From: World Perspectives <worldpnews@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Nukes in ex-Soviet Union-Part 2
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:41:44 GMT

/* Written  4:41 pm  Nov 17, 1992 by worldpnews@igc.apc.org in igc:worldp.samples */
/* ---------- "Nukes in ex-Soviet Union-Part 2" ---------- */

"The further those radio-active particles move from the plant, the
more easily they were taken in by (?). So the situation, say, 50
miles away may be just as bad as at the station itself, and these
toxic factors are overlooked.

"The impact on forests, which have been devastated - in Bearus,
about 1.3 million hectares of the forest have been contaminated by
Chernobyl. That represents about six forests. It means they cannot
be used, the wildlife in them will become contaminated. They
represent more forbidden zoning. Sometimes the forest has to be cut
down and the wood usually buried. It also means they represent
danger today. Every time, for example, there is something like a
forest fire in the Chernobyl region, this spreads radiation. This
has happened over the past few months, there has been quite a warm
weather, there were 11 forest fires, which spread radiation all
over again.

"Same happens with the water supply, where rather less is known,
but now more information is becoming available. It seems that the
contamination there is more wide-spread than originally thought.
The river Dnieper, for example, which feeds both Belarus and the
Ukraine, is already so contaminated with industrial products and
now there is the effect of one more contaminant entering into it."

In order to enable governments such as the Ukraine to close down
Chernobyl-style reactors and to minimalize environmental
degradation, there needs to be massive amounts of assistance from
the world's lending institutions. Says Marple: "The Russian
government and the Belarussian government don't have funds, the
hard currency to but energy. To buy natural gas and oil. These
could be provided fairly simply. The IMF, for example, has given
loans with very difficult conditions imposed. They stated, for
example, that 'we can give you a loan if we see evidence of some
kind of market reform.' So how can the country achieve the economic
reform without the loan in the first place. It is becoming a Catch-
22 situation. These loans could be forthcoming more quickly and
with less conditions attached.

"In the case of Russia and the Ukraine, they have ample resources
to act as collateral for loans. Russia has more natural resources
than any country on Earth. It seems to me like the West and the
IMF, the people deciding the funds, have to look at the situation
a lot differently. There is the danger that if the funds are not
forthcoming, if there is total economic collapse, and these
countries are pretty close to that right now, then they are going
to resort to some kind of undemocratic, possibly military
dictatorship. I think its a natural process to resort back to some
authoritarian hard-line government if market reform fails. And if
this does happen, then there will be no attention to the
environment once again.
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive