NUCLEAR and PRESENT DANGER

Like most everybody, I could write what I know about nuclear power and nuclear fuel on the back of a postage stamp. What I do know – or think I know – is that last Friday’s earthquake off the coast of northern Japan and the tsunami that followed, catastrophic as both were, are in danger of being dwarfed by the incident developing at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Nobody seems to know whether this incident is containable. Worse still, nobody seems to have much faith in the candour of either the nuclear authorities or the government in Japan. We are told not to panic but the incident worsens by the hour.

Another explosion at the Fukushima plant

Contemplating this unfolding disaster, a whole string of questions suggest themselves to me, questions that I see no prospect of being answered. Perhaps if enough of us ask such questions in enough forums around the world, some answers might emerge.

To begin, I ask: why are the Japanese guardians of nuclear power evidently improvising their responses to the incident? Were there no well-worked and well-rehearsed drills in place to deal with every conceivable eventuality? If so, why are these responses failing to produce the desired results? If no repair and containment routines were in fact ready, why not?

Where tectonic plates meet are earthquake fault lines; this map also sites significant volcanoes

It is certainly the case that the incidence of earthquakes is almost impossible to predict, as such events do not signal their imminence. But the locations of potential earthquakes is well known and well charted. For instance, everyone knows that one day “the big one” will befall San Francisco, and people live and work in that city knowing that this is the context of their choice. But knowing where earthquakes are liable to strike ought to determine precisely where not to build nuclear plants – oughtn’t it? So, given that almost the entire landmass of Japan is on an earthquake line, why were any nuclear plants ever built there?

Sites of the world's present nuclear plants

An evacuation zone has been established for some days around the Fukushima site, with a further caution zone beyond that. The people have been evacuated but what about the animals, particularly those kept in various capacities for food? What about the land on which food is – and presumably will in future be – grown? When wind conditions are such that it seems likely that radioactive dust will be blown out to sea, the consensus seems to be that this is a relief. How come? Do waves not bring such contamination back to shore? Will not radioactive particles enter the food chain that derives from the sea? Are the Japanese, of all people, going to give up seafood for some determined or indeterminate period?

If natural upheavals can breach the defences of nuclear plants, what about unnatural attacks upon them? How safe are nuclear plants anywhere from damage or even destruction by suicide bomber or some other kind of terrorist assault?

Sites of 33 "serious" nuclear incidents over the last 60 years

If significant numbers of Japanese citizens are contaminated by radiation, what recompense will they receive? The victims of vast and horrific disasters at Bhopal and Chernobyl were largely left to bear the brunt of the damage without any degree of appropriate compensation. The Japanese are, I imagine, better able than were the poor peasants of Madya Pradesh and what is now Ukraine (but, at the time of Chernobyl was part of the USSR) to ensure that an injury attributable to preventable catastrophe will be paid for, and paid for handsomely. Lloyds of London, already braced for the claims that will follow the earthquake and tsunami, may have a lot more paying out to face yet.

Finally, is nuclear worth the risk? That is perhaps the biggest question of all. I am not holding my breath.

The big one

PS: Tonight, BBC4 was scheduled to show a new programme called The End of the World: A Horizon Guide to Armageddon. The word Horizon in the title refers to the science-based strand that used to appear on BBC2 but, in this dumbed-down culture, is only entrusted these days with occasional specials on a channel that nobody watches. The programme has been pulled, however. I have no doubt that the reason for its postponement is the nuclear problem at Fukushima. Surely, now is precisely the moment to broadcast it.

SAVE the NELLIE ELEMENT

Our Los Angeles friend Jane wrote overnight and gave an account of driving 30 miles on Monday to a polling station where early voting is permitted. She was heartened to see so many African-Americans queuing – the wait was about two hours – though she feared that many of them would be voting “yes on 8”.

It’s an idiosyncrasy (a fabulous one) of the electoral system in the States that many posts and issues are up for a vote at the same time as the presidency: delegates to either or both of the houses on Capitol Hill, state officers including governor, attorney general and on through sheriff and even city dog-catcher, depending on the state constitution; and also specific proposals for changes in state law.

Proposition 8 on the California ballot paper this year is entitled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” and would add to the golden state’s constitution the clause that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. It was in May of this year that the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 in favour of permitting same-sex marriage. Less than a month later, Proposition 8 was accepted for the ballot paper. In the five months since the court’s ruling was enacted, some 16,000 couples have availed themselves of the dispensation.

For myself, I have never embraced the desire to be married, which is why I was so satisfied with the British invention of the civil partnership – all the legal, economic and social rights that go with conventional marriage and none of the cant – and why David and I entered into a civil partnership two-and-a-half years ago. Being a rationalist, I never felt the need for some kind of superstitious ingredient in my primary relationship. By the same token, I never quite comprehended why gay people would want to enrol in the police, the military, the city, professional sport, parliament or any of the other bastions of homophobia. Life is too short to waste it being a crusader in a lost cause. I’m thrilled that so many uniformed police joined the Gay Pride march in Manchester this year – about 300, supposedly (and believably) the largest gathering of gay fuzz in the world’s history – but I would still feel more comfortable in the company of a straight actor, care-worker, teacher or nurse than a gay prison warden, club bouncer, priest or asset-stripper.

Nonetheless, if lesbians and gay men want to be “married”, they should have all the joy and security of it that it allegedly brings to straights and without the fear of being retroactively outlawed. The proponents of Proposition 8 are the usual suspects in such matters: reactionaries and the espousers of fairytale delusions. But among the nay-sayers are all six Episcopal diocesan bishops in the state, a large number of Jewish organisations including the Board of Rabbis of Southern California and many education organizations and boards. Governor Schwarzenegger’s careful position is that he doesn’t believe that a Supreme Court ruling ought to be open to being overturned by a popular vote. The hopeful signs are that the proposition is not all that popular. The no faction had a significant lead in polling until very recently but there is the danger that Jane identified, that Obama voters will not necessarily oppose the proposal; and Obama himself has taken much the same position as Schwarzenegger.

Musing on this has oddly reminded me of a documentary I saw when it was released thirty years ago. Word is Out was, I believe, the first to gather views from lesbians and gay men to tell, as the movie’s subtitle had it, “stories of some of our lives”. It was wonderful but it quickly seemed to drop from view. Searching on the net just now, I learn that its producer Peter Adair died of Aids in 1996 and that a 30th anniversary DVD has been released (actually a year late) and was shown in June, very properly, at a film festival in the Castro district of San Francisco (which I visited myself a couple of years after the filming was done).

All of those interviewed in the film were adorable and memorable, perhaps none more than George, a camp version of Oliver Hardy with a quiff. George reminisced about his discovery of the gay community in San Francisco in the early 1950s and, heartfelt and weeping, he told of the way groups would put their arms round each other at the end of meetings and sing ‘God Save Us Nellie Queens’.

Our friend Jane and her guy voted early because they plan to spend 14 hours today working to maximize the no vote on Proposition 8. She doesn’t have to do this but I love that she wants to. And of course she sees it as a matter of decency and politics and comradeship, supporting those who, though embracing a different sexual orientation, are still her sisters and brothers. Though they live in a different part of the world, the lesbians and gay men of California are also my sisters and brothers and I send them my love and support. Deliver all of us Nellie queens from oppression, marginalizing, stereotyping and the denial of full and equal rights everywhere in the world. And please don’t forget to elect Senator Obama while you’re about it.