After one of the recent Radical Party's weekly meetings held in the Prague office, Jan Jarab, medician, member of RP, wrote down the following note, mostly focused on Temelin (South Bohemia) nuclear plant:

»After the confusing Tuesday polemic, during which more questions were opened than could be adequately answered, I decided to summarize what are - as far as I know - the principal facts about the problem. Second, I would like to state my personal views on the suggested roles for the Radical Party in the Czech society.

l. SHOULD WE FINISH TEMELIN OR NOT?

PRINCIPAL REASON AGAINST TEMELIN: despite extensive and expensive research, there is still no suitable place to store the nuclear waste. Therefore, it will have to be kept in a provisional storage place in Temelín itself, the life expectancy of which - as even the proponents of such a solution readily admit - is limited to some 8 - 12 years. No sensible solutions exist what should be done afterwards. The geological search for a suitable final storage place is not likely to be successful; it seems that the proponents of Temelín either hope to export the waste to some poorer country of simply ignore the question as one which will be solved by someone in the future. (It is indeed strange how people who are sceptical about future technological progress, esp. about the future of alternative energy production, are "optimistic" about the possibility of a breakthrough solution in dealing with nuclear waste. In fact, there are no slightests hints of even a theoretical possibility to make radioactive material nonradio

active and harmless. These isotopes will simply remain here for our children and grandchildren to deal with - some for as long as 40 generations. If humankind survives the global environmental disaster it brought upon itself in the 2nd half of this century, many future generations will no doubt gasp in amazement and disbelief at the degree of shortsightedness and selfishness we displayed, though the facts were known to us.

I believe the lack of a final storage place and the limited life expectancy of the "mezisklad" fact represents - in medical terms - an ABSOLUTE CONTRAINDICATION of Temelín, one which can NOT be relativized or outweighed by any amount of "good" reasons why the power plant should be built. Which is, in fact, what the proponents of Temelín are trying to do; instead of challenging the main reason itself they try make us forget about the core of the problem by connecting it to other issues, finally claiming that it is "too complex" even for environmental experts to decide and that it must be decided by politicians and economists who are obviously interested mainly in short-term results.

In my opinion the principal reason is sufficiently serious to make the reasons FOR Temelín irrelevant. Nevertheless, I am willing to deal with them one by one. Here they are:

1. Energy viewpoint: "We simply need Temelín; without it, we simply would not have enough energy in the future." While this may eventually prove to be true, there is no proof so far that our demands for energy would rise in the near future. (Currently, there is rather a surplus than a lack of energy!) There is, however, plenty of evidence from Western countries that energy consumption could (and should!) be significantly reduced. Finally, alternative sources of energy are gaining momentum elsewhere and before our demand for energy actually exceeds its pre-1989 level (if it ever does) they may well be able to cover a large proportion of this demand. In fact, even the heretical notion - which no one has so far seriously proposed - that we could BUY energy instead of consumer goods, thus reducing the "living standards" of one generation, I find preferable to the vision of many generations living on a nuclear heap.

Summary: we are building a HUGE nuclear power plant without evidence that we will need this energy and without having even tried to reduce our energy consumption and stimulate alternative means of its production.

2. Economic viewpoint: "Billions have already been invested in Temelín. The only way to return them is to finish the plant." Even the billions already spent are, however, just a fraction of what we are planning to spend on the plant in the next few years. By conservative estimates, this sum should double or triple; if pessimists are correct (and if the expenses of dealing with the waste are also calculated, which, unbelievably enough, is not always the case!!) the sum could soar up to more than 200 billion, of which our economy, environment, health care and education systems etc. will be deprived. Obviously, after such an expenditure it will be almost impossible for anyone to suggest closing the plant even if there is a major disaster there! In a way, by throwing so much gold down Temelíns throat, we will have made it into a sacred cow. To close it down 5, 10 or 20 years from now will amount to an admission of a major defeat of postrevolutionary policy (while today it could still be blamed mainly on the Comm

unist Party, which - by the way - is even today the only party on our political scene which is united in its firm support of the Temelín project).

In fact, the billions are unlikely ever to return (unless, of course, the Government plans to export the energy). Ever since Chernobyl, when safety measures became increasingly expensive, nuclear power plants worldwide have been in decline, surviving only on heavy state subsidies; not even the U.S.A. have felt rich enough to introduce new ones. During the Cold War, most nuclear power plants were built in countries which also produced nuclear arms (for instance, France with its ambitious nuclear-arms program has a lot of nuclear power plants, though none is as large as Temelín); thus a substantial part of their costs was covered by the military budget. (Hopefully this is out of question in the case of Temelín; still, as Paolo Pietrosanti points out, it would indirectly increase our military budget by requiring sophisticated military protection. In the end, if the current cynical "pragmatism" prevails, our Government may well consider offering participation in the Temelín project to some country which does hav

e a military nuclear program.)

