Betty Brink Interview, Part 2 of 2

DW: So, how does someone who's the pilot for Continental Airlines takes up an issue like this?00:01:35 - 2104

BB: Well, I think the Continental Airlines pilot became involved because he had some-he-he also was interested in the cost of the plant but he-so he did a little background history and study himself. And he-he found that there were some questions about nuclear power, in general, and he-that had been raised and were being raised, of course, in-in the east and in California. So his background came from, initially, the concern about the cost, which with each and every person who gets involved, I think, in nuclear power at that level, when they look at the cost then they look further into nuclear power and begin to see and find all the environmental hazards that-that the nuclear industry has and-and has at its-even in that early time, the issue of the waste was a big one as to what we're going to do with it so they were concerned about that.

Now the Continental Airlines pilot-and I-I apologize for not recalling his name-but he was targeted, as I-I said, by the Department of Public Safety, which, at that time, were being used by TU Electric to investigate the people who opposed nuclear power. And-and the connection was with nuclear weapons and what they were trying to do-what TU Electric tried to do was to show that there was some connection with the people who opposed nuclear power because they were really, in fact, subversive to some degree because they wanted to stop our production of nuclear weapons. Some were-now, I know it's subversive-but some were very much involved in the issue of fighting the nuclear weapons industry. This particular group in Dallas were not. Juanita Ellis was-was non-political in that-in that arena, as was this pilot. The known Socialist, I guess, was certainly the only one there who might have been opposed to nuclear weapons. But, at any rate-at any rate, there was such paranoia at-in that period of time, that they-they began to-to shadow this nucle-this Continental Airlines pilot.

And, ultimately, the Department of Public Safety wrote a letter to Continental-to his employer-and the letter said that they feared that he might-that his opposition was so strong to the plant, that he might use his position as a pilot to someday crash his plane-a plane full of passengers-into the-the Comanche Peak. Well it was so bizarre, of course, that00:04:40 - 2104Continental even did not accept that premise. They let him know, though, that he-they had received the letter, and he quickly backed down. I-I mean, the-TU Electric was successful in that-in what they wanted to do, they got rid of him. He left Dallas, moved to Arkansas and was never heard from again.

So they-they can do that, you know, if-if people are-don't have-if people don't have perhaps the stamina for the fight or have never been targeted by the government before for exercising their right to speak in a public forum and to be, you know, to have a-a-a voice and to peacefully assemble-exercise, in fact, their First Amendment rights then they sometimes-the-those kind of tactics are effective, and it certainly was in this sense. Well when-that left a void in the group and Juanita Ellis stepped in to fill it. It did not frighten her away. So she began to-she was very dogged in her pursuit of TU Electric and its-its paper trail on this plant.

And, eventually, her group then formed and she had maybe a core group of ten or twelve people who were working with her. And so, from there, ours was-the same things were happening over here and we-we were forming the-CFUR was growing out of the Armadillo Coalition. The Armadillo Coalition was-was the group that was a scrappier group. They were-they were involved in demonstrations and they were involved in-in the tactics of the-of the '60's, of the Civil-of the Civil Rights and the-and the peace movement. Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation grew out of a group of people who knew that that type of tactic would not ever stop TU from building Comanche Peak. It might be a, you know, sort of a mosquito attacking them here and00:06:54 - 2104there on their hide but it was never going to actually stop them. It was going to be an irritant but little else. And, if we were going to stop the plant, we had to get into the licensing process. We had to try to find, you know, the paperwork to show that what-what we felt was actually happening out there was happening and to-to do it through the licensing process. So CFUR was formed over here and also petitioned to become an intervener and we were granted intervener status, as was CASE in Dallas.

ACORN was a sh-an intervener for a short time. The-the-the anti-poverty group here but they dropped out because of money as much as anything else.

But the dynamics then that grew out of these-these groups began to-to show themselves because while CFUR was-was a group that was pursuing the licensing through the normal pr-process and through the licensing process, it was also filled with people who were-whose backgrounds were in the anti-war and Civil Rights and the marches, demonstrations and tha-that sort of thing. We were very comfortable with that kind of-of a tactic and we continued to support that kind of tactic. In Dallas it was a different matter. CASE was not comfortable with that because they were not-they had-they had none of that in their background. They were not people who had been involved in-in that kind of political activity. So, early on, there were-there were barriers between the two groups. They saw CFUR as using the licensing process more as a tactic rather than as a serious effort to stop the plant and to legitimize, perhaps, some of our more bizarre brothers and sisters who were going over the fence and that sort of thing.DT: Did both factions want to actually stop the plant? Or did they want to make it safe? Or did they want to make it more cost effective?00:09:08 - 2104

BB: Well CASE always maintained that they wanted to make it safe and cost effective. CFUR never wavered from the-their eff-their stated purpose was to stop the plant from being licensed. And-and-and in that sense, we were in complete agreement with the Armadillo Coalition. The Armadillo Coalition maintained itself for quite a while but then it-most of its members began to help CFUR and they just sort of-I think they wore out. You know, I-these were also people who were-had been long years involved in the Civil Rights and-and peace movement. And so I think a lot of burnout was occurring as far as continuing that-the dynamics of-of getting people together and, you know, and making signs in your kitchen and, you know, getting on the street, and that sort of thing. So, eventually, the Armadillo Coalition just kind of fizzled out and those folks who were still active joined CFUR in licensing-anti-licensing effort.

Now the-the t-the Comanche Peak Life Force-is that what we're talking about? Yeah. A-a-any-the ones who went over the fence, the-the civil demonstrators, the ones who-who went to jail for trespassing-that group was-was limited to begin with because it was formed for a specific purpose and that was to-to make their statement in-in the age old way of civil disobedience. And their hero, of course, was Thoreau. And so they were-they were very much limited to begin with because once they had their-once they had gone over the fence, they had made their statement. They had had their-their trial that resulted in a hung jury. They felt like-that they had done exactly what they had set out to do.DT: Can you tell us a little bit about the place where the real divorce happened? Where CASE settled their opposition...00:11:30 - 2104BB: Yeah.DT: ...to the permit and the plant was allowed for its construction to go ahead, and for it ultimately to be completed and go on line? Two questions: one would be why did they settle? And, secondly, how were the TU and the other sponsors of the plant allowed to connect that settlement with the permit?00:12:07 - 2104

BB: Right. Well, what-what it-by the time they settled and-and-I'll-I'll have to g-give you a little history on that, too, but, by the time they settled, basically CFUR had-had dropped out. We were-we had run out of money to continue the fight. It's a very expensive process and if you don't have, you know, if you don't have a very-a really dedicated s-bunch of lawyers who are willing to work pro bono in these fights, citizens eventually do-they can wear you down. They can, you know, they can literally attrition-they can-they can-TU Electric has deep pockets, a bank of lawyers, and they can outlast any citizens group. Juanita Ellis-sometime in the-in the-after the judge-the NRC judge ruled that there were serious construction problems at Comanche Peak that had to be addressed and that TU had to go back and start rebuilding the plant, we-we met pretty regularly, by the way, with the-with members of CASE during those years because we were all trying to accomplish the same goal, ultimately and well we00:13:25 - 2104wanted to shut the plant down, she wanted to make it safer. But we could see our goal-we could see our tactics, you know, aiming in the right-in the same direction. We met pretty regularly together and so we kept up with each other and we knew what, you know-and we-we shared whistle blowers. You know, whistle blowers who testified for them were also testifying for us and were giving us information if-for example, if I got a whistle blower who called me, I would immediately let Juanita Ellis know so that she could also interview him so that we could, you know, both use him or her however we-we needed to and however that whistle blower was willing to-to-to work for us.

But, at any rate, CFUR eventually ran out of money and there were only three of us that-then who were actually doing the-carrying the load for CFUR. There was a gentleman named Dick Falk and he was in Dallas and he-he's now dead. He died of cancer-and Nancy Jacobson was a-a woman here in Fort Worth who was working-opposing it-and she also died of cancer, which is kind of ironic, very young, she was only 40. And so she was a great loss because she had a very-she had a tremendously good mind. She was not trained as I-and neither was I in-in-with any background that would, you know, would deal with this type of industry. But she was also-she was a very smart woman and knew her stuff. So we were-we were-pretty-pretty-decimated by death and as for-and having lost-and not having any access to a big pot of money. So basically what we did was CFUR decided to w-withdraw from the process and we would draw our support to Juanita in the licensing hearings, which we did.

At-she began to become very-well-ownership of the-of the issue became a problem. Once we were out of it and she had it alone and she began to become very00:15:49 - 2104careful then about what she would share with us, I could see what was happening and I-I know you're-you haven't had a chance to interview her or go into her house but she had a small house on-in-in Dallas' Oak Cliffs section-small frame house, two bedroom, kitchen, small living room. And that house became basically a filing cabinet. You would-she had generated so many documents, she had gotten so much paperwork from Comanche Peak and they had filed so many-so many reports themselves and she had it all-she kept it all in this-in this little house in-in Oak Cliff. And you would go into the front door of her house and she had a-she had a little aisle cut through the boxes stacked to the ceiling on either side that would bring you to her kitchen, and at her kitchen table-she worked at her kitchen table, which was just a small, little chrome kitchen table and it was surrounded by boxes and files. She and her husband lived there alone. They had no-their children are grown. Her bedroom was filled with boxes. She had her computer in-in her bedroom but it was-everything had boxes stacked except her bed. There were no boxes in the bathroom but, other than that, the rest of the house was a giant filing cabinet. At one time, her husband was having-was-I was over there and her husband was washing and the washing machine was sitting by the kitchen door but there were so many boxes in front of it that he had-he had made himself a hook out of a-out of a-a-a coat hanger and was reaching over to lift the lid and throw the clothes in with that hook. It's an amazing-amazing story about Juanita and her-and her house and her boxes and her filing cabinets. But it became her life, I think. And it became-she became very possessive of it. And I think that this is one of the dangers of the-of-of a movement where people become so-so involved in-in the issue that00:18:18 - 2104they lose track of or lose sight of the larger issue, which is their own humanity, perhaps, sometimes, or their ability to then keep in touch and communicate with those who either have supported them or who are still sympathetic to them. What-what we got into at that point, trying-trying to continue to help her were doors were shut, one right after the other. So that, if we had suggestions or we saw something that we thought needed to be pursued, if it came from outside Juanita and her very small circle at that point, it wasn't accepted. So basically she cut us out of the whole process.

So my role, at that point, began to be one of I went back to my journalist role and began to write about it and it was advocacy journalism, no question about that. I had my biases and I did not try to hide them. But I did write-do a lot of writing at that point, I felt like-that this was the only place where I could then, you know, share what I knew and what I felt and saw was happening with the larger society, where CASE was closing off the larger society.

And so I think that's a very grave and serious danger in movements and I don't know that it, you know, how it affected this one but in the sense of whether that-wit-there would have been a different outcome at Comanche Peak or not. But she was being-but she was still being effective in her role in the licensing process because Comanche Peak-she was still raising issues. She was still raising red flags and she was still able to raise questions that the NRC had to deal with and that TU had to deal with. But, because she had become so isolated by then from the-the rest of the people involved, I think what TU saw-because they are, if anything, they are clever on, you know, being able to try to manipulate people-what they saw was an opportunity to f-to get her out completely by buying her. And this is-this is a very touchy subject and it's very delicate and I-I00:20:55 - 2104don't want to-I don't want it to come across as accusing her of-of having been paid off because in-in a real sense that's what happened. But she did not personally profit from that payoff.

But what happened was TU brought in a new dir-a-a new CEO and this guy began to woo Juanita. He met her for lunch and he talked to her and he told her he was going to do this and do that and he made all the promises in the world to her, that he was-that he appreciated all she had done and that he was going to make sure that they were all-that everything was implemented there. So, with Juanita, a couple of lawyers that she had from the-from Washington, they-eventually his-his meeting-and he was meeting her secretly. Her-her group did not even know that-that she was-sh-that she was having coffee with him and that she was having lunch with him and that they were negotiating some kind of a settlement. And, of course, she was running out of money. Not all of it ever came out of her pocket because they were working class people. They did not have the kind of money that it took. She-but she was getting funds from-from various and sundry groups. They had-they had gotten grant money. They had been able to get donations, you know, from people to keep it up. A lot of the-a lot of the work-so much of the work was done by her without charging that, you know, it would have-she would have been out of it a long time before had she had to be paying a lawyer or some-someone to-to do what she did. And-and she became an expert in this field and-of nuclear documents and-and all of the jargon that you have to know to talk to these people. But, at any rate, basically they-they came in and-00:23:02 - 2104and-and-what they did was-was see that there was a division and, then, they exploited that division.

And when they offered the group ten million dollars-and what they offered them was a s-a ten million dollar settlement, which would pay the whistle blowers-at that time. The whistle blowers had filed a lawsuit against TU Electric and Brown & Root and those lawsuits were still hanging. They had not been settled. Whistle blowers were desperate because they had lost their jobs and they were not-they-they had no income. So she had that hanging over her, that the whistle blowers need to be paid, needed some-some recompense for what they had given. She also knew that-I think she saw that she wasn't going to stop the plant from being licensed so, course, I'm-I'm assuming that-that-that this is what went on in her mind. I have no idea what went on in her mind. But, eventually, within a few months of-of these negotiations with Juanita in secret, there was an announcement by CFUR that they had-they were withdrawing.DT: CASE, you mean?00:24:21 - 2104

BB: No, I'm sorry, by CASE, yeah. That they were-that they were withdrawing, that they were going to-they've had a contract with TU Electric to monitor the plant for five years, and that they were getting a ten-ten million dollar settlement. Five point five million went to the whistle blowers, I believe, and the rest went to CFUR.

And there were-course, we went ballistic you might say. We did see it as a sellout and we s-we saw it not just as a sellout of CASE, we saw it as a sellout of the whole fifteen-year effort that s-that-that many, many people had, you know, given their-that-those-those many, many years of their lives to try to stop the plant. And we also felt betrayed because there had been no contact with us to say, "Look, this is what we're-we're getting ready to do." We were as knocked off our feet as most of the people in, you know, in the press and then-and who had followed it were. But the explanation was-was-was always straightforward that she had run out of money, that she couldn't stop the plant, that she did it for the whistle blowers, and that the rest of the money went to the lawyers. And a lot of-a couple of-of Washington lawyers made a couple of million out of that deal.DT: Maybe you can talk a little bit about the opposite side of the issue and Texas Utilities' role in promoting the plant, and the charm offensive and public relations effort they had to try to promote and complete the plant.00:26:08 - 2104

BB: Well, course, that started many, many years ago. TU Electric has always-had always been-well, at-at-Texas Electric Utility Company, as it was known to us in Fort Worth for many, many years, that-the electric company-had always been involved in promoting themselves through-to the community-through doing good works in the community and so forth. So-and-and they had-one of the-one of the interesting things they did when the-when they were promoting nuclear power-they were providing-they'd always provided book covers for the kids-for the school kids with-Ready Kilowatt was their symbol at that time and he was always cute, you know, and it was a-it was a kind of clever little thing. And-but, the book covers then with nuclear-with their Comanche Peak plant-the book covers made a soul shift. And that shift began to-you-you-you would see long little explanations of nuclear p-power00:27:10 - 2104and how-what a great source of electricity-how cheap it's going to be, you know, the-the-the-early on the-the phrase was "too cheap to meter." And we know it's eleven billion dollar plant out there, that's-that was one of the biggest lies. But they did-they did have all of this promo of nuclear power on the school text books. That was one of the things we had-we did fight and we-we were successful in-in getting the s-the school district to remove those text books from the-they did not-they did not disallow TU Electric to provide text books but they a-they made TU Electric take the promo for nuclear power off of the backs of the-of the text book covers. But we had to do that by embarrassing the school district quite a bit because we spent several nights of-at meetings explaining to them why this was not a good thing and we finally did get some success there.

Other tactics they used-they used-they pro-they provided the money for seminars for teachers-for science teachers in the Fort Worth-Dallas area and they-most of the time it was in Denton at North Texas-or Texas University, one of those two. And those seminars were always provided to teachers during the summer when they could-and they were given credit toward their continuing education credits for attending these seminars. But they were hardly unbiased seminars about science. They were used to promote TU's nuclear power plants, as well as their coal. At that time, they were under considerable criticism for their dirty coal plants. So they were also trying to protect their reputation in the industry and-but-and they did that through some propaganda with s-with school teachers.

Lon Burnam and I and, I think, Dick Falk, the-the gentleman from Dallas, decided-we heard about one of these seminars and knew when it was-when they were occurring. And so we decided to crash one. We went to Texas Women's University and we just walked in. We found out where they00:29:47 - 2104were holding them and what building and so forth, so we just walked in. We were quickly ushered out of the-of the room where one of the seminars was taking place. So we made our argument to-to the-to the gentleman in charge and, I think, he was one of the Deans at that particular college or that particular school and we were also persuasive in making our argument for fairness because the seminar that we had broken into was one on how-what-what a great source of energy nuclear power is. So we were able to crash that one and allow-we were allowed five minutes to give our side of the story. So we did-we-we spoke to those teachers. And, at that time, there were-there were the issue of-of being just-just little old housewives without much knowledge had been pretty well set out by TU Electric to discredit some of us, myself and Juanita as well.

