Mother Country

by Marilynne Robinson

  A second New York Times article, published a few weeks later, described a report sent to the Congress by the Defense Department, warning that increased production and use of plutonium, and increased international shipments of radioactive materials, will increase the risks of theft, diversion, and terrorist acts.57 The article explains quaintly, “The United States produces plutonium only at military installations for use in weapons. France and other countries, however, are exploring the feasibility of breeder reactors to produce plutonium commercially to fuel other reactors or for weapons.” In other words, commercial production of plutonium has not yet begun, or so anyone would infer who did not know better.

  The article informs us that “International agreements and American law govern the security provisions enforced when plutonium is moved.” Well, this is something one would never learn from reading the British press. In nothing is a more sublime autonomy displayed than in the United Kingdom’s dealings in plutonium. The bomb plant at Sellafield was created in the first instance in defiance of American attempts to control nuclear proliferation, and nothing that has happened subsequently indicates any second thoughts. Either international standards mean nothing at all or they mean it is acceptable to ship nuclear wastes across the world to be dumped into British and European waters—which is to say, they mean nothing at all. Their single function seems to be to baffle the Yankees, and that they do very well.

  It is worth noting how plutonium and radioactive materials are weapons intrinsically, as the London Times editorialist understood in 1976. We cannot close our borders against plutonium because it is plutonium, and liable to punish us brutally if we make the attempt. Our sovereignty is overridden by allies under cover of our own poor journalism. Is this the expression of the will of our people? Are they so eager to expedite this disastrous commerce that they would knowingly accept its risks? Of course not.

  Except, perhaps, for that numerous new breed of moralist thrown up by this sad age, which will reprove me for criticizing Britain—unheard-of cheek. But we are talking about the world, after all, which history has placed in our most unworthy hands.

  The final, visceral loyalty of American “intellectuals” to Europe is racism. The refusal to see the dimensions of phenomena like Sellafield, the refusal to call them by the hard names that fit them, is racism. If you think the Third World is hungry now, wait till the sea is dead.

  Of course the United States has been smirched by history. But in the larger scheme, the United States is an invention, like Constantinople, which, if life could be imagined going on, would drift and evolve into other shapes and things in the way of species, clouds, and continents. If I could dream that the world would live so long that our books were lost and our name forgotten, I could feel we had been a good and successful civilization, after all. We give countries kinds of reality they do not have. They do not define the natures or the obligations of the human beings who live in them. Our country allows and encourages us to know nothing. But if we are ignorant, the fault is ours. Increasingly it encourages us, through its educational institutions, press, and popular culture, to consider ourselves knaves and fools. But if we act like fools, the fault is ours.

  The recent decline in national self-esteem has led many Americans to invest their emotions offshore, in what they take to be a favorable climate, among solvent institutions. In imagination they have escaped ruin, growing rich as their neighbors grew poor. These people do not want to hear bad news.

  But there is a real world, that is really dying, and we had better think about that. My greatest hope, which is a very slender one, is that we will at last find the courage to make ourselves rational and morally autonomous adults, secure enough in the faith that life is good and to be preserved, to recognize the grosser forms of evil and name them and confront them. Who will do it for us? E. P. Thompson? Greenpeace? The Duke of Edinburgh? The Washington Post? We have to walk away from this road show, consult with our souls, and find the courage, in ourselves, to see, and perceive, and hear, and understand.

  ALSO BY MARILYNNE ROBINSON

  Housekeeping (1980)

  Selected Bibliography

  “£700m nuclear deal with Japan near signing,” Pearce Wright, The (London) Times, October 23, 1976, p. 4.

  “Fear that nuclear power plans could threaten freedom,” Pearce Wright, The (London) Times, October 28, 1976, p. 4.

  “Fears about effect of nuclear power plans,” The (London) Times, October 28, 1976, p. 14.

  “The Plutonium Problems,” editorial, The (London) Times, October 28, 1976, p. 17.

  “Mr. Benn rules out need for quick decision over fast nuclear reactor programme,” The (London) Times, December 14, 1976, p. 4.

  “France bans sale of atom fuel plants,” The (London) Times, December 17, 1976, p. 5.

  “Government survey of nuclear waste needs,” Pearce Wright, The (London) Times, December 17, 1976, p. 2.

  “Windscale to check deaths records,” Michael Morris, The Guardian, July 14, 1977, p. 5.

  “Nuclear Fuels answers storage query,” Malcolm Pithers, The Guardian, July 15, 1977, p. 3.

  “Tip of A-waste iceberg,” Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, July 26, 1977, p. 2.

  “Terrorist peril in nuclear waste,” The Guardian, July 27, 1977, p. 3.

