anybody in police custody cannot be guaranteed physical safety and full protection of the law.

It is time to root out such conduct and inculcate professionalism to ensure that the police are capable of deducing evidence without resorting to physical abuse. It is time to reform the police force so that it will enjoy public trust and respect. The government must convince the public that it is committed to justice, human rights and the rule of just law.

The Malaysian government must act immediately in ways that will reassure the public that there will be an end to this untenable state of affairs. The time has come for change.

Yours sincerely

Dr R S McCoy

<International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)

Statement on the Use of White Phosphorus by Israeli Forces in Gaza

IPPNW notes with grave concern the use of white phosphorus by Israeli forces in the recent war against Gaza. As physicians committed to reducing the suffering brought by warfare, we recognise the inhumane and indiscriminate effects of white phosphorus, and strongly condemn its use in armed conflict under any circumstances.

White Phosphorus (WP) ignites spontaneously in air, the resultant oxide combining rapidly with moisture to form droplets which produce a very effective smoke screen. On contact with skin, WP causes painful and deep chemical burns, often extending to bone that are very slow to heal. Such burns, or the inhalation of WP droplets that can cause severe damage to the airways, are often fatal.

WP’s military utility stems from both its smoke-screening and its incendiary properties. It has been used for both purposes many times since 1916, including against Dresden, Hamburg and Cherbourg in the Second World War; by Iraqi forces, principally as ground-bursts, in the 1980s war against Iran, by US forces against Fallujah in Iraq in 2004; and now by Israeli forces in Gaza, often as air-bursts.

IPPNW calls for a ban on the use of white phosphorus in armed conflict. Its use against positions holding many civilians (including children), must be particularly condemned, its inhumane medical effects are such that its use in weaponry can never be justified.

IPPNW notes that the use of WP is not regarded as illegal under the Chemical Weapons Convention as it is deemed to be a conventional weapon for creating smoke screens. However weapons which “may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects” are also banned by Protocol III of the “Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons”. Noting that WP causes injuries that are both excessively injurious and indiscriminate, and that these effects are entirely predictable when the weapon is used, IPPNW calls for the explicit and complete banning of WP from armed conflict, and for its use to be prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention and recognised as a criminal offence under international law

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, is a non-partisan, global federation of national affiliates in more than 60 countries, including Israel and Palestine, dedicated to research, education and advocacy, relevant to the prevention of all wars. To this end, IPPNW seeks to promote non-violent conflict resolution and to minimize the effects of war. IPPNW has long advocated a peaceful and just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has developed a Medical Roadmap for peace in the Middle East.

Helsinki, Moscow, and Stockholm on February 6, 2009

Vappu Taipale

Sergey Kolesnikov

Ime John

IPPNW Co-Presidents

—————————————————————————

IPPNW * 66-70 Union Square, Suite 204 * Somerville, MA 02143, USA * 617-440-1733

—————————————————————————

Letter to New Straits Times

25 October 2008

The Editor

New Straits Times

31 Jalan Riong

59100 Kuala Lumpur

Dear Editor,

The NST of 21 October 2008 carried a report by Farrah Naz Karim, which stated that a paper on nuclear energy, as an alternative source of power for Malaysia, would be tabled at a cabinet meeting later this year. In it, the Deputy Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation said that “it was important for the public to know that nuclear power was safe, environmentally friendly and more affordable in the long run.”

So, let us please look at the facts of nuclear power. Rising oil prices and climate change have given the nuclear industry an opportunity to promote nuclear energy as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. It depicts nuclear energy as the most effective way to solve climate change. This claim has no basis in fact. Nuclear energy is neither effective nor viable. It is not a sustainable energy source and it causes devastating problems that humankind is not able to handle.

So, how does nuclear energy generate electricity? Instead of burning fossil fuels to produce steam, which is then converted to electricity, nuclear energy uses nuclear fission to generate heat to boil water to produce steam.