So one of the questions the teacher lobbed at me from the audience that day-I remember it really well-was, "Okay, give me your credentials." Well, you know, mine were-my credentials were I graduated from high school, had a year of college, you know, raised a bunch of kids and then got involved in all of these movements. And she said, "Well, what makes you an expert on this compared to all of these other gentlemen here?" I said, "Well," I said, "you know, when I was in high school," I said, "I had a very good English teacher and she taught me to read critically," I said, "and that's all you really have to do and that's all you really have to know to get into this kind of issue and find out where they're wrong because they're wrong on many things." And I said, "If you know how to read critically and if you know the right questions to ask," I said, "you can-you don't have to be an expert, you just have to be somebody with a mind."DT: Can we talk about another side of reading? That's your writing career where it seems like after you were involved in a number of these movements you became able to return to your writing career and re-enter journalism...00:32:19 - 2104BB: Right-right.DT: ...and were an activist in a sense in the kinds of articles that you took...00:32:27 - 2104BB: Yeah, it was...DT: ...and the views that you expressed.00:32:29 - 2104

BB: It was-it was fortunate that it-it-that the Texas Observer has-has been able to survive all these years because the Texas Observer is one of the few outlets for this kind of journalism that we have in-in the state. So I wrote for the Texas Observer for a long time about Comanche Peak, about feminist issues, and about political issues. And, as a journalist-as an advocacy journalist, it was-it was the best forum that I had because I could write about these things that I had-by then, I think, had steeped myself in very well.

I also wrote for the-I was op-ed page writer for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and I wrote about Comanche Peak during those years too. So I had those two forums and, you know, on the op-ed page, of course, you can express your opinion. So I was able to get back to journalism through that particular route and it allowed me to do what I wanted to do as-as a-as a young woman a-a-in a profession that I loved but it also allowed me to write about something that, by then, I thought I knew a lot about.DT: What sort of reaction would you get from your editors and from the readers that would see your columns?00:33:53 - 2104

BB: Well in-in the-for those editors and readers of the Dallas Observer, it was like preaching to the choir. So it was always good response, you know. The editors of the-of the Dalla-of the Texas Observer were also ver-were always very supportive and wanted-wanted writings and-and articles on Comanche Peak because there were not very many journalists who had followed the-the story. There were not very many who could write about it so they welcomed my-my work on-on the plant.

And-and at the Fort Worth Star Telegram I had some very good editors during that period of time who were editors of the op-ed page and, while they weren't necessarily supportive or sympathetic of the issue, they thought that they were the type of editors and journalists that we don't have enough of anymore-they thought that issue should be aired, you know. They-they were strongly in favor of the issue of nuclear power, its dangers, the waste issue, what are we going to do with it, how much it's going to cost and that sort of stuff that needed to be aired. So I had-I had two forums where I had editors who were more than willing, you know, to publish my work.DT: Can you comment a little bit about the scope and tenor of the environmental coverage in Texas in the media?00:35:33 - 2104

BB: Not good. I-I think you-you get-you get good coverage in the Observer-the Observ-the Texas Observer has done some fantastic work on environmental justice issues on the-on the things that are happening along the border, on Sierra Blanca, on-on other local-localized issues of-of pollution where, you know, and-and not just pollution but deliberate kinds of releases from plants, plants locating in areas where people are poor. And I don't see this as a-as a racial thing as much as a class thing. Corporations are not particularly concerned about whether it's Black folk or Hispanic or others. It's, you know, where these communities are poor and if they're poor communities they can sway them several ways. They can ignore their protests because they are usually politically margini-marginalized anyway or they can buy them off and-which is what they did with Glen Rose. So they can bring in a lot of money and put money into the schools and put money into the community and hire people. And then it's, you know, it's many years into the future when the people really realize that they have been badly used and that their children are dying. But I think the-the Observer has done some of the best stories on those issues. The problem with the Observer is-the Texas Observer-it's a very limited readership, you know, it just doesn't have the00:37:17 - 2104circulation in the state that it should have.

But I don't-I don't think the other papers in the state-they're corporate owned now and there's-there's no competition, you know, no-no daily competition except, perhaps, maybe in-is Galveston or Corpus? I don't know. I don't know that there's any daily competition any more in the state. Arlington, Texas, I guess, you might say is the only that has-cause the Arlington Morning News and the Arlington Star Telegram are both operating there but they're still owned by large corporate entities. So I don't think that we have good environmental coverage here. Otherwise, I don't think that George Bush would be getting such a buy on it.DT: Maybe you can talk a little bit about what sort of issues you think are coming down the pike, whether they're being covered by the media or not, but, environmental challenges that we might be facing in the future.00:38:17 - 2104

BB: Well we're just facing some dreadful ones. I mean, I-the-the-the fact that the issue of global warming is being debated any more at all as to whether it's valid or not is scary because it's valid. There's no question that we have put too much in the atmosphere and that we are, you know, slowly choking off this-this beautiful little blue planet that we live on and choking ourselves in the process. But what I-what I see-the danger I see from the issue of global warming, whether it is being denied or whether it's being promoted, it-it's-it's being debated, there's no question about that.

But this is another one of those opportunities for the nuclear industry to jump back in and-which is what they're doing and they're doing it kind of subtly and without too much fanfare. But they're-they're looking now at promoting-or they are promoting the reintroduction of nuclear plants as a source of domestic energy to offset global warming because they don't produce anything into the atmosphere. And this is true, they don't put anything in the atmosphere that contributes to this-this phenomenon. What they don't talk about and won't talk about, is what they put into the ground, what they put into their holding tanks, which is the waste from this production of nuclear energy. And what they're proposing now are smaller plants-a series of smaller plants that will be-that they can build economically and quickly and get set up, you know, across the country and start producing power very quickly. Now these plants will be the-granted, they will produce lower amounts of nuclear waste, but there's going to-they're still going to produce a lot of it because they're going to-they're propo-what they propose is to have a lot of them, you know. Instead of having a giant mega generating plant like Comanche Peak, they could have ten around here. But we don't-we don't hear much about that and we-there's not much coverage abou-of that in the-in the press. But it's happening in the-and the NRC is proposing it and they are working on guidelines. They're working on regulations. They are spending an awful lot of bureaucratic time and money in Washington developing this proposal. So I see that as a big danger.

And I think that the people will be sold on that again. We've got a whole new generation of folks and-and there's been a long period of-of quiet about nuclear power because there have been no new plants built here since Comanche Peak was completed. And none ordered, they have-there-there've been no-all the orders have-were cancelled back in the '70's. So utilities were-are not-were not ready to get into nuclear because of the massive costs, as well as the massive opposition. But now, very subtly, we're-we're seeing a shift. The utilities are working at the NRC on this but the-but the public doesn't know it.DT: Considering these challenges like the resurgence in nuclear power, other environmental problems, do you have a bias from all your years of experience that you could pass onto future generations about how they can deal with the difficulties and opportunities?00:42:15 - 2104

BB: Well, yeah, it-it's always-it's always kind of difficult for those of us who are older to do this without sounding kind of pompous or kind of condescending but, you know, it's-I just go back to that simple little-simple little phrase that was given to me by my very good and long, dear departed English teacher, which was, "Read critically."

But go beyond that reading critically because what-what I think people have to do-what young people have to do and-and this generation has to do-it's-it's-it's very similar to the young women now who think that everything has been won and there's nothing left to do in the feminist movement. Well there's a lot left to do in that. And there's a lot left to do as far as trying to save the environment. Saving the environment is not something that you do and-and go on. It's something you do every day. You never stop saving the environment because the threats to the environment are massive. They're constant and the corporations do not have a soul. They're not concerned about the environment. So I think it's something that people don't-should understand, they don't understand. And even people in my generation didn't understand that, that this is an 00:43:38 - 2104ongoing thing, the battles are-maybe the battles are won but the war is never over in that sense. And if they don't-if we don't address population, if we don't address the third world-the third world problems of health and if we don't address AIDS and if we don't address global warming and if we don't address nuclear waste, there is not going to be a planet for our children and it's just that simple. I don't know how to say it any differently to-to young people. I mean, each person can do something. And I know a lot of people think, "Well, I recycle, so, therefore, you know, I'm-I'm doing my part."

