AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTERS
By
C. G. Weeramantry
Former Vice President, International Court of Justice
President, International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms
Founder Trustee, Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education & Research
The earthquake in Japan and the resulting damage to nuclear power plants have sent shock waves and a dire note of warning to the world’s entire population. Despite their obvious dangers, nuclear reactors are proliferating worldwide and sowing the seeds of pollution and congenital deformities for a thousand generations to come (the half life of Plutonium 239, one of the bi-products of nuclear activities is 24,100 years).
Unborn generations are just as much members of the human family as ourselves but have no voice to speak for themselves. We take advantage of this and are damaging them catastrophically by our breach of trust of this environment of which we are custodians and not owners. Every single citizen is a trustee of the environment. All the more are Governments trustees, and in particular the environmental ministers of the world bear a special responsibility in this regard. We are in default of our duties if we continue to keep open such possibilities and create more, despite our knowledge of their dreadful consequences. Our generation and particularly those who are specially entrusted with the care of the environment will have to answer before the bar of history for our default and abuse of trust. Indeed we are committing the gravest possible crime against future generations and are doing so with a full consciousness of the effects of our actions.
If people of the Stone Age had been able to cause damage to the environment and cause congenital deformities to our generation, we would have condemned them as savages, brutes and barbarians. Yet, even if they could have caused such damage, they could have had no idea of the irreparable harm they were causing to generations yet unborn. We, on the other hand, who are fully aware of the catastrophic damage we are causing to unborn generations, still proceed regardless, pursuing activities which, it is patently clear, will release these dangers sooner or later. We continue to build nuclear reactors all over the world.
Even a school child is aware that no power on earth can insure against earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, insurrections, negligent management and other disasters. These will inevitably occur over a period of years and not only do we know this as a virtual certainty, but we know also that there is no known means of eliminating them. This makes us savages, brutes and barbarians several times over. In a supposedly enlightened age, we are, with total disregard of any sense of responsibility, proceeding to build more reactors, pursuing short term advantages while being fully aware of the long term perils we are inflicting on our own posterity. Solar and other renewable energy sources provide all the energy the world needs but we neglect them, for there are great profits for those few who are engaged in the nuclear energy enterprise, whatever the costs to the vast majority and the generations yet to come.
As a result we have become the most destructive generation in all of human history, regardless of the fact that we are destroying the undoubted birthright of billions of human beings for whom we hold the environment on trust.
I take the liberty of addressing you on this matter as I have for over 30 years campaigned against the dangers of nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste. As early as 1985, I toured the major cities of Japan at the instance of the Japan Scientists’ Association delivering lectures on the dire dangers to humanity resulting from nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste.
Also, nearly thirty years ago, in The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology, Penguin 1983, pp 139-141, I foreshadowed this danger, referring to leakages from nuclear reactors and the possibilities of major accidents threatening our very survival. I referred also to the possibility that, if the residents of a city were exposed to radioactive contamination through a serious nuclear accident, the national interest may demand their compulsory sterilisation to prevent the birth of an unprecedented number of defective children, observing that “we are only a nuclear accident away from this”. I referred also to the fact that a major accident near a populated city could cause property damage and health damage which could not be estimated even in hundreds of billions of dollars, and for which insurance coverage would be beyond the realm of possibility. As early as 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released estimates of death and property damage from reactor accidents running to over $300 billion in crowded city areas. The Harrisburg nuclear leak demonstrated, even then, how close we could be to a nuclear accident, the percentage possibility of a nuclear accident occurring somewhere in the world being assessable at between 5 and 10% within the next few years. Such reasonable forecasts of possible catastrophes have somehow been completely submerged by the combined political and economic strength of those who advocate the extension of nuclear energy.