In 1954, the head of the US Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power plants would provide electricity “too cheap to meter.” Twenty years later, the International Atomic Energy Agency forecast that there would be up to 4,450 nuclear reactors of 1,000 Megawatts in operation worldwide by the year 2000. Today, 44 countries operate about 450 nuclear reactors, which provide 15 percent of world electricity generation.

The world does need energy that is safe, clean, affordable, renewable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable. Nuclear energy can boast none of these criteria. Since the impact of climate change, the nuclear industry has engaged in a huge PR campaign, based on spurious arguments. It has produced glossy folders to persuade the public and decision makers that nuclear power is the answer to the climate change problem. It has propagated several myths, namely that:

• Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases.
• There are no major problems associated with nuclear power.
• Nuclear power is economically viable.
• There is an adequate supply of uranium for the nuclear fission process.
• The fast breeder technology will eventually mature and provide unlimited nuclear fuel.
• There are no viable alternative solutions.

So, what are the facts? In the various stages of the nuclear process, nuclear energy indirectly does produce greenhouse gases, much less than electricity production from burning fossil fuels, but significantly more compared with electricity production from renewable, sustainable energy sources, such as sun or wind.

Nuclear power is associated with several major problems. Nuclear reactors generate lethal waste, which emits invisible radioactivity for thousands of years and for which there is absolutely no safe method of disposal. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. Devastating nuclear accidents through human error can cause widespread radioactive contamination and render uninhabitable large areas of land, as in the 1986 accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine. A terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would be just as devastating. There is also a higher incidence of cancers in the workers of nuclear power plants and the people who live in the neighbourhood.

Nuclear power is not cheap. The costs of nuclear energy are huge, although this is often denied or hidden by the nuclear industry. The cost is rising and is likely to continue rising for the foreseeable future. In the 1970s, nuclear power cost half as much as electricity from burning coal. By 1990, nuclear power cost twice as much as electricity from burning coal.¹ Today, nuclear power costs about $0.05 - $0.7/kWh, making it about 2 – 4 times more expensive than electricity from burning fossil fuels.

The real cost of nuclear energy remains murky when, as in some countries, it includes heavy subsidies paid by governments out of taxpayers’ money. In addition, there are the high costs of insuring for accident liability and decommissioning nuclear power plants.

The market itself provides evidence that nuclear power is not financially viable. Since the privatization of the energy markets in the UK, companies have not invested in nuclear energy, as it cannot exist in a competitive market without government subsidies.² Even in France, where nuclear power accounts for 75% of total electricity production, it has been admitted that nuclear power is far more expensive than electricity from efficient fossil fuel burning power plants.³

The supply of nuclear fuel is limited. Based on current uranium reserves, it is reliably estimated that they will be depleted by 2038, if the Group of Eight major industrialized countries were to build just enough nuclear reactors every year to meet their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. But this time-line could be extended marginally if significant amounts of uranium were recovered from civil and military stockpiles, and by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and enriching depleted uranium.

Fast breeder technology has been touted as another source of nuclear fuel but, after decades of research, fast breeders are a technical and economic failure. In addition, the technology, which uses plutonium for fuel, is dangerous as it can facilitate nuclear weapons proliferation. From 1964 to 1994, the United States experimented unsuccessfully with a few fast breeder reactors, but eventually shut them down. Japan has also failed with the technology. At present, only one or two fast breeder reactors are in operation.

Electricity production is only a small part of the climate change problem, accounting for just 9% of total greenhouse gas emissions. To solve climate change, we should also address and implement alternative options, such as energy conservation and efficiency, and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, biomass, etc). Finally, we must make modern living sustainable.

It is imperative that the public and the government be apprised of the facts of nuclear power, including its insurmountable risks and high cost. The government and the media have a duty and responsibility to facilitate a full and transparent public debate on nuclear energy which, if embarked on, could have dire health, environmental, economic and security consequences for the country.

