[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Harvey Wasserman - Comments on Nuclear Terrorism



Yeah, I know, most of you will eithr just delete this or laugh at it.

But for the few who are interested.....





> KNOWING WHAT WHEN ABOUT ATOMIC TERRORISM

>

> By Harvey Wasserman

>

> Columbus ALIVE (Please Circulate and Reprint)

>

> So if Bush knew something at sometime about the possibility of

> terrorists

> using jets to crash into government buildings, why didn't he do

> something

> about it before September 11?

>

> And far more importantly:  if he knows something about the possibility

> of

> terrorists attacking atomic power plants and causing a radioactive

> apocalypse, why doesn't he act RIGHT NOW, before we find ourselves in

> post-tragedy hearings about why he didn't?

>

> And just for the heck of it, let's throw in another related quiz

> question:

> what do you do with a gigantic, highly radioactive piece of metal that

> weighs

> 120 tons, has a six-inch hole in its head, and is currently

> "ship-in-a-bottle" locked inside a massive concrete and steel

> containment

> dome that's many feet thick, latticed with powerful re-bar steel,

> allegedly

> designed to withstand the radioactive fires and pressures of a

> controlled

> nuclear explosion?

>

> The rap that US intelligence should have anticipated the possibility

> of a

> horrific hijacking like September 11 is not a partisan bauble.  The

> threats

> were always credible, and there was a way to deal with them:  pay for

> decent

> airport security.  Paul Krugman of the New York Times placed the blame

>

> precisely where it belonged immediately after the disaster:  airline

> deregulation.  Terrorist don't walk onto commercial aircraft with box

> cutters

> unless screening is really lax, which it certainly was prior to 9/11.

> Why?

> Because the airline industry, with its well-heeled lobbyists working

> Congress

> and the White House, didn't want to pay for real precautions.  Locks

> on

> cockpit doors, armed marshalls riding shotgun, trained screening

> personnel---it wasn't really rocket science.  It could have prevented

> September 11.

>

> But the White House, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (whose wife

> lobbies

> for the airlines), and an army of bought pols simply said: "Don't

> bother."

>

> Well, now there are prices to be paid.  Bush's poll ratings won't

> shield him

> from having exploited a horrible human tragedy for which his own

> corrupt

> neglect was partly responsible.

>

> But there's another nightmare in the wings, and the response has been

> precisely as lax and complacent as what led to 9/11.  But this time

> the

> consquences could be infinitely worse.

>

> The major media is now carrying reports of terrorist threats against

> commercial atomic power plants to happen on or around July 4.  Nuke

> sabotage

> has long been considered a credible event.  Bush cited reactor plans

> found at

> Al Quaeda hideouts and the Ayotallah Khomeini among others has talked

> about

> hitting "nuclear targets."

>

> In short, if warnings of hijacked planes crashing into government

> buildings

> prior to 9/11 were vague and isolated, warning of attacks on nuclear

> plants

> are clear and abundant.

>

> So has the government reacted?  Not hardly.  There's been some

> heightened

> ground security, and talk of posting snipers.  The Nuclear Control

> Institute

> has suggested installing anti-aircraft emplacements.

>

> But atomic reactors are infinitely complex and vulnerable.  There are

> literally thousands of ways to attack one.  The only real security

> measure is

> to shut them all.

>

> Which is do-able.  The US electric grid is awash in capacity.  The

> alleged

> "shortages" driving prices through the California roof were fake.

> Every

> reactor in the US could disappear tomorrow and there might be some

> temporary

> shortages in some isolated areas, but virtually no impact on the

> national

> supply.

>

> Where there WOULD be an impact is if one of these threats comes true,

> a la

> 9/11.  A US reactor catastrophe, terrorist or otherwise, could kill

> hundreds

> of thousands of people, poison millions, cause trillions of dollars in

>

> damage, permanently devastate thousands of square miles and

> irrevocably

> cripple the entire US economy.

>

> The threats to make all that happen are far clearer and more tangible

> than

> what preceded 9/11.  The Administration's insane response has been to

> push to

> build more reactors.

>

> So do we now wait for disaster to strike, and then hold hearings to

> determine

> what the administration knew and when?  Or do we find a way to shut

> these

> things down before the unthinkable occurs?

>

> We may not have to wait for the terrorists anyway.  A six-inch hole

> burned by

> boric acid into the head of the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo

> recently

> brought the Great Lakes within 3/8th of an inch of extinction.  A

> tiny,

> remnant sliver of warped, buckled metal may be all that saved millions

> of

> people from lethal fallout.

>

> The plant owners want to replace the head.  But how do you get it

> out?  Where

> do you put it once you do?  And who's going to volunteer to be exposed

> to the

> incredibly intense levels of radiation involved with this horrendous

> task?

>

> Every week new horrors emerge, from a full-scale fire in California's

> San

> Onofre plant during the dereg crisis to an endless litany of human

> errors and

> mechanical fiascos that bring us ever-closer to atomic catastrophe.

>

> The first jet that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11 flew

> directly

> over the Indian Point reactors, forty miles north.  Had it dived down

> a

> minute earlier, all of New York would now be a radioactive waste land.

>

> It didn't then, but it could now be happening as you read this.

> George Bush

> may duck what he knew and didn't know on 9/11.  But we all know plenty

> about

> 103 sitting duck US commercial reactors, and the 430-plus worldwide.

>

> Credible threats have been made.  The reactors are vulnerable.  Their

> power

> is not needed.  What are we waiting for?

>

> Unplug Salem Campaign; Coalition for Peace and Justice;

> 321 Barr Ave; Linwood NJ 08221

> 609-601-8583/8537

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



--

Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr

Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537;

ncohen12@comcast.net  UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:

http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:

http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org   The Coalition for Peace and

Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.

"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you;

Then you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?"  (Mary Chapin

Carpenter)





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/