  “Another tough customer for British reactors,” New Statesman, March 18, 1983, p. 5.

  “A new kind of nuclear victim,” Rob Edwards, New Statesman, July 22, 1983, p. 8.

  “Wasting the ocean,” Rob Edwards, New Statesman, July 22, 1983, p. 6.

  “Angry Whitehall stays silent on nuclear waste dumping plans,” Paul Brown, The Guardian, September 2, 1983, p. 22.

  “‘Awkward questions’ about nuclear waste dumping,” Rob Edwards, New Statesman, September 2, 1983, p. 4.

  “Coroner halts weapons scientist’s cremation,” The Guardian, September 2, 1983, p. 3.

  “The monster that won’t lie down,” Duncan Campbell, New Statesman, September 2, 1983, pp. 8–9.

  “£5m research on ways to curb pollution by acid rain: Study could give ammunition to nuclear power lobby,” Andrew Moncur, The Guardian, p. 2.

  “Slater fears nuclear waste may be dumped on sea bed in submarine,” The Guardian, September 10, 1983, p. 2.

  “Nuclear waste sea dumping plans revived,” Paul Brown and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, September 14, 1983, p. 1.

  “New law on dumping may be needed,” Paul Brown, The Guardian, September 15, 1983, p. 28.

  “Peril in the deep,” editorial, The Guardian, September 15, 1983, p. 28.

  Letter, Jean Emery, The Guardian, September 21, 1983, p. 10.

  “Leukemia study finds cluster of cases near Sizewell nuclear power station,” Roger Milne, The Guardian, September 28, 1983, p. 2.

  “New waste dumps,” Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, September 28, 1983, p. 3.

  “New Windscale report hints at 33 deaths,” Anthony Tucker, The Guardian, September 28, 1983, p. 3.

  “Nuclear waste sent back after union ban,” Penny Chorlton, The Guardian, September 28, 1983, p. 3.

  “The dirtiest nation on Earth,” James Erlichman, The Guardian, October 3, 1983, p. 14.

  “Ministry denies plans to dump plutonium at sea,” Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, October 3, 1983, p. 14.

  “The first chair on the sea bed,” editorial, The (London) Times, October 6, 1983, p. 17.

  “Nuclear waste discharges into sea to be reduced,” David Fairhall and Frank Scimone, The Guardian, October 6, 1983, p. 2.

  “Nuclear firm told to stop discharge into sea,” Frank Scimone, The Guardian, October 8, 1983, p. 2.

  “Nuclear industry policy,” letter, Professor Ian Fells, The (London) Times, October 11, 1983, p. 13.

  “Sellafield cuts plutonium discharges,” New Scientist, October 13, 1983, p. 73.

  “Sizewell leukemia inquiry,” Anthony Tucker, The Guardian, October 21, 1983, p. 2.

  “Nuclear accident victim’s 19 ye
ar agony after the ‘big blow-out,’” Ted Harrison and Geoffrey Lean, The Observer, October 23, 1983, p. 3.

  “Nuclear dumps safety guidelines ignore ‘cocktail’ factor,” Anthony Tucker, The Guardian, October 27, 1983, p. 2.

  “Sea dumping plan intact,” John Gapper, The Guardian, October 28, 1983, p. 8.

  “Children near Windscale have high cancer levels,” Geoffrey Lean, The Observer, October 30, 1983, p. 1.

  “Windscale leukemia link denied: Plutonium found in house dust brings fear on radiation levels,” Anthony Tucker, The Guardian, October 31, 1983, p. 24.

  “BNF attacks ‘one-sided cancer’ film publicity,” David Pallister, The Guardian, November 1, 1983, p. 3.

  “Inquiry starts into cases of leukemia near nuclear power stations,” Pearce Wright, The (London) Times, November 1, 1983, p. 2.

  “Fuelling nuclear fears,” editorial, The (London) Times, November 2, 1983, p. 15.

  “Windscale’s dirty linen,” television review, Nancy Banks-Smith, The Guardian, November 2, 1983, p. 9.

  “Inquiry into Windscale cancer rate,” Pearce Wright, The (London) Times, November 3, 1983, p. 2.

  “Nuclear cancer link for inquiry,” Julian Langdon, The Guardian, November 3, 1983, p. 1.

  “Radiation fears soothed,” The Guardian, November 3, 1983, p. 23.

  “Dangers and defenses in Sellafield plant’s emissions,” then-BNF chairman Con Allday, The (London) Times, November 4, 1983, p. 13.

  “Windscale dilemma: Is radiation ever safe?” Robin McKie, The Observer, November 6, 1983, p. 2.