Yours sincerely,

Dato’ Dr R S McCoy

President

Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibilty

17 Jalan Tanjung

Petaling Jaya

Tel. 03-79568407

References

1. Slingerland, S., Bello, Q., Davidson, M., Loo, van K., Rooijers, F. & Sevenester, M. (2004). Working Document 94. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
2. Friends of the Earth (1998). Nuclear power is no solution to climate change: Exploring the myths, The Safe Energy Bulletin, 115, Climate Change Briefing.
3. Makhijani, A. (2002). Nuclear Power: No Answer to Global Climate Change, Nukewatch Pathfinder, Autumn 2002, p 6.

HISTORY, HEALTH AND HOPE

Ronald McCoy

Introduction

The origins of warfare are layered over with speculation, but it seems likely that the early weapons of war, such as spears, bows and arrows and slings, preceded warfare chronologically and were fashioned by groups engaged in hunting.

Although aggression is part of human nature, organised violence does not seem to have been biologically programmed into early man. It is generally accepted that warfare emerged around 6,500 B.C., at the transition when some wandering hunter-gatherer groups opted for settled village life in Western Asia and were attacked by nomadic hunter-gatherers, who were attracted to the accumulation of food and other surpluses in newly settled villages, in the same way that uncertain access to oil reserves has caused wars in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

A sense of territory emerged among later societies, when population growth and increasingly complex agricultural societies encouraged the growth of cities with elaborate, walled defences and citadels, the forerunner of today’s gated communities.

Military aspects of society became clearer with written history. In lower Mesopotamia, two of the most important and earliest pictorial representations of warfare, dating back to 2,500 B.C., depict the mode of warfare. They show kings leading their followers in battle in disciplined, military formations of chariots and infantry, armed with spears, daggers, javelins and sickle swords. Later came the single arc-bow, followed by the composite bow, which became the dominant weapon of the battlefield because it had an effective range of 250 – 300 yards.

Warfare in the ancient empires of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, India and China was usually caused by specific internal circumstances, economics, geography or external threats. Warfare profoundly influenced each civilization. The military successes of these ancient

empires were mainly achieved not so much by particular armies or weapons or by advances in bronze and iron, but through superior administration, organization, economic capabilities, and inspired leadership, as well as the ability to borrow and learn new ideas, techniques and innovations from their neighbours and incorporate them into their own armies. Julius Caesar said that two things created power – soldiers and money – and that they depended upon one another.

Since the dawn of civilization, organized violence has been the ultimate way by which human societies settled their differences. The First World War, which killed 20 million, unleashed an unprecedented application of technology to the battlefield, resulting in a high casualty rate. The power of the rifle, the machine gun, and field artillery drove both sides to shelter in trenches, resulting in trench warfare. Towards the end of the war,

2

mustard gas, bombs, grenades, mortars, light machine guns, tanks and planes came into play.

The Second World War was more destructive and bloody, killing 50 million. The war fostered advances in science and technology and the production of jet aircraft, guided missiles and the prototype of the computer, all of which revolutionized war. Scientists in the Manhattan Project harnessed nuclear fission to produce three atomic bombs.

The first atomic bomb was detonated in a test, named Trinity, in the New Mexico desert on 16^th July 1945. The other two were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6^th and 9^th August, instantly destroying the cities and killing 200,000 people, a victor’s war crime that went unpunished. The scientists realized that humankind now had the ability to destroy itself. The Bhagavad-Gita has a line: Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

The Second World War, which ushered in the nuclear age, soon gave way to an ideological Cold War, which spawned the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and ‘mutual

assured destruction’ and triggered an insane nuclear arms race. It was only by good fortune, not good management of nuclear deterrence, that the world survived.

Physicians for Social Responsibility

In 1950, the US Federal Civil Defense Administration distributed 16 million copies of a booklet, Survival Under Atomic Attack, with widespread media support. That same year, American medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, actively participated in civil defence planning. Physicians were trained in leading medical schools to organize civil defence activities in their neighbourhoods. The Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine published articles which advised physicians on how to prepare for a nuclear attack.

