What: Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL)/Women’s Action for New Direction (WAND) Press Conference,
Where: Spartanburg Public Library, Spartanburg, SC
When: 5 April 2006
Attended by: William Murphy and Andrew James, Carolina Chapter of NA-YGN
Note: The following is a pure summary of the press conference and the claims made by BREDL/WAND/etc. It’s quite obvious that much of the following is factually incorrect.
Objective Summary
The press conference at the Spartanburg Public Library began at about 11:45AM with approximately twenty to twenty-five people in attendance, including journalists from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the Shelby Star, WYFF Channel 4 (Greenville), and WSPA Channel 7 (Spartanburg). Louis Zeller of BREDL opened the conference with an overhead projection of a quote by Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, in regards to a ruling made in favor of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1961:
“…a lighthearted approach to the most awesome, the most deadly, the most dangerous process ever created…”
Zeller replaced the quote with an image of the AP1000 reactor design, and stated that the purpose of the press conference was to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl incident, “one of the worst disasters in history,” and to use the disaster at Chernobyl as a primary argument against the construction of nuclear reactors at the Cherokee site near Gaffney, SC. Zeller asserted that the AP1000 design is purely “experimental,” with industry claims that the design is “inherently safe” (referring, of course, to its passive safety features) calling into question the safety of reactors currently in operation. Zeller then abandoned his focused discussion of the AP1000 design and expanded his objection to nuclear power and Duke Energy in particular, claiming that “routine operations” of nuclear plants release large quantities of radiation to the environment and that there’s no “safe level” of radiation. Zeller stated that Duke Energy’s safety record is “spotty,” with several violations issued to Duke’s nuclear sites by NRC. As an example of Duke’s lack of commitment to safety, Zeller pointed out that Duke refused to shut down Oconee after the Three Mile Island incident, despite a request by the Union of Concerned Scientists to do so. In order to prevent “any more Chernobyls” from occurring in the Carolinas, Zeller announced the launch of the Carolina Safe Energy Campaign, an effort spearheaded by BREDL to deter any nuclear facilities at Cherokee. The Campaign, amongst other things, will mount challenges with the licensing process, educate the public regarding Duke’s safety record, and warn the public about the “negative health impacts” of nuclear power plants, including “increased morbidity and mortality” in populations near such facilities, while “advocating safe, practical alternate energy.” Zeller concluded his opening remarks with a claim that unsafe releases of radiation at nuclear plants are “not accidental,” and posed the rhetorical question, “Why are we funding the nuclear dinosaur?”
BREDL invited four Russians, including one translator, to speak of their experiences surrounding the Chernobyl incident. The first to speak was German Lukashin, a “nuclear safety expert” who participated in the Chernobyl “liquidation” (clean-up effort) soon after the incident in 1986 and again in 1990, and has also conducted studies of the Chernobyl-affected regions in Belarus. Lukashin began by emphasizing the severity of the Chernobyl incident, noting that its ramifications were “much greater than Three Mile Island.” Nuclear energy, he said, “is very dangerous and has to be controlled” and “…it’s a crime to lie to people and say this energy is safe.” Lukashin based the majority of his arguments from his experiences with regards to an incident in the Ural Mountains in 1957, in which large quantities of radiation were released to the environment. He went into no specifics regarding the incident, but a quick Google search revealed that, in 1957, a Soviet nuclear [weapons] waste tank exploded in the southern Ural Mountains after a failure of its cooling system. With elevated radiation levels still present in the region, Lukashin criticized the deceptive and secretive culture of the Soviet nuclear infrastructure and emphasized the need for “seasoned” development of nuclear facilities. Lukashin concluded by urging the need for prevention of nuclear incidents, for those who consciously place themselves in the danger of radiation exposure accept the risk, but children and women (especially those who are pregnant) should not bear the consequences of other people and companies.
Anatoly Mamayev, a biologist from Russia, hailed from a “closed-out” city in Siberia that was host to “three hidden reactors.” He spoke relatively briefly, urging the need to educate the public about the health issues of radiation and explained that the nuclear power industry is not self-sustaining and could not survive without government subsidy. Mamayev claimed that the “limited resources of uranium” will “not last another 40 or 50 years,” and plutonium cannot be relied upon as it is “two thousand times greater in radioactivity than uranium.” Mamayev concluded his short discussion by stating that nuclear technology results in increased public disease and that fission products are “almost impossible” to purge from the environment after a nuclear incident.
The third “witness” to Chernobyl-borne effects was Andrey Talevin, a lawyer who is “working in this issue,” specifically representing clients who suffer from post-Chernobyl health issues. Talevin spoke of witnessing the “genetic effects and other diseases” that people who live in “so-called clean environments” suffer from, and how these people are not responsible for what happened to them. He asserted that the development and expansion of nuclear energy is worsening a “waste problem” that is being “taken to the future [generations].”
Bobbie Paul of WAND’s Atlanta chapter was then introduced by Zeller. Paul began with a statement of WAND’s goals of redirecting human and financial resources from militarism and violence towards “human and environmental causes.” Though she at first stressed the need for a “balance of energy sources” and asserted that nuclear power is “clean” despite waste concerns, Paul cautioned about the “serious health consequences” of a nuclear accident, encouraging all present to watch the “Academy Award-winning” documentary Chernobyl Heart and categorizing current nuclear safety standards as “laughable.” WAND’s basis for their objection to current safety standards, apparently, is that the perceived health impacts from radiation exposure are derived from considering a “base male” subject, as opposed to infants and children. Paul proceeded to advocate the “precautionary principle” of environmental policy, using the metaphor of placing a gate at the top of a staircase to protect a child as opposed to putting a pillow at the bottom. Paul concluded by warning that on an “economic and spiritual” level, nuclear energy cannot be relied upon, and with feasible “alternate energy” sources available, “Why do it [nuclear]?”
Zeller initiated the conclusion of the press conference with a warning that the AP1000 is an “immediate threat.” The “untested” AP1000 design, Zeller asserted, was prematurely approved and boasts “the same dangerous technology” as its PWR predecessors with nothing more added than “some bells and whistles.” Stating that nuclear power is an “empty promise,” Zeller cited a technical paper by a “Dr. Kumar” that determines the extreme amounts of power necessary to fabricate nuclear reactor fuel has resulted in, over the last 40 years, only a net benefit of 20 reactors’ worth of electricity, as the rest were accounting for the energy deficit in fuel production. Zeller pointed out that production of nuclear fuel, in addition, releases “huge amounts of carbon dioxide.”
At this point, Bobbie Paul interrupted Zeller and requested that the Russian translator for the aforementioned three BREDL witnesses, Natalya Mironova, speak about her personal experiences regarding Chernobyl. Mironova, whose grandmother lived near Minsk (a distance from Chernobyl similar to that from Atlanta to Spartanburg), suffers from an enlarged thyroid gland. Her grandmother died of liver cancer, which they attribute to radiation exposure from the Chernobyl incident. Mironova spoke of how no one in the region was made aware of the incident until Swedish television reported elevated radiation levels within their own borders.
The final BREDL representative to speak before press questions were solicited was Reverend James Johnson. He attested to the “high contamination” in the area in which he lives and asserted that 286 individuals have died as a result of nuclear power plant operation in the region. He also spoke of his childhood recollection of sirens regularly alarming at nuclear stations and at the time believed it to be the “lunch bell” ringing, but now realizes that, in fact, those sirens were heralding the “toxic releases” that the station was making.
The only press question came from the Shelby Star, who asked Zeller for the timetable for the Carolina Safe Energy Campaign (e.g. upcoming rallies, protests, etc.). Zeller indicated that such activities would begin “soon.”
After the Star question was answered, a BREDL member from Rock Hill, SC was recognized by Zeller. He cautioned of the dire consequences of a meltdown at the Cherokee site, warning that everyone’s possessions in Spartanburg would be rendered radioactive and without value. He also claimed that the Price-Anderson act shielded utilities from any liability in the event of an accident.
Perspective and Reflections
The two of us were the only “pro-nuclear” attendees. A Duke spokeswoman arrived as the press conference was ending. Judging by Lou Zeller’s response, it was quite obvious that they didn’t expect any pro-nuclear people there at all. Incidentally, we were made aware of the press conference via an article in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal publicizing the event.
Zeller, Bobbie Paul, James Johnson, and the Russian guests were all friendly for the most part, but several other invited attendees (not necessarily BREDL members) were confrontational and rude with us both before and after the press conference. These individuals resorted to personal attacks and tangents when presented with respectful, credible counterpoints. While this was not overly surprising, it serves to illustrate the dynamic of such encounters. It is also worth noting that before any press arrived, Zeller threatened to ask us to leave if we interrupted, however the combative anti-nukes received no such admonishment.
Following the press conference, we were able to engage several of the media and provide counterpoints to several BREDL claims. Most of the questions and rebuttals centered on Chernobyl and health effects associated with nuclear power plants. We also tried to offer counterpoints to other claims as well as underscore some of NA-YGN’s goals and talking points, but those comments were not used in the stories. Of the four media outlets present, we spoke to and were quoted in both newspapers and we got face time on one of the network news stories (WYFF). The dates/titles of the articles and television spot are included at the end of this summary.
The participation of WAND in the press conference was interesting because it would seem, based on the goals of that organization, that they could just as easily justify a pro-nuclear stance. We’ve seen this transition from numerous environmentalists and environmental groups already, but it underscores the point that a strong grassroots campaign to inform people and organizations can indeed be successful. Those examples show the value in engaging these organizations in dialogue and information exchange. As an independent entity, NA-YGN is better set up to succeed in such a campaign than a corporation such as Duke Energy.
In summary, there was a great amount of misinformation presented by BREDL et al and subsequently reported in news stories. It is important that such claims be countered when possible. For that reason, NA-YGN attendance at events of this type is incredibly beneficial. Although public opinion polls favor nuclear power, anti-nuclear groups have historically been better at mounting “information” campaigns. NA-YGN has an opportunity to engage the public through grassroots efforts and counter much of the misinformation and propaganda that will undoubtedly be gearing up in the near future.
Related Stories
“Environmental groups unhappy with plans to build nuclear plant”, Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 4/6/2006 http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/NEWS/604060347/1062
“Anti-nuclear activists launch campaign to stop Duke Power’s plan”, Shelby Star, 4/6/2006
http://www.shelbystar.com/portal/ASP/article_new.asp?ID=22298
“Duke Nuclear Plant Opponents”, WYFF (NBC) video, 4/6/2006
http://www.wyff4.com/video/8494274/index.html