  “Nuclear shipper and wife found dead,” Michael Morris, The Guardian, November 9, 1983, p. 3.

  “Radioactive waste put on council tip,” Mark Rosselli, The (London) Times, November 11, 1983, p. 2.

  “Unions may link to halt transport of nuclear waste,” Robin McKie, The Observer, November 13, 1983, p. 2.

  “Seascale warning led to sack for scientist,” The Guardian, November 14, 1983, p. 1.

  “Windscale panel to investigate a hundred deaths,” The (London) Times, November 14, 1983, p. 1.

  “Nuclear protest charges,” The Guardian, November 15, 1983, p. 3.

  “Divers near Windscale pipe ‘contaminated,’” Paul Brown, The Guardian, November 17, 1983, p. 2.

  “Leukemia ‘cannot be blamed on Windscale,’” The Guardian, November 17, 1983, p. 2.

  “Windscale: British Nuclear Foul-up Limited,” James Cutler, New Statesman, November 18, 1983, p. 8.

  “Windscale crackdown on way,” Geoffrey Lean, The Observer, November 20, 1983, p. 1.

  “Government ‘Sellafield fears,’” David Nicholson-Lord, The (London) Times, November 21, 1983, p. 1.

  “Windscale leak ‘is bigger than admitted,’” David Pallister, The Guardian, November 21, 1983, p. 1.

  Untitled essay, Tony Benn, The Guardian, November 21, 1983, p. 15.

  “Inquiry into radioactive leak,” The (London) Times, November 22, 1983, p. 4.

  “N-quiz for minister,” The Guardian, November 22, 1983, p. 25.

  “Sellafield may face outside inquiry into spill,” Colin Brown, The Guardian, November 22, 1983, p. 1.

  “Clouds over Sellafield,” editorial, The Guardian, November 23, 1983, p. 12.

  “Nuclear waste rebels defy ban,” Paul Brown and Michael Morris, The Guardian, November 23, 1983, p. 1.

  “Indecent exposure,” Anthony Tucker, The Guardian, November 24, 1983, p. 23.

  “Call for atom plant probe,” Geoffrey Lean, The Observer, December 4, 1983, p. 5.

  “Sellafield staff angry,” The (London) Times, December 9, 1983, p. 2.

  “Windscale: Six years later …” Rob Edwards, New Statesman, December 9, 1983, p. 11.

  “Jenkin defends discharge into sea at Sellafield,” Ronald Faux, The (London) Times, December 10, 1983, p. 3.

  “Nuclear watchdog condemns Sellafield safety,” Richard Norton-Taylor and Peter Hetherington, The Guardian, December 10, 1983, p. 1.

  “Windscale beach pollution blunder,” Geoffrey Lean, The Observer, December 11, 1983, p. 2.

  “Sellafield faces prosecution over leaks,” New Scientist, December 15, 1983, p. 791.

  “Windscale’s pipeline,” Peter Danckwerts, New Scientist, December 15, 1983, p. 883.

  “Doctors say ‘spies’ are leaking hospital secrets,” The Guardian, December 16, 1983, p. 2.

  “Leukemia questioning vetoed by inspector,” Roger Milne, The Guardian, December 16, 1983, p. 2.

  “Mistake led to nuclear waste in sea,” Michael Morris, The Guardian, December 16, 1983, p. 1.

  “Valve error caused Sellafield leak,” Ronald Faux, The (London) Times, December 16, 1983, p. 3.

  “Radioactive leak case referred to the DPP,” The (London) Times, December 21, 1983, p. 4.

  “Radioactive leak at Sellafield may lead to prosecution,” Philip Webster, The (London) Times, December 22, 1983, p. 1.

  “Radioactive leak reported to the DPP, Jenkin tells Commons,” The Guardian, December 22, 1983, p. 14.

  “Sellafield leak is referred to DPP: Scientists worried by ‘strange’ pattern of sea contamination,” Anthony Tucker, The Guardian, December 22, 1983, p. 1.

  “BNFL pays £21,000 in leukemia case,” Michael Morris, The Guardian, December 23, 1983, p. 2.

  “Plan to sink waste in seabed,” Paul Keel, The Guardian, December 23, 1983, p. 1.

  “A-plants: A hardcore problem in the making,” Barbara von Ow, The (London) Times, December 27, 1983, p. 8.

  “Sellafield cancer victims given compensation but liability not admitted,” The (London) Times, January 4, 1984, p. 3.

  “BNFL denies ‘cover-up’ claim over Sellafield compensation payments,” Paul Keel, The Guardian, January 5, 1984, p. 2.

  “Sellafield claim by MP is rejected,” Ronald Faux, The (London) Times, January 5, 1984, p. 2.