A group of physicians in Boston, led by a cardiologist, named Bernard Lown, was moved to make a strong medical, moral, humanitarian, and legal case for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In 1951, they founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), based on the premise that health professionals would not be able make any meaningful response in the aftermath of a nuclear attack and therefore nuclear weapons had to be abolished. PSR’s objective was to educate the public and decision-makers about the inhumanity and catastrophic consequences of nuclear war. Public health academics were in the forefront of this new organization, but most prominent was its charismatic leader, Bernard Lown, who had emigrated as a boy from a Lithuanian Jewish community. Lown’s strong social conscience always impelled him to speak up against social injustices and anything he considered was wrong. It was not surprising that he was accused of being a communist during the McCarthy era.

In 1959, the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy declared that a 1,446-megaton nuclear attack on the United States was a “realistic possibility.” PSR responded by graphically describing in clinical detail the aftermath of a nuclear war, drawing on the

3

documented experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1962, a series of articles describing the medical consequences of thermonuclear war were published in a single

issue of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. David Nathan, Jack Geiger, Victor Sidel and Bernard Lown, all from the Boston PSR group, were the authors.

They analysed the attack and documented the health effects of nuclear explosions in clinical detail. They described the effects of heat, blast and radiation at various distances from the hypocenter of a one-megaton nuclear explosion. They charted the location of medical facilities and showed that most of them would be destroyed, together with their health professionals. They predicted that severe traumatic injuries and massive burns, combined with life-threatening radiation exposure, would kill 1.3 million people and injure 1.25 million in the Boston area alone and that approximately one million of the injured would subsequently die. The authors concluded that any response from health professionals would be futile and that civil defence efforts would be meaningless. It was argued that physicians had an ethical responsibility to help prevent the use of nuclear weapons. The articles received worldwide attention and PSR membership grew rapidly.

PSR’s initiatives kindled medical studies on the health effects of atmospheric nuclear testing which showed increasing levels of strontium-90, a component of radioactive fallout, in the deciduous teeth of children in the United States and Europe. Public protests led to the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere or undersea. It stopped atmospheric testing, but more than one thousand nuclear tests were then carried out underground in the next two decades.

The miraculous avoidance of a nuclear catastrophe in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and the Limited Test Ban Treaty had the effect of tranquillising and persuading most Americans, including some physicians, that nuclear war was a remote possibility. Subsequently, PSR lost support and momentum and its level of activism declined.

In the meantime, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union continued to grow and the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe increased the risk of a nuclear confrontation between NATO and the Soviet Union in the late 1970s. In 1979,

Helen Caldicott, an Australian paediatrician working in the United States, was elected president of PSR and she revitalized the organisation. With the support of other knowledgeable physicians, she organized a series of medical symposia in major US cities and projected what she called “a bomb run on them,” describing the likely consequences of a nuclear attack on each city and the problems of providing medical care for survivors. Public awareness and fear were rekindled and membership in PSR grew rapidly, reaching 20,000 members.

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

That same year, in 1979, Bernard Lown reached out to a fellow cardiologist in Moscow, Eugueni Chazov, who like Lown was researching the causes of sudden death in myocardial disease. Lown’s contention was that they were doing nothing to prevent a cause of sudden death that was threatening millions – nuclear war. He invited Chazov to

4

join him in developing a joint medical protest against nuclear weapons. As personal physician to Leonid Brezhnev, Chazov felt confident enough to accept the invitation.

In December 1980, three American physicians (Bernard Lown, James Muller and Eric Chivian) and three Russian physicians (Eugueni Chazov, Leonid Ilyin and Mikhail Kuzin) met in Geneva. They agreed on guidelines for organizing an international group of physicians, with the overarching principle that discussions would be limited to issues of nuclear war only and would avoid sensitive issues concerning conventional arms, nuclear power and human rights.

As a result of that meeting, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War was founded, the only international medical organization dedicated to preventing nuclear war and abolishing nuclear weapons. It is now a non-partisan federation of national

medical groups in 60 countries, representing tens of thousands of doctors and medical students.

IPPNW’s mission can be described in medical terms as offering a diagnosis, which describes the reality of nuclear annihilation from nuclear weapons and nuclear policies, and a prescription for cure: the abolition of nuclear weapons.

IPPNW received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 in recognition of its ability to bring together physicians linked by the common bond of medicine and its ability to speak with a single voice, ethically and with authority in the name of humanity. The award proved to be contentious. There were many accusations that IPPNW was a “communist front.”

Bernard Lown’s eloquent Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech had strong moral undertones: “We physicians who shepherd human life from birth to death have a moral imperative to resist with all our being the drift toward the brink. The threatened inhabitants on this fragile planet must speak out for those yet unborn, for posterity has no lobby with politicians…. We physicians have focused on the nuclear threat as the singular issue of our era. We are not indifferent to other human rights and hard won civil liberties. But we must be able to bequeath to our children the most fundamental of all rights which preconditions all other rights: the right to survival.”

When IPPNW’s First World Congress was held in 1981 in Airlie, Virginia, it was attended by 80 physicians from 12 countries. Since then, increasingly larger congresses have been held, first annually and then biennially.

At the Seventh World Congress in Moscow in 1987, with Chazov’s influence, the IPPNW Executive Committee was invited to meet with President Gorbachev. Earlier that year, Bernard Lown had impressed Gorbachev at a forum in Moscow, when Lown acclaimed Gorbachev’s initiatives of glasnost and perestroika, appealed to him to continue the Soviet moratorium on nuclear testing, and concluded: “Survival depends on

5

protest, not resignation. Each of us must speak for generations yet unborn. We shall succeed as we empower millions of people with our vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Only those who see the invisible can do the impossible.”

Gorbachev then leaned across and scribbled in Russian on Lown’s script: “I agree with everything you say, Dr Lown.”

In the meeting with the Executive Committee, Gorbachev declared: “We share the aims of your movement, and take them into account in shaping our foreign policy…You are not a political organization – you are concerned for the survival of all human beings. This overrides all other programmes.”

Gorbachev told the Executive Committee about new proposals that he believed the Soviet Union should support: no nuclear weapons by the year 2000; a continuing moratorium on nuclear tests; and a new system of security, universal and collective.

He went on to say: “We have a deep conviction that the only basis for international relations is a peaceful relationship and peaceful competition. We see a common European home, common security in the Asia-Pacific region, common security with our friends in the Warsaw Pact, all following a strictly defensive policy.”

A few years later, Gorbachev fell from power and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The world now is in great need of an ‘American Gorbachev.’

A wider IPPNW agenda

By the time of the 1987 Moscow Congress, new affiliates from the Third World were becoming more visible and IPPNW was concerned that nuclear disarmament had little relevance for countries where poverty, hunger and disease had become another means of mass destruction. Lown’s idea of a satellite for peace attracted generous support and soon materialized with the launching of a small satellite which brought free and effective

communication to every part of the globe. Initiated by IPPNW, SatelLife has since become a private project.

There were also concerns about the deterioration of the global environment. Bernard Lown’s creativity produced the IPPNW “triangle” – a model focusing on nuclear weapons which showed the three-way interdependence of disarmament, development and the environment. The triangle showed that refusal to abandon spending on nuclear weapons prevented nuclear states from participating effectively in development, and that their nuclear weapons industries secretly caused untold damage to the environment. Nuclear disarmament was seen as a path, not only away from a nuclear holocaust, but also towards global justice and ecological survival.

In 1988, IPPNW worked with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and established a commission to study the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons production, testing and deployment. This collaboration produced three

6

influential books: Radioactive Heaven and Earth, Plutonium: Deadly Gold, and Nuclear Wastelands.

World Court Project

IPPNW actively participated in the World Court Project, the brain-child of Harold Evans, a New Zealand lawyer and magistrate, who persistently advocated seeking a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice (or the World Court) on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. He was supported by the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and the International Peace Bureau (IPB).

At the 1991 Tenth Anniversary World Congress in Stockholm, Eric Geiringer, a member of the New Zealand affiliate, sought and received the support of IPPNW to proceed with the initiative, but it was a few years before it was finally considered by the ICJ, which gave its Advisory Opinion in 1996.

The ICJ unanimously concluded: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to disarmament in all its aspects under strict and international control.”

Eleven years after the advisory opinion, the nuclear weapon states have not pursued in good faith the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. There is widespread concern that the nuclear weapon states should do more to show good faith in fulfilling their legal obligation to comply with Article VI of the NPT and the thirteen Practical Steps contained in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

IPPNW, IALANA and IPB are now initiating a move to revitalize the legal process. A World Court Coalition has been formed and is preparing a resolution for the UN General Assembly to request further advice from the ICJ on whether the nuclear weapon states are complying with their “good faith” obligation.

The threat of nuclear war

Climate change and nuclear war are the two most dangerous challenges to human and planetary survival. The effects of climate change are now sufficiently visible and palpable to persuade governments of the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases. The threat of nuclear war, however, has not raised the same fears or roused our instinct of self-preservation, despite the existence of 27,000 nuclear weapons in a world that still resorts to war. The fear of Armageddon, most palpable in the 1980s, has receded and been replaced by complacency and a superficial understanding of the true nature of nuclear weapons.

The unique destructiveness of nuclear weapons places them in a category of their own, beyond chemical and biological weapons. Thermonuclear weaponry has the potential to render human habitat permanently radioactive and uninhabitable. The most immoral, the

7

most inhumane, the most illegal weapons of war, nuclear weapons incinerate, vaporise and annihilate indiscriminately. The principles of preventive medicine dictate that the

most effective approach to the nuclear threat is to prevent nuclear war by abolishing nuclear weapons.

The threat of nuclear war will prevail as long as states possess nuclear weapons and brandish them for security. As the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons declared: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used, accidentally or by design, defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.”

When the Cold War ended, the world squandered a great opportunity to reap a ‘peace dividend’ and increase the momentum of the bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreements to reach the goal of zero nuclear weapons. Instead, START has effectively been replaced by the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (or Moscow Treaty), which does not embrace the disarmament principles of verification, irreversibility and transparency.

The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the only legally-binding instrument for the elimination of nuclear weapons, is seriously dysfunctional. The NPT is based on a quid pro quo agreement between the non-nuclear weapon states, which have renounced nuclear weapons and are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology, and the nuclear weapon states, which in turn have promised to eliminate their nuclear arsenals in good faith. The challenge has been to enforce compliance on both sides of the bargain. Failure to balance disarmament and non-proliferation commitments is causing mutually assured paralysis in the NPT process and stimulating nuclear proliferation.

Until the nuclear weapon states are seen to be unequivocally committed to elimination, there is a real danger that nuclear proliferation will spin out of control. The 2004 Report by the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change has

warned: “We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation.”

The increasing risk of nuclear war stems particularly from the military policies of the United States, as articulated in its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and National Security Strategy. The US reserves the right to the pre-emptive use of force and has begun to envisage the use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state that poses a threat with its chemical or biological weapons. Counter-proliferation has now been enshrined in US national security strategies and has had a profound influence on a new evolving nuclear doctrine.

The NPR has expanded the role of nuclear weapons beyond their core function of nuclear deterrence to a war-fighting capability. It has blurred the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear missions and projects plans for new nuclear weapons, new missions and new

8

uses for nuclear weapons, and preparations to resume nuclear testing. The US has stigmatized five non-nuclear weapon states as ‘rogue states’ and made them potential nuclear targets.

The NPR advocates a New Triad of capabilities that will consist of combining conventional and nuclear offensive strikes with missile defences and a new nuclear infrastructure for the development and eventual production of new low-yield and earth-penetrating nuclear weapons.

The new nuclear doctrine disregards previous US negative security assurances given to non-nuclear weapon states. At least, the Cold War doctrine of nuclear deterrence started from the premise that nuclear weapons must never be used except in retaliation against another nuclear weapon state.

The other nuclear weapon states - Russia, France, Britain and China - continue to modernize and upgrade their nuclear arsenals, in open defiance of the international

community and their legal obligations under the NPT. In March 2007, Britain made clear its intentions by deciding to replace its submarine-based Trident nuclear weapon system. With the exception of China, all nuclear weapon states have a First Use policy.

The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons asserted that when any state reserves to itself the unique right to possess nuclear weapons for its own security, it leads to a highly discriminatory and unstable situation in which there is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them for their own security.

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

Compliance with the NPT has failed dismally. Following the significant failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and the attempt by the nuclear powers, led by the United States, to nullify previous NPT agreements, after 35 years of diplomatic doublespeak, IPPNW Co-President Ron McCoy called on IPPNW to think outside the NPT box and explore other avenues to nuclear abolition. He called on IPPNW to lead an International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), as a parallel abolition initiative outside the deadlocked NPT process, similar to the Ottawa Process on landmines.

There was strong support from all affiliates and ICAN was adopted by the Board of Directors as a primary IPPNW programme. ICAN will aim to build a partnership between civil society groups, like-minded governments, international agencies and the United Nations, working together to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would ban the development, possession and use of nuclear weapons.

The aim of ICAN is to garner the support of individuals, citizen groups, parliamentarians, mayors and other civic leaders and generate a global outcry, create a nuclear taboo, and mount an irresistible mass movement that will compel the nuclear weapon states to disarm and abolish their nuclear weapons through a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

9

There are encouraging signs that some influential quarters in Europe and the United States are now advocating nuclear abolition. The calls have come from the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (chaired by Hans Blix), the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and, most significantly, from the quartet of four senior US Cold Warriors –

George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn – who in the Wall Street Journal of 4^th January 2007 called for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Ethics

The state of our disorderly world cries out for new thinking and a new ethical agenda for international relations. The world is largely being shaped by political and economic forces, backed up by military power, often compromising fundamental human security, social justice and human rights. The challenges of inequity and poverty, rampant militarism and deadly conflict, environmental damage and human rights violations require of governments a new sense of global responsibility and accountability.

So-called ‘realists’ are setting the agenda and their ‘realism’ continues to dominate thinking in international relations and to influence world politics. But where is the realism in advocating security in terms of military power and the possible use of weapons that have the capacity to end our civilization? But there is a glimmer of hope. It is gradually being recognized that we have to conceptualise ethics in world politics, rather than ethics and world politics. In other words, ethics must be integrated with politics.

We in IPPNW believe that there are human solutions to human problems. Global trends suggest that the world has reached a critical cross-roads, but trends do not have inevitable end-points or consequences. Global trends can be checked and altered by transforming attitudes and values. For physicians, who believe in the sanctity of life, a natural starting point would be the Hippocratic principle: First Do No Harm. Such a principle could form the basis of a global ethic that could impinge on scientific endeavour and world affairs, at a time when science and technology are under scrutiny and the forces of militarism and economic globalisation are creating a moral vacuum.

While moral codes shape individual behaviour and state laws constrain citizens, ethics and international law do not seem to enjoy the same application or acceptance by sovereign nation states. Ethical norms governing international relations, such as they exist, need to be redefined, strengthened and applied as ground rules for the behaviour of states, as opposed to what has come to be known as an autonomous ‘morality of states’ which in practice maintains the status quo of state sovereignty which is not always moral or just.

In practice, ethical norms are often viewed as irrelevant to foreign policy, the argument being that foreign policy cannot but pursue the national interest. Since states are largely governed by self-interest, they have a tendency to view anything that compromises national interests as being inconvenient, if not irrelevant.