But, it's so much more than that and it means we have to be involved politically. You have to know who your legislators are. You have to-you have to raise hell with them. You have to scream and holler when you see anything going on and you have to ask questions whenever anything is being proposed that's going to impact your community. You have to go and ask questions. Getting involved politically and-and trying to remember that it's never over and it never ends is all I can say because I-

I think that this is what frightens me is that many people think that either it's been done and we won or I'm a small human here and there's nothing I can do. But I can tell you that small human beings, like Juanita Ellis and myself and other people across this country, have impacted the environment in ways even we will never know. One of the-one of the gentlemen who has been tracking the exposure of radiation on humans around nuclear plants told me-I-I was very despondent about the fact that Comanche Peak finally got licensed and that we had failed, and he said, "But you didn't." He said, "Don't you realize what you did?" He said, "You postponed the licensing of that plant for fifteen years so you gave almost a whole generation, you know, some relief, and you ga-you gave almost a whole generation a chance at life that may not-they may not have had." So, you know, those are the kinds of things that you don't think about at the time but, you know, there it is.DT: Something else that I try and ask people, you know, thinking about all these dire problems, I think, makes everybody look for some solace, and I was wondering if there is a place that you like to go to or just to think about that has the beauty and peacefulness that gives you some respite?00:46:45 - 2104

BB: Well, it used to be-it used to be the Big Thicket in East Texas. We had a-we had a cabin there for a long time and-and we would-we lived there for a-a p-about five years in-in the very edge of the Big Thicket. That was one of the most beautiful-we were on a creek called Village Creek and it was a great canoeing creek and we had a wonderful, wonderful life there for a short period of time. I would-I would say that that is a place that I would s-go back to to find respite and solace if it were still there. The problem is most of those woods have been cut around the thicket. The timber companies have come in and-and decimated all the areas around the thicket and they have-some of it is coming back. Some of it's being planted in tree farms and will never be the same again. So places like that-that-that's a place that's lost to my husband and I and our kids, even though we did have that for a period of time. So we know it can exist and does exist. As far as-as far as the-in-in Texas there are very few places except, maybe, the-the-the mountains that-on-along the Mexican border but there are very few places that, I think, that we can go to and,

frankly, I find this place the most s-the place that I find the most solace in. It's-it's...DT: Your home.00:48:28 - 2104BB: ...my home. Well we're fortunate in this-in this-I'm fortunate in this because it's the home that I was raised in. I was reared here as a child and every room and every book and every nook and cranny holds comfort for me. And my mother was an avid reader and my father was too. So we still are surrounded by their books and their-their memories and so forth. But I think that, you know, it may be cliche-ish and it may be kind of-but-Pollyannaish in some ways but, you know, being able to be in the same place where I was reared as a child is one of the most comforting things I have now at my age. So, frankly, I'm ver-very happy to be able to come home to this little, I think, island of peace every afternoon.DT: Do you have any thoughts that you'd like to pass on that come to mind that aren't prompted by my nosey questions?00:49:45 - 2104

BB: Yeah, I-I-I-I think that-I don't think the war is over. I don't think we've lost. I don't think the planet is doomed. I think that it's threatened and I think that there's no question that it's under serious threat. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't look into the future to see what will be here for my grandchildren. But we have fourteen grandchildren and, if we didn't do what we have done over the years, I could not look them in the face, quite frankly. And I think this is one of the things that-that I would pass on to people.

The-and-and this is another cliché, and it's been overused but the-the Indian philosophy-the tribal philosophy of some Indians to call the seventh generation-to think of what impact your actions today will have on the seventh generation is-is truly something that should be writ in stone, I think, in our philosophies, all of our philosophies. Because if we would-if we would do that-if we would think, if our government would think, if we could get our corporations to think of what our actions today would have on the seventh generation who come after us, I think we could change the world.DT: Sort of like a seventh generation Hippocratic oath, Do no harm, but, also...00:51:25 - 2104BB: Right.DT: ...do no harm to the seventh...00:51:27 - 2104BB: Right.DT: ...generation.00:51:28 - 2104

BB: Well it's certainly true in-in the question of nuclear waste because that's going to go beyond the seventh generation. We're going to have generations thousands-hundreds of thousands of years into the future that are still going to have to be dealing with the waste we've left behind today. And it is-it's a cruel, I think, and a-and a terrible legacy to-that we are leaving. And I think we've got to stop doing that, period.(misc.)DT: Thank you very much.(misc.)End of reel 2104.End of interview with Betty Brink.