Summary: Although a lot of money has already been lost, there is a very real possibility that we will continue losing money on the project until we find the courage to close it.

3. So-called environmentalist viewpoint: "With Temelín working, we will be able to close down many of the classical power plants in the North, which would help that region immensely." Interestingly enough, it is very rarely mentioned by environmentalists. It may, in fact, be the most dubious of the claims of Temelín supporters. First, the first bloc of the Temelín plant will start functioning only in 1995 or 1996; until then, the North will be left to boil in its stew. Second, even a half of what is invested in Temelín would be sufficient to ensure a major improvement in the environment of North Bohemia, including a modernization of all the classical power plants - which should be done NOW. It is morally unacceptable that the people in the North should get only vague promises of future improvement instead of the money they themselves helped to create. INDEED, THESE PROMISES MAY WELL TURN OUT NOT TO BE SINCERE AT ALL: key ministers of our Government (Dyba, Dlouhý, Nęmec) have stated that they would consider e

ither EXPORTING the energy from Temelín, or privatizing the plant (thus leaving it up to its owners whether to export the energy or not); both options would leave the North out in the cold. Especially if the costs of building Temelín keep rising - as pessimists predict - the Government will have to resist a terrible temptation to keep the Temelín energy as a surplus which can be sold to reduce the deficit. Our experience with the Governments attitude to environmental questions (exemplified by the fate of the Czech ministry of environment) should leave us in no doubt that these rank very low indeed on its list of priorities; the sudden and unprecedented use of "environmental" rhetoric by Government officials should be viewed with due suspicion.

2. SHOULD WE (TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY, TRP) BE INTERESTED IN THIS PROBLEM?

I believe we should be interested - for two reasons at least. First and foremost, the TRP claims to be, among other things, environmentalist. Second, due to the sheer magnitude of the investment in Temelín, the decision to continue its construction is a major POLITICAL decision, because it is simply huge large amount of our taxpayers money; and the TRP should be interested in major political events of the day.

The objections presented here on Tuesday by my opponents I found hard to swallow. That is, I have met similar objections elsewhere, but I would not have expected them at a TRP meeting. The charge that Temelín interests no one is bizarre. Of course, the majority of Czech citizens are not interested in environmental questions at all - does it mean we should abandon them? The majority of our citizens, by the way, are not interested in any of the other issues which are important for Radicals: drugs, capital punishment, rights of racial minorities (or human rights in general, for that matter) - in fact, among those who ARE "interested", prohibitionist, pro-capital punishment and racist (at least anti-Gypsy) feelings prevail. The TRP, as far as I know, always fought for unpopular issues. Should we abandon all that and turn to a populistic agenda? Does this country need another party which indulges in cheap Communist-bashing? Just about everyone does that; even if there were still many unafilliated citizens interes

ted in this, why should they choose the TRP from dozens of other organizations? Above all, what can be achieved by this, apart from a certain approval of the public? We could put pressure on the parliament to pass retroactive laws which would send some Commies to jail (for instance those who started the Temelín business); I do not think, however, that it would be either a service to our democracy or a solution to our current problems. We could put pressure on Klaus to change his "there is no difference between clean and dirty money" decision, which allowed Commies to keep their stolen bucks; go and try it. Finally, we could do what so many others are doing: talk tough without doing anything else in particular. I am strongly anti-Communist myself, but I really see no perspective in concentrating on this issue.

In fact, the most dangerous physical remnant of Communism is probably Temelín itself, which represents the "extensive" thinking bordering on megalomania, and - on the spiritual level - the deep-seated disbelief in democracy, which was exemplified here by the statement "passengers on a bus also can not vote whether the driver should turn to the right or to the left". Leaving aside its total inappropriateness to the Temelín problem, which concerns also countless generations of the "passengers" offspring, as well as its striking similarity to M.Stepan famous "there is no country in the world where fifteen-year old children decide what the government should do," I must point out that passengers on a bus are usually people who have boarded the bus OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL and who can also leave it likewise.

I do not insist, of course, that the TRP, which I have only recently joined, take a stand against the continued construction of Temelín. I do hope, however, that my opponents from the Tuesday debate - against whom I hold no personal grudge - will read this paper of mine and tell me whether I have convinced them at least to some extent.

Jan Ja ab, M.D.