Tyler is the founder and director of the Two Futures Project, a movement of Christians for nuclear threat reduction and the global abolition of nuclear weapons. He also serves as chairman of the Global Task Force on Nuclear Weapons for the World Evangelical Alliance and as policy director for Faithful Security, a multi-faith coalition working for nuclear security.
Tyler began his involvement in nuclear policy over a decade ago under the late U.S. Senator Alan Cranston at the Global Security Institute, on whose board he still sits, and as study assistant to the Rev. Dr. John Stott. He is the author of Brand Jesus: Christianity in a Consumerist Age, a contributing editor at Sojourners magazine, politics columnist at Relevant magazine, and a regular writer and speaker on matters of faith and public life. His work has been profiled by a variety of secular and Christian media, including the Washington Post, Christianity Today, CQ,WORLD, ABC World News, and PBS’s Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. Tyler is an ordained Baptist minister with degrees from Swarthmore College and Yale Divinity School. He and his wife live in Nashville, TN, where they are active members at First Baptist Church.
Plywood People -Jeff Shinabarger: How does nuclear energy work? Is it a good creation?
Tyler Wigg-Stevenson: Nuclear energy uses the release of heat from a controlled, ongoing nuclear reaction to boil water, turning turbines that generate electricity. Supporters of nuclear power like it because it doesn’t generate carbon emissions. Opponents point to other environmental factors, including the creation of spent fuel that is no longer good for generating power, but which remains hazardous to human health for hundreds of thousands of years. And as we’re seeing in Japan, nuclear technology has the capacity for failure leading to catastrophic results—and risk can never completely be eliminated.
At the Two Futures Project we focus on the risks of nuclear weapons, because the same agreements that restrict the spread of nuclear arms also guarantee nations the right to peaceful nuclear power. So we don’t take a general pro or con position on power. If it’s used, it should be as safe as possible. And because the technology used to produce nuclear fuel for power is the same as that used to produce bomb material, it’s critical that safeguards be in place so that power doesn’t become a back door to a weapons program.
Plywood People: What would the explosion of a nuclear plant do to its surroundings and the people in proximity to its location?
Tyler: First, it’s important to note that it’s physically impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode like a nuclear bomb—with a mushroom cloud, etc. The material used for fuel isn’t nearly concentrated enough to create an explosive reaction. Nuclear power comes from controlling the speed of a nuclear reaction so that the heat can be used to generate electricity.
But that’s not to say that it wouldn’t be unbelievably bad. If the plant operators lose control of the reaction, the fuel could melt, releasing massive amounts of heat, causing an explosion that would release radiation into the atmosphere, including a plume of radioactive steam/smoke/debris. This would go wherever the wind blows; the American nuclear regulatory group hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a plume reaching the U.S. A meltdown at Fukushima probably wouldn’t be as bad as the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, but that’s instructive about the threat: to this day, the region is uninhabitable for 30 km around the plant, and hundreds of thousands of people were sickened by the fallout, with radically elevated cancer deaths, especially among children who are particularly vulnerable to taking in toxins via milk.
We’ve put together some resources on our website for people wanting to learn more—and also ways that people can help with what’s happening in Japan.
Plywood People: I know your expertise is not in nuclear energy, rather you are giving your life to the conversation of nuclear arms. Can you tell us more about that pursuit?
Tyler: During the Cold War, the US and USSR built massive nuclear stockpiles, topping 70,000 worldwide in 1986—more than enough to destroy all life on the planet many times over. Those numbers are now down to about 20,000 worldwide. But the threat of accident or miscalculation remains. I’m convinced that a world in which nuclear weapons continue to exist indefinitely is a world in which they will be used. I just don’t see any way around it over time, in no small part because the threat of nuclear terrorism totally undermines traditional nuclear deterrence thinking. But an alternative—the total elimination of nuclear weapons—is technologically possible, given the right political will. I work toward that goal because the consequences of even one nuclear bomb being used literally defy imagination. It’s not something a lot of people want to pay attention to—like the risks with nuclear power, you tend to think it won’t happen, until it does. But it would be worth a lifetime’s work if something can be done to prevent it.
Plywood People: I have heard you share about what would happen to my city if a nuclear bomb was released. Could you give me context for the influence it would have in the city of Atlanta?
Tyler: A small nuclear weapon—about 15 kilotons, the size of the bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima, and the most likely choice for a terrorist organization—would generate a fireball half a mile wide and hotter than the surface of the sun. The further blast effects, including a pressure wave, heat wave, and firestorms, would cover many square miles. If detonated in an urban center like Atlanta, immediate fatalities would easily be 100,000-300,000, with many more hurt and dying without medical attention in what would be an unmanageable crisis. The extended consequences would include a domestic refugee crisis as people fled the greater Atlanta area, as well as panic in other major cities. And the financial cost, on top of about $1 trillion in immediate damages, would literally be unmeasurable when you factor in the unavoidable shutdown of global shipping and transit that would occur after this kind of incident. The desperately poor around the world would die as an immediate consequence of a blast that they maybe would never even hear about.
Plywood People: What is a simple way that our readers can connect into the Two Futures Project?
Tyler: I’ve got to flip this question a little bit, because there’s not one simple thing people can do to make a difference. We like causes like that, and it’s great when that response is possible. But with nuclear dangers, the most important thing people can do is to get informed and alert to an otherwise invisible threat—and then be sure that people in positions of influence are taking it seriously. Our work is sort of like the watchman on the wall, raising the alarm. So, one way to connect is simply to start listening – whether via our website, Facebook page, or Twitter account. We also offer additional resources, like a free DVD and study guide, for communities that want to dig in and learn more.
