GREENPEACE THREATENS THE BELARUSIAN FOREST

Greenpeace is threatening the Belarusian envroment when they attempt to thwart the future development of a Belarusian Nuclear Power plant.

There are many things the world should agree upon. All the world agrees that Nuclear power is very dangerous. The consequences of a nuclear disaster can be catastrophic! No country knows this better than the Republic of Belarus, the Bulk of the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster fell upon Belaurs, and she suffers to this day because of that 1986 disaster.

I consider myself to be an enviromentalist. That is why I believe that there are several important reasons Belarus should pursue the planned Nuclear power plant.

Belarus is the location of Europes oldest Virgin/primeval forest, also known as the "lungs of europe" . In a perfect world, a Belarusian Nuclear power plant would add an element of risk to this ecosystem. However, in todays world, where illegal logging and human encroachment upon the enviroment exist as ominous predatory risks to nature, a Belarusian nuclear power plant would actually help to protect the Belarusian enviroment.

Belarus is at a very challenging crossroads both politicly and economicly. Belarus as a whole desperately needs to stabilize her energy supplies and ensure a reliable energy supply for the population.


If the Belarusian economic condition deteriorates further, one can logicaly assume that the poaching of the Belarusian forests will increase also. If the Belarusian economy is not supported by the benefits of a nuclear power plant, is it not logicial that the countrys virgin forests will be needed to lend economic support in the form of "officially sanctioned harvesting" and in the form of "poaching trees" and "poaching animals" ? This phenomenon is seen globally in areas of severe economic need.

Greenpeace is correct to feel that Nuclear power is essentially a risky propostion that has the potential for negative enviromental impact. Most people, including most Belarusians could testify to this.

But Greenpeace should adopt more than a closed minded political posture where the subject of a Belarusian nuclear power is concerned.

The world in general will have to be decrease greenhouse emmissions. That is a pure and simple fact, if we do not, we will face the ire of an angry Earth's Gaia.

Belarus should be trusted to safely run a nuclear power plant. If any country in the world should be trusted to engeneer and run a nuclear power plant, it would be Belarus. Belarus posseses a large enough scientific brain trust that they will have no problem engeneering and staffing such a facility.

The Soviets could never be considered enviromentalists, however the economic and social anarcy of post soviet times has multiplied the demands made upon nature in Russia and other countries, just look at the illegal logging problems of Russia, and remember the condition of the Sturgeon before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I would also like to point out to Greenpeace that as they are against nuclear weapons, Belarus willingly gave up her nuclear weapons after the fall of the soviet union, and it will not create such weapons with its nuclear power plant.

Greenpeace should adopt a more realistic political posture where Belarusian nuclear power is concerned, it is just not sound doctrine to unilaterally oppose ALL NUCLEAR POWER, no matter what. Yes, as I have agreed, Nuclear power is dangerous, but global warming is also dangerous, desperate economic conditions are dangeorus to natural resources, and if Greenpeace could come up with a more palatable and realistic plan than just to thoughtlessly oppose nuclear power, perhaps the world would be better off for it.

I almost feel guilty at adding this small sidenote, but the enviroment in certain Chernobyl affected hot zones has actually been helped because of the 1986 disaster. I have been studying the city of Pripyat and apparantly, nature has begun to take over this city and the surrounding countryside. When people are too afraid to enter a zone because of radiation, nature begins to heal herself, except for the obvious fact that there is a radiation problem, there are many species of animals now alive and flourishing in Pripyat and the sourrounding areas. I am not insensitive to the plight of the people of Pripyat or to the victims of Chernobyl as a whole, just the opposite, I feel very sorry for them, but it should be noted that nature in this radiation affected area has somehow beneited in some ironic way.

I love Greenpeace, but I am sorry to say that I don't agree with them about every little thing.

Michael Miller
Indianapolis,
2006