In my Dissenting Opinion in the case in which an Advisory Opinion was sought from the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons, I discussed the possibility of damage to nuclear reactors and the lethal doses of radiation to exposed persons 150 miles downwind and the radioactive contamination of the environment more than 600 miles away. I also discussed the damage caused by the Chernobyl incident, for years after its occurrence, to all species of life for thousands of square miles in the vicinity, which necessitated the pouring in of medical personnel, supplies and equipment from across the Soviet Union in a manner which strained the resources even of that powerful nation. Smaller states could be completely crippled by such an accident, with a loss of income, loss of life, loss of jobs and loss of resources from which it would take generations to recover. Medical injuries caused included convulsions, vascular damage, cardio vascular collapse, keloids and cancers.
Having discussed these dangers in judgments, publications and lectures worldwide for so many years I have been devastated at the thought that my worst premonitions have come to pass and worse can follow if we continue with our betrayal of trust and abandonment of responsibility towards our children and our children’s children.
Any plea for the abolition of nuclear reactors would be incomplete without reference to the problem of disposal of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste carries all the elements of radioactive danger to health and the environment and there is no known means of disposal of these toxic accumulations. Whether they be buried in the depths of the ocean or deep trenches or salt beds, or wherever else, we cannot guarantee for twenty-four thousand years that they will remain safe in their repositories, and we would be inflicting this source of inter-generational, environmental, and physical damage on future generations in a manner which is totally unjustifiable by any standards of morality or law.
Another danger, which by itself is sufficient to justify the total abolition of nuclear reactors, is that nuclear waste from hundreds of reactors cannot possibly be accounted for and it is well known that such records are not maintained, even by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This material is the raw material needed for the manufacture of nuclear weapons and there is here an open invitation to terrorists across the world to interest themselves in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. This is particularly dangerous in a world in which the necessary knowledge for the construction of a nuclear weapon is available on the internet, as I have been assured by eminent physicists.
In the result, the continuance and proliferation of nuclear reactors violates every principle of humanitarian law, international law, environmental law and international sustainable development law.
The traditional wisdom of ancient peoples such as the Native Americans used to ordain that no serious decision concerning the community should be taken without considering its impact for seven generations to come. Traditional African wisdom has decreed that any major decision affecting a community should bear in mind the three-fold face of humanity – those who went before us, those who are alive here and now, and those who are yet to come – without which the decision taken would be a lopsided one.
Our modern technological civilisation disregards all such traditional wisdom in addition to disregarding the governing principle that we should tread lightly on the earth, which underlies all environmental law (I have expanded on these aspects in Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future, Stamford Lake, 2010).
It is not only traditional wisdom we disregard. We disregard also the wisdom of the great religions of the world, which are likewise united in their concern for the people of the future. Jesus Christ warned that it would be better for those who place obstacles in the way of children to have a millstone around their neck and to be drowned in the ocean. The Koran states that the true followers of the Almighty are those who tread lightly on the earth. Buddhism teaches that not even a sovereign is the owner of land, but only a trustee, and Hinduism prescribes detailed duties lying on the sovereign to look after every department of environmental protection. Judaism likewise, in numerous teachings, elevates protection of the environment to the level of a primary duty.
All these are aspects which must necessarily engage the attention of ministers charged with care of the environment, in an age when the environment is being threatened as never before during the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity’s existence on the planet.
I urge on you, as custodians of our environment, the need for immediate action to halt the construction of new reactors, explore alternative energy systems and phase out the existing ones. Populations throughout the world need to be alerted to the dangers we are facing. The one-way flow of information on the benefits of nuclear reactors needs to be reversed.
Failure to take these steps will result in the commission of crimes against future generations and a gross betrayal of the trust which we owe to our children and our children’s children. You are in a position to play a leadership role in this crisis. This is an appeal to you, as those primarily responsible for the care of our planet, to do all within your power to avert the catastrophes that loom ahead.
Time is running out. Please act now.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
This nuclear disaster was a series of equipment failures – nuclear meltdowns – releases of radioactive materials at the ‘Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant’.…
- 567 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Eugene Robinson, author of “No Fail-Safe Option”, writes during the recent destruction of the Fukushima power plant, cautioning the use of nuclear power, and touching on the Chernobyl incident. He claims that the idea of nuclear energy, in spite of its benefits, is not worth the destruction and damage it could potentially cause.…
- 257 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In Eugene Robinson’s article, “No Fail-Safe Option,” he addresses that nuclear power is beginning to look like a “bargain with the devil” (Robinson 226). Robinson, a journalist for The Washington Post, aims his article at the Chernobyl disaster and the unlikeliness of the Fukushima crisis ending with the same result. Even though Japanese engineers struggle to keep the catastrophe from escalating even higher, Robinson says we cannot ignore the fact that nuclear fission is “inherently and uniquely toxic technology” (226). He points out that the “most powerful earthquake in Japan’s recorded history” began a declining chain of events, starting with system…
- 342 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In her essay “The Obligation to Endure”, Rachel Carson alerts the public to the dangers of modern industrial pollution. She writes about the harmful consequences of lethal materials being released into the environment. She uses horrifying evidence, a passionate tone, audience, and the overall structure of her essay to express to her readers that the pollution created by man wounds the earth. There are many different ways that pollution can harm the environment, from the nuclear explosions discharging toxic chemicals into the air, to the venomous pesticides sprayed on plants that kills vegetation and sickens cattle. The adjustments to these chemicals would take generations. Rachel Carson explains “…even this, were it by some miracle possible, would be futile, for new chemicals come from our laboratories in an endless stream; almost five hundred annually find their way into actual use in the United states alone” (614).…
- 1083 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
that the release of radioactive materials from a nuclear power plant was a major concern…
- 3565 Words
- 15 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Many people around the world ask themselves what are the disadvantages of adopting an alternative solution to solve the consumption of global nuclear energy? Based on what we have experienced through events with major disasters and the aftermath of many casualties, it has summed up to result in having failures outgrowing expectations. Therefore, global nuclear power usage is to be opposed due to the fact that it comes with high financial costs, nuclear waste management complications, and the fact that thousands in populations are mass numbers of casualties.…
- 530 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
As everyone knows, nuclear energy can release nuclear radiation which can kill human’s cells and serious radiation can cause death. Furthermore, radiation can result in genetic variation. Radiation also has nuclear residue. It is hard to clear, may be more than 50 years can disappear. Such as Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, now is a ghost town, no one can live in there because of the radiation residue.…
- 394 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Over centuries humans have always continued to try and find new ways of converting one form of energy into one which humans can manipulate for their own use. One of the most recent forms of converting energy, which is gaining in popularity is nuclear energy. With 14 percent of the world using it today it is a viable alternative to burning fossil fuels. To give you a basic idea on how the process of converting energy works according to the Canadian Nuclear Association is as basic as, “splitting the uranium atom to generate the heat that is used to produce steam for the production of electricity”(www.cna.ca). However things do not always run so smoothly, and the leakage of the nuclear material could have devastating consequences to both the land and its inhabitants. One of the bigger well know events of this nature, came from the power plant Chernobyl. To put simply it is a plant that exploded releasing nuclear waste into the atmosphere. Although this is detrimental to the environment the significance behind this event is because of this accident, we have now learned from our mistakes and are taking more precautions so that history is not repeated. I will prove that history will not be repeated through some background knowledge of the plant, what happened during the meltdown and how it effected the land and inhabitants, and finally what insight we have gained from this event and its significance to history.…
- 1138 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
According to McGovern, there are numerous health risks connected to nuclear energy and the exposure of human cells to its radiations. This is a critical aspect in the context of health and other provisions regarding this article. The entire paper discusses more on the aspects of technology and its devastating effects on health. It is vital to agree that technology has revolutionized the entire sectors of economy, health, and social aspects; nonetheless, nuclear energy has impacts that cannot be contained in the health contexts. Numerous strategies are required in order to curb the menace even there is need to embrace such technologies. This article takes a look at the health risks related to the use of nuclear energy and the importance of understanding these risks. This article acknowledges the fact that nuclear energy may have both positive and negative impacts on individual’s health. However, the only positive impact on health which is highlighted in this article is the fact that nuclear energy can be used to produce electricity which is important in maintaining and developing economies (McGovern M. H. and Tiwari J. (2009). the article acknowledges the fact that the positive impacts of nuclear technology may be dwarfed and become insignificant by the extent of the negatives associated with nuclear energy. the radiological and non-radiological risks posed with nuclear mishaps or misuse of nuclear facilities is also discussed. according to the article, the dangers of exposure to high dosages to radiation is illustrated using the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 (McGovern & Tiwari, 2009).…
- 982 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Nuclear power’s bad reputation has come about due to the accident at nuclear plants such as Chernobyl in Ukraine, Fukushima in Japan and Three Mile Island in the USA. Chernobyl was one of the only ones out of three that has been classified as a “major accident” by The International Atomic Energy Agency; the other was the accident at Fukushima. The reason the Chernobyl accident was considered a “major accident”, was due to the emergency shutdown failing, with a full melt down being achieved. This area is not able to be populated ever again due to the extreme…
- 1108 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
This book talks about how the Chernobyl accident caused the rest of the world to reconsider the use of nuclear power plants. While many nuclear plants are still running today, Chernobyl did lead to improvements in the design and safety measures of these machines.…
- 2182 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Many professors, scientists, researchers, and even governments, have been debating over the issue on the use of nuclear power as a main energy source. In Taking Sides, two authors who are highly narrow-minded state their debates on this critical issue. Allison MacFarlane, author of “Nuclear Power: Panacea for Future Energy Needs?”, believes that nuclear power should be revived. She argues that nuclear power will provide sufficient energy, while at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, professor Kristin Shrader-Frechette, author of “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, argues that nuclear power is too expensive and unsafe for the environment, when there are renewable energy sources that are better for the environment and economy. I agree with Shrader-Frechette because she proves the five myths about nuclear energy wrong using extremely valid arguments, which exist to prove that nuclear power is not the best option for an energy source in our society.…
- 1389 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
Fukushima Causes National Concern: Time for New EPA Policy ERIC ZOPPI DECEMBER 9TH, 2013 SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY Holy Fukushima: Statement of the Problem March 11th, 2011 - Töhoku Earthquake & Tsunami wreaked havoc upon Japan, resulting in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant experienced crippling structural damage, as well as subsequent meltdowns of several nuclear reactors and steady leakage of Iodine-131, Cesium-137, Cesium134, Tellurium, Uranium, and Strontium into the Pacific Ocean. Research Design/Method: Major Fukushima Arguments Argument#2 Argument #1 The leaked radioactive material will not have a significant impact on the U.S. due to the relatively short half-lives of the isotopes and the likelihood of natural dissemination, specifically in the Convergence Zone of the Pacific Ocean •…
- 1370 Words
- 10 Pages
Good Essays -
During the last century, nuclear power has been established as a reliable source of energy in the major industrialized countries. Nuclear power plants provide about 17 percent of the world's electricity. In the United States, nuclear power supplies about 15 percent of the electricity overall. Although no new plants are scheduled to be built in the United States, nuclear power is growing to be a popular producer of power. It has recently enjoyed a revival in attention and research due to the environmental concerns surrounding current conventional energy sources. Issues of regulation and safety are at the forefront of all discussions involving nuclear power. (Lillington) One of the major concerns is the radioactive waste that is produced during the fission of uranium.…
- 2468 Words
- 10 Pages
Powerful Essays -
An earthquake of a magnitude of 9.0 that occurred in Japan at 2:46 pm on Friday March 11, 2011 did a significant amount of damage in the region, as the following tsunami did even much more damage, flooding about 560 square kilometers resulting in a human death toll of about 19,000 and the destruction of coastal ports, towns and buildings (Fukushima Accident, 2016). Eleven reactors at four different nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and were all shut down when the earthquake struck, but one of the plants, the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant showed signs of a problem on day five (Fukushima Accident, 2016). The reactors proved to overcome adverse conditions caused by the earthquake, but vulnerable to the tsunami. Unfortunately, three Tepco employees were killed directly by the earthquake and the tsunami (Fukushima Accident, 2016).…
- 716 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays