Nuclear Sociopaths

Helen Caldicott, the world’s most reknown nuclear expert when it come to its effects on humans, pointed out that one in twenty five people are sociopaths. She asked the question of who? Who is the sort of person that looks at all of the dangers of nuclear energy and radioactivity and thinks it is worth the price of filling this planet up with cancer causing toxins? There were several points that I wasn’t able to get to after writing about Dr. Caldicott’s talk last week.

Helen described the scene in Los Alamos (Los Alamos, NM is where our national lab on all things nuclear is located). Many times folks who are really whizzes at their studies – like nuclear physicist – are exceptional students because they are able to hyper focus on the questions at hand in the lab. In the elite field of those studying nuclear energy and weapons (as in any hi tech, socially isolating, academic field) there is often a neurotic drive to get to the answers in the lab that precedes the social development ( we’ve all seen the super brainy student that is aces in the lab and not so smooth with the social interactions). Those developers in Los Alamos have been isolated, coddled by government budgets, pushed to prove their worth (produce something), and kept in the insular environs of the lab community. Pretty much everyone in Los Alamos is connected to the lab and “on board”  with the program.  It’s hard to believe that a culture of independent, unbridled curiosity, and community spirit surrounds the classified lab. One of the reasons they used Los Alamos to begin with was due to its distance from the population.

Workers in this clandestine environment (and similar labs around the world) are the ones that continue to innovate and problem solve for nuclear power. Even if the intention is to make nuclear energy “safe”, not another dime should be spent on its development and proliferation without solving the issue of radioactive waste. 

Since I wrote about Helen’s talk last week, I’ve read a bit more on some of her detractors. The chief complaint I hear against Helen is that she does not connect the dots from “clean energy” to people; she presumes that all nuclear power facilities are bombs waiting to happen. That is she assumes that each plant that is trying their darndest to be clean and safe will poison those in their communities and around the world. Not being a nuclear scientist, I can’t comment on that, but I do know that accidents happen, earthquakes happen, tsunamis happen, terrorism with jets happens, human error happens, equipment failure happens, poor design happens, and lack of communication is epidemic. It’s the Titanic syndrome – does anyone really think that anything humans design and build can outlast nature? Are you willing to bet the whole boatload of the population of the planet on it?

Saying “yes” to nuclear is sociopathic.

Sociopaths don’t empathize (they’re definitely not progressive thinkers, empathy’s the calling card) which doesn’t necessarily make them conservative or any other philosophy, usually they are totally self serving.  That does mean, however, that a sociopath is easier to spot in a progressive crowd than a conservative one because in a crowd of empathizers, the odd person eventually stands out. Conservatives have several value systems that give cover to sociopathic tendencies – chiefly the idea that helping oneself is the most moral thing one can do for the world and that the more resources one can hoard for itself, the more moral that person is. Check out this list of sociopathic characteristics. Sociopaths don’t care about how the consequences of their actions impact others, neither do nuclear proliferation advocates. One psychotherapist cited one and only one criteria to tell if someone is a sociopath – do they ever feel guilt or regret for their actions? If they honestly do, they are not sociopathic.

Both Helen and I are speculating about the mental state of those that support nuclear proliferation, but it is worth looking into. We can’t know the cure until we know the cause – if sociopaths are crafting this Pandora’s box, we need to find them, get them out of power and into some sort of place devoid of sharp objects (or reactors).

What we have is fallible humans and fallible equipment trying to manage an infallible technology – that’s a paraphrase from Helen. She pointed out how socialism is such a dirty word in America, yet wondered at how we’ve socialized nuclear power, socialized nuclear weapons, and socialized killing with no problems – it’s All American. Meanwhile, the real world costs of the fallout are felt around the globe.

There is more to post about this issue, it is huge. As world powers become increasingly concerned about the continued crisis at Fukushima, specifically Reactors 4 and 3 and their neighboring spent fuel pools, and how fallout will effect all of us, hopefully the concerns of the world will outweigh the money and power grabs of those potential sociopaths that have been running the show. Stayed tuned and speak up in your neck of the woods.

Tagged , , , , ,

7 thoughts on “Nuclear Sociopaths

  1. lokywoky says:

    My physics professor worked on the Manhattan project when he was a young man. He was excited, and isolated at the time and never stopped to think about the ramifications of what he and the others involved were doing. All he (and they) were thinking about was the hard science and the discoveries they were making. The government was egging them on and pushing them so hard to get to the ultimate result – a nuclear bomb – that they didn’t have time to think about what that meant.

    Now, in his later years, with time to contemplate the world with a bomb, and the destruction that was caused by his work – he spends his time trying to get rid of them. He, like Helen, is a tireless anti-nuclear crusader and says that is work on that project was the greatest mistake of his life. He knows how hard it is to put the toothpaste back into the tube – but feels that we must – and he is doing everything he can to help in that process. If anyone knows the dangers of nukes – it surely would be someone like him. And I totally agree. No nukes is good nukes.

    • Amy Meier says:

      I really wish we stopped this pattern of leading our best and brightest into these industries of destruction. I am considering trying to start a grassroots campaign to get Helen her half an hour with the president. It seems like so little time to give for such a huge issue.

  2. rikardlinde says:

    Really interesting Amy. I’d suggest using Nuclear Toxins or Nuclear Poison instead of Nuclear Waste. Framing it as waste gives the impression it’s pretty harmless.

    • Amy Meier says:

      Great point. The only complication to that is differentiating between what a nuclear facility would call “waste” (spent fuel and all of the chemicals/water/radioactive byproducts) that is on site and acknowledged and those toxins/poisons that are unacknowledged such as food carriers, ocean dumping/currents, and air pollution. One is like the trash heap of a power plant, the other is harder to pin down to one source of blame. Suggestions for that differentiation?

      • rikardlinde says:

        Hmm, not sure I understand your question. Do food carriers and air pollution contain nuclear toxins?

      • Amy Meier says:

        Yes. For instance, if radioactive gases are released, the particles settled to the earth and can get ingested directly if a crop absorbs it, indirectly if an animal eats the particles in the plant. Because the half life is so long, the particles only continue to concentrate. The same goes for the sort of “emergency” procedures that might be enlisted (like when Fukushima just started dumping in the ocean and the currents take it wherever, algae and seaweed absorbs it and fish ingest it. There is also poisoning in our x-ray pollution (unecesary use of). Check out my piece on “Nuclear Resistance – It’s da Bomb” for a bit more from Helen’s talk.

  3. rikardlinde says:

    I see. Maybe Nuclear plant toxins. Radioactive material. Maybe it’s not necessary to make a distinction, I mean if it’s radioactive it’s poisonous. If there’s a need to differentiate we can do that but in general we could use nuclear poison or nuclear toxin. I think:)

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: