Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution - Yale E360

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution - Yale E360


Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

BY RICHARD RHODES • JULY 19, 2018

Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions.


In the late 16th century, when the increasing cost of firewood forced ordinary Londoners to switch reluctantly to coal, Elizabethan preachers railed against a fuel they believed to be, literally, the Devil’s excrement. Coal was black, after all, dirty, found in layers underground — down toward Hell at the center of the earth — and smelled strongly of sulfur when it burned. Switching to coal, in houses that usually lacked chimneys, was difficult enough; the clergy’s outspoken condemnation, while certainly justified environmentally, further complicated and delayed the timely resolution of an urgent problem in energy supply.

For too many environmentalists concerned with global warming, nuclear energy is today’s Devil’s excrement. They condemn it for its production and use of radioactive fuels and for the supposed problem of disposing of its waste. In my judgment, their condemnation of this efficient, low-carbon source of baseload energy is misplaced. Far from being the Devil’s excrement, nuclear power can be, and should be, one major component of our rescue from a hotter, more meteorologically destructive world.

Like all energy sources, nuclear power has advantages and disadvantages. What are nuclear power’s benefits? First and foremost, since it produces energy via nuclear fission rather than chemical burning, it generates baseload electricity with no output of carbon, the villainous element of global warming. Switching from coal to natural gas is a step toward decarbonizing, since burning natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of burning coal. But switching from coal to nuclear power is radically decarbonizing, since nuclear power plants release greenhouse gases only from the ancillary use of fossil fuels during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning — about as much as solar power does, which is about 4 to 5 percent as much as a natural gas-fired power plant.

Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.


Second, nuclear power plants operate at much higher capacity factors than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels. Capacity factor is a measure of what percentage of the time a power plant actually produces energy. It’s a problem for all intermittent energy sources. The sun doesn’t always shine, nor the wind always blow, nor water always fall through the turbines of a dam.

In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent, meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year. (The other 29 days they were taken off the grid for maintenance.) In contrast, U.S. hydroelectric systems delivered power 38.2 percent of the time (138 days per year), wind turbines 34.5 percent of the time (127 days per year) and solar electricity arrays only 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year). Even plants powered with coal or natural gas only generate electricity about half the time for reasons such as fuel costs and seasonal and nocturnal variations in demand. Nuclear is a clear winner on reliability.

Third, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source. This statement will seem paradoxical to many readers, since it’s not commonly known that non-nuclear energy sources release any radiation into the environment. They do. The worst offender is coal, a mineral of the earth’s crust that contains a substantial volume of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium. Burning coal gasifies its organic materials, concentrating its mineral components into the remaining waste, called fly ash. So much coal is burned in the world and so much fly ash produced that coal is actually the major source of radioactive releases into the environment.



Anti-nuclear activists protest the construction of a nuclear power station in Seabrook, New Hampshire in 1977. AP PHOTO


In the early 1950s, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission believed high-grade uranium ores to be in short supply domestically, it considered extracting uranium for nuclear weapons from the abundant U.S. supply of fly ash from coal burning. In 2007, China began exploring such extraction, drawing on a pile of some 5.3 million metric tons of brown-coal fly ash at Xiaolongtang in Yunnan. The Chinese ash averages about 0.4 pounds of triuranium octoxide (U3O8), a uranium compound, per metric ton. Hungary and South Africa are also exploring uranium extraction from coal fly ash.

ALSO ON YALE E360

Industry Meltdown: Is the era of nuclear power coming to an end? Read more.


What are nuclear’s downsides? In the public’s perception, there are two, both related to radiation: the risk of accidents, and the question of disposal of nuclear waste.

There have been three large-scale accidents involving nuclear power reactors since the onset of commercial nuclear power in the mid-1950s: Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.

Studies indicate even the worst possible accident at a nuclear plant is less destructive than other major industrial accidents.


The partial meltdown of the Three-Mile Island reactor in March 1979, while a disaster for the owners of the Pennsylvania plant, released only a minimal quantity of radiation to the surrounding population. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
“The approximately 2 million people around TMI-2 during the accident are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem above the usual background dose. To put this into context, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem and the area’s natural radioactive background dose is about 100-125 millirem per year… In spite of serious damage to the reactor, the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.”

The explosion and subsequent burnout of a large graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl in 1986 was easily the worst nuclear accident in history. Twenty-nine disaster relief workers died of acute radiation exposure in the immediate aftermath of the accident. In the subsequent three decades, UNSCEAR — the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, composed of senior scientists from 27 member states — has observed and reported at regular intervals on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident. It has identified no long-term health consequences to populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout except for thyroid cancers in residents of Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, who drank milk contaminated with 131iodine, and who were not evacuated. By 2008, UNSCEAR had attributed some 6,500 excess cases of thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl region to the accident, with 15 deaths. The occurrence of these cancers increased dramatically from 1991 to 1995, which researchers attributed mostly to radiation exposure. No increase occurred in adults.



The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, located near Avila Beach, California, will be decommissioned starting in 2024. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC


“The average effective doses” of radiation from Chernobyl, UNSCEAR also concluded, “due to both external and internal exposures, received by members of the general public during 1986-2005 [were] about 30 mSv for the evacuees, 1 mSv for the residents of the former Soviet Union, and 0.3 mSv for the populations of the rest of Europe.” A sievert is a measure of radiation exposure, a millisievert is one-one-thousandth of a sievert. A full-body CT scan delivers about 10-30 mSv. A U.S. resident receives an average background radiation dose, exclusive of radon, of about 1 mSv per year.

The statistics of Chernobyl irradiations cited here are so low that they must seem intentionally minimized to those who followed the extensive media coverage of the accident and its aftermath. Yet they are the peer-reviewed products of extensive investigation by an international scientific agency of the United Nations. They indicate that even the worst possible accident at a nuclear power plant — the complete meltdown and burnup of its radioactive fuel — was yet far less destructive than other major industrial accidents across the past century. To name only two: Bhopal, in India, where at least 3,800 people died immediately and many thousands more were sickened when 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesticide plant; and Henan Province, in China, where at least 26,000 people drowned following the failure of a major hydroelectric dam in a typhoon. “Measured as early deaths per electricity units produced by the Chernobyl facility (9 years of operation, total electricity production of 36 GWe-years, 31 early deaths) yields 0.86 death/GWe-year),” concludes Zbigniew Jaworowski, a physician and former UNSCEAR chairman active during the Chernobyl accident. “This rate is lower than the average fatalities from [accidents involving] a majority of other energy sources. For example, the Chernobyl rate is nine times lower than the death rate from liquefied gas… and 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations.”

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem, is not any longer a technological problem.

ALSO ON YALE E360

In Fukushima, a bitter legacy of radiation, trauma, and fear. Read more.


The accident in Japan at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 followed a major earthquake and tsunami. The tsunami flooded out the power supply and cooling systems of three power reactors, causing them to melt down and explode, breaching their confinement. Although 154,000 Japanese citizens were evacuated from a 12-mile exclusion zone around the power station, radiation exposure beyond the station grounds was limited. According to the report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency in June 2011:
“No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits. By December, government health checks of some 1,700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/year, 98 percent were below 5 mSv/year, and 10 people were exposed to more than 10 mSv… [There] was no major public exposure, let alone deaths from radiation.”

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem in the U.S., is not any longer a technological problem. Most U.S. spent fuel, more than 90 percent of which could be recycled to extend nuclear power production by hundreds of years, is stored at present safely in impenetrable concrete-and-steel dry casks on the grounds of operating reactors, its radiation slowly declining.



An activist in March 2017 demanding closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant in France. Authorities announced in April that they will close the facility by 2020. SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP / GETTY IMAGES


The U.S. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico currently stores low-level and transuranic military waste and could store commercial nuclear waste in a 2-kilometer thick bed of crystalline salt, the remains of an ancient sea. The salt formation extends from southern New Mexico all the way northeast to southwestern Kansas. It could easily accommodate the entire world’s nuclear waste for the next thousand years.

Finland is even further advanced in carving out a permanent repository in granite bedrock 400 meters under Olkiluoto, an island in the Baltic Sea off the nation’s west coast. It expects to begin permanent waste storage in 2023.

A final complaint against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide, but there is no question that a full accounting of the external costs of different energy systems would find nuclear cheaper than coal or natural gas.

ALSO ON YALE E360

Rocky Flats: A wildlife refuge confronts its radioactive past. Read more.


Nuclear power is not the only answer to the world-scale threat of global warming. Renewables have their place; so, at least for leveling the flow of electricity when renewables vary, does natural gas. But nuclear deserves better than the anti-nuclear prejudices and fears that have plagued it. It isn’t the 21st century’s version of the Devil’s excrement. It’s a valuable, even an irreplaceable, part of the solution to the greatest energy threat in the history of humankind.

Facebook
Twitter
Email



Richard Rhodes is the author of numerous books, including the recently published Energy: A Human History, and is the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award. Appearing as host and correspondent for documentaries on public television’s Frontline and American Experience series, he has also been a visiting scholar at Harvard, MIT, and Stanford University. MOREABOUT RICHARD RHODES →

TOPICS
Energy

GREENHOUSE GASES
NUCLEAR
PUBLIC HEALTH
ACTIVISM
POLITICS

REGIONS
North America
Asia
Europe
Join the conversation: Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy SolutionShow comments →



Never miss a feature! Sign up for

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? | Let's Talk Science

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? | Let's Talk Science:






What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy?
Digital Development Team
January 23, 2019
Format
Video, Text, Images
Readability
9.1

Subjects
Environmental Science, Pollution, Climate change, Physics, Nuclear Energy, Technology & Engineering

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? | Let's Talk Science

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? | Let's Talk Science:






What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy?
Digital Development Team
January 23, 2019
Format
Video, Text, Images
Readability
9.1

Subjects
Environmental Science, Pollution, Climate change, Physics, Nuclear Energy, Technology & Engineering

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy - Conserve Energy Future

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy - Conserve Energy Future
Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons


As of today, nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants. Nuclear fission is the process that is used in nuclear reactors to produce high amount of energy using element called uranium. It is the energy that is stored in the nucleus of an atom.

While being environmentally friendly is the big plus of nuclear energy, disposal of radioactive waste and protecting people and environment from its radiations is a big cons of nuclear energy. Therefore, expensive solutions are needed to protect mother earth from the devastating effects of nuclear energy.


When we think about this resource, many of us think about nuclear bombs or the meltdowns that have happened at a number of nuclear plants around the world. That being said, nuclear energy is definitely a type of renewable energy that we need to look at. In this article, we’re going to explore the pros and cons of nuclear energy.




Save
Pros of Nuclear Energy


1. Low Pollution: Nuclear power also has a lot fewer greenhouse emissions. It has been determined that the amount of greenhouse gases have decreased by almost half because of the prevalence in the utilization of nuclear power. Nuclear energy has the least effect on nature since it doesn’t discharge any gasses like methane and carbon dioxide, which are the primary “greenhouse gasses.” There is no unfavorable impact on water, land or any territories because of the utilization of nuclear power, except in times where transportation is utilized.

2. Low Operating Costs: Nuclear power produces very inexpensive electricity. The cost of the uranium, which is utilized as a fuel in this process, is low. Also, even though the expense of setting up nuclear power plants is moderately high, the expense of running them is quite low low. The normal life of nuclear reactor is anywhere from 40-60 years, depending on how often it is used and how it is being used. These variables, when consolidated, make the expense of delivering power low. Even if the cost of uranium goes up, the impact on the cost of power will be that much lower.

3. Reliability: It is estimated that with the current rate of consumption of uranium, we have enough uranium for another 70-80 years. A nuclear power plant when in the mode of producing energy can run uninterrupted for even a year. As solar and wind energy are dependent upon weather conditions, nuclear power plant has no such constraints and can run without disruption in any climatic condition.

There are sure monetary focal points in setting up nuclear power plants and utilizing nuclear energy in lieu of traditional energy. It is one of the significant sources of power all through the country. The best part is that this energy has a persistent supply. It is broadly accessible, there is a lot in storage, and it is believed that the supply is going to last much, much longer than that of fossil fuels that are used in the same capacity.

4. More Proficient Than Fossil Fuels: The other primary point of interest of utilizing nuclear energy is that it is more compelling and more proficient than other energy sources. A number of nuclear energy innovations have made it a much more feasible choice than others. They have high energy density as compared to fossil fuels. The amount of fuel required by nuclear power plant is comparatively less than what is required by other power plants as energy released by nuclear fission is approximately ten million times greater than the amount of energy released by fossil fuel atom.

This is one the reason that numerous nations are putting a lot of time and money into nuclear power.What’s nuclear power’s greatest benefit, above any other benefit that we may explore? It doesn’t rely on fossil fuels and isn’t influenced by fluctuating oil and gas costs. Coal and natural gas power plants discharge carbon dioxide into the air, which causes a number of environmental issues. With nuclear power plants, carbon emissions are insignificant.

5. Renewable?: Nuclear energy is not renewable resource. Uranium, the nuclear fuel that is used to produced nuclear energy is limited and cannot be produced again and again on demand. On the other hand, by using breeder and fusion reactors, we can produce other fissionable element. One such element is called plutonium that is produced by the by-products of chain-reaction. Also, if we know how to control atomic fusion, the same reactions that fuel the sun, we can have almost unlimited energy.




Save
Ad by Valueimpression
Cons of Nuclear Energy


1. Environmental Impact: One of the biggest issues is environmental impact in relation to uranium. The process of mining and refining uranium hasn’t been a clean process. Actually transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants represents a pollution hazard. Also, once the fuel is used, you can’t simply take it to the landfill – it’s radioactive and dangerous.

2. Radioactive Waste Disposal: As a rule, a nuclear power plant creates 20 metric tons of nuclear fuel per year, and with that comes a lot of nuclear waste. When you consider each nuclear plant on Earth, you will find that that number jumps to approximately 2,000 metric tons a year. The greater part of this waste transmits radiation and high temperature, implying that it will inevitably consume any compartment that holds it. It can also cause damage to living things in and around the plants.

Nuclear power plants create a lot of low-level radioactive waste as transmitted parts and supplies. Over time, used nuclear fuel decays to safe radioactive levels, however this takes a countless number of years. Even low level radioactive waste takes hundreds of years to achieve adequate levels of safety.

3. Nuclear Accidents: The radioactive waste produced can pose serious health effects on the lives of people as well as the environment. The Chernobyl accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine was the worst nuclear accident in the history. Its harmful effects on humans and ecology can still be seen today. Then there was another accident that happened in Fukushima in Japan. Although the casualties were not that high, but it caused serious environmental concerns.

4. High Cost: At present, the nuclear business let waste cool for a considerable length of time before blending it with glass and putting away it in enormous cooled, solid structures. This waste must be kept up, observed and watched to keep the materials from falling into the wrong hands and causing problems. These administrations and included materials cost cash – on top of the high expenses needed to put together a plant, which may make it less desirable to invest in. It requires permission from several international authorities and it is normally opposed by the people who live in that region.

5. Uranium is Finite: Just like other sources of fuel, uranium is also finite and exists in few of the countries. It is pretty expensive to mine, refine and transport uranium. It produces considerable amount of waste during all these activities and can result in environmental contamination and serous health effects, if not handled properly.
Ad by Valueimpression

6. Hot Target for Militants: Nuclear energy has immense power. Today, nuclear energy is used to make weapons. If these weapons go into the wrong hands, that could be the end of this world. Nuclear power plants are prime target for terrorism activities. Little lax in security can be brutal for humankind.
Image credit
Mark Brooks , Global Panorama



Author
Recent Posts



Rinkesh

A true environmentalist by heart ❤️. Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musk‘s idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons - Energy Informative

Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons - Energy Informative



Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons

Below you will find a nuclear energy pros and cons list, which covers the most important aspects of typical nuclear power plants.

There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States producing a whopping 806.2 TWh of electricity, in other words about 20 % of the entire electricity generation (2008). There is no doubt that the potential of nuclear energy is huge, but there are also downsides.