10

As tendencies are not inevitabilities, each state can make a choice. If we agree that foreign policy is shaped by considerations and choice, then it is possible that ethical values can contribute to foreign policy, either because decision-makers are persuaded of their importance or because electorates are so persuaded. Articulation and advocacy of ethical values by civil society and ethicists are therefore important, if there is to be change.

The creation of a global ethic as a ‘global social reality’ will depend upon what is established, not so much upon the norms accepted by states, as upon the norms embedded in institutions and practices, which represent the wider consensus of civil society throughout the world. The challenge would seem to be in establishing a consensus of universal values. It is clear that civil society has an important role and must exert its influence.

The paradox of the nuclear age is that the greater the striving for power and security through nuclear weapons, the more elusive the goal of human security becomes. For humankind to survive in an environmentally challenged and nuclear-armed world, we must learn from the mistakes of the past and forge a common, secure future. The greatest moral challenge of our times has been the unthinkable possibility of self-destruction on a global scale in a nuclear war or from climate change.

The greatest priority for collective human responsibility for the future is to ensure there will be a future and to strive against the dark forces that threaten the continuity of life itself. Such an endeavour will need political will to establish a new global ethic based on equity, justice, the rule of just law, multi-dimensional democracy, and a shared responsibility for upholding our humanity and respect for the environment.

________________________________________________________________________

Talk given at the IPPNW Southeast Asia and Pacific Students Conference in Adelaide, 7 – 8 July 2007.

Society of Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility (PPSR) Forum

Cordially invites you to a forum

“TRAINING FUTURE DOCTORS: HAVE WE GOT IT RIGHT?”

In collaboration with MOH, MOHE, MMC, MMA, AMM, UM, MMMC, MSU

Date & Time: Saturday, November 29, 2008. 0830-1700hrs

Venue: Institiut Pengurusan Kesihatan (IPK) Bangsar, KL

Jalan Rumah Sakit Bangsar

PROGRAMME:

Advisor: Tan Sri Dato Dr Hj Mohd Ismail Merican

Key Note Address:

“The Medical Profession: Past, Present and Future”

Speaker: YBhg Tan Sri Datuk Dr Hj Mohd Ismail Merican (DGH)

Plenary (3 lectures): (30 minutes each)

1. The Medical Schools

Speaker: Prof Dato Dr Md Tahir Azhar (IIU)

Deputy Rector, International Islamic University.

2. The Medical Undergraduate:

Speaker: Prof Dr Zabidi Azhar Mohd Hussin (USM)

Head, Department of Paediatrics, School of Medical Sciences, USM

3. The “future doctor”:

Speaker: Dato Dr Abdul Hamid Abdul Kadir (MMC)

Member, Malaysian Medical Council.

FURTHER DETAILS:

http: //mmc.gov.my/v1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=127

Group Discussions:

At the end of the plenary session, participants will be divided into three groups to discuss specific points in three major topics.

The groups will have about 2 hours each, at the end of which they will be expected to have reached consensus. These will be presented to the whole forum.

The topics are:

(1) Doctor: Population: country’s needs

(2) Medical Schools & Undergraduates

(3) The Future Doctor

Participants

MOH (practice, training, development)

MOHE, MQA, JPA,

Faculties of Medicine Public and Private universities

MMC, MMA, Academy

NGOs – Non-medical: CAP, FOMCA, etc

Chairmen for sessions and group discussions to be announced later, but will be drawn from

the various Universities and Ministry of Higher Education, MMC, MMA..

Registration: RM50.00 (refreshments and meal, material included)

Payable to PPSR (Society of Physicians for Peace & Social Responsibility)

Academy House, 19 Jalan Folly Barat, 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

Please make cheque crossed payee PPSR, and contact Dr K.W.Thong

at email: thongkwai@gmail.com when you send any cheques.

Alternatively, registration can be made on the morning of the Forum.