Before we get further into the pros and cons list, what exactly is nuclear energy? The basic gist is this: By separating an atom into two lighter atoms, there is a net loss of mass. This mass is not exactly lost, but rather transformed into massive amounts of energy. This is what is referred to as nuclear fission. By controlling these reactions we can harness the energy.
I’ve made a separate article going deeper into how we harness nuclear energy called Nuclear. If this is not entirely clear yet; you might want to consider reading this before you start with the pros and cons list below.
Advantages of Nuclear Energy


1 Relatively Low Costs

The initial construction costs of nuclear power plants are large. On top of this, when the power plants first have been built, we are left with the costs to enrich and process the nuclear fuel (e.g. uranium), control and get rid of nuclear waste, as well as the maintenance of the plant. The reason this is under advantages is that nuclear energy is cost-competitive. Generating electricity in nuclear reactors is cheaper than electricity generating from oil, gas and coal, not to speak of the renewable energy sources!
2 Base Load Energy

Nuclear power plants provide a stable base load of energy. This can work synergistic with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The electricity production from the plants can be lowered when good wind and solar resources are available and cranked up when the demand is high.
3 Low Pollution

It is in most cases more beneficial, in terms of the climate crisis, to replace other energy harnessing methods we use today with nuclear power. The environmental effects of nuclear power are relatively light compared to those. However, nuclear waste is potential harmful for both humans and the environment.

How much money can a solar roof save you in South Australia?
Profit from your roof space: find local deals on solar in your area, eliminate your power bill, and join the solar revolution.Calculate My Savings!


4 Thorium

Reports show that with the yearly fuel consumption of today’s nuclear power plants, we have enough uranium for 80 years. It is possible to fuel nuclear power plants with other fuel types than uranium. Thorium, which also is a greener alternative, has lately been given an increased amount of attention. China, Russia and India have already plans to start using thorium to fuel their reactors in the near future.

It looks like nuclear fuel is of good availability if we combine the reserves of the different types together. In other words, hopefully enough time for us to find cost-competitive greener ways of harnessing energy.
5 Sustainable?

Is nuclear energy renewable or non-renewable? This is a good question. By definition, nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source. As I mentioned above, there is a limited amount of fuel for nuclear power available. On the other hand, you could argue that nuclear energy is potentially sustainable by the use of breeder reactors and fusion reactors. Nuclear fusion is the holy grail of harnessing energy. If we can learn to control atomic fusion, the same reactions as those that fuel the sun, we have practically unlimited energy. At the moment, these two methods both have serious challenges that need to be dealt with if we are to start using them on larger scale.
6 High Energy Density

It is estimated the amount of energy released in a nuclear fission reaction is ten million times greater than the amount released in burning a fossil fuel atom (e.g. oil and gas). Therefore, the amount of fuel required in a nuclear power plant is much smaller compared to those of other types of power plants.
Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

While the advantages of using nuclear energy seem to be many, there are also plenty of negative effects of nuclear energy. The following are the most important ones:
1 Accidents Happen

The radioactive waste can possess a threat to the environment and is dangerous for humans. We all remember the Chernobyl accident, where the harmful effects of nuclear radiation on humans can even be witnessed today. Estimates conclude that somewhere between 15 000 and 30 000 people lost their lifes in the Chernobyl aftermath and more than 2.5 million Ukrainians are still struggling with health problems related to nuclear waste.

Just last year, on March 18, a major nuclear crisis happenend again in Japan. While the casualties were not as high as with the Chernobyl accident, the environmental effects were disasterous.

History shows that we can never really protect us 100% against these disasters. Accidents do happen.
2 Radioactive Waste

Does nuclear power cause air pollution? The nuclear power plants emit negligible amounts, if any, carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, the processes in the nuclear fuel chain such as mining, enrichment and waste management does.

There are many arguments both for and against nuclear power. All in all I would say that the future of nuclear power looks promising. With new generations of reactors, potential major breakthroughs such as nuclear fusion, the methods we use to harness nuclear energy will get better in the next coming years. The question is: Do we need nuclear power or are the renewables a better choice?

Top California Solar Installers

Fresno Solar Installers
Riverside Solar Installers
Los Angeles Solar Installers
San Diego Solar Installers
Temecula Solar Installers
If you want to read more on nuclear energy, go to the nuclear category in the top menu. To get a broader picture on the non-renewables and their importance in today’s society read Non-Renewable Energy Sources – Advantages and Disadvantages. Feel free to leave comments below.


Looking for lists of pros and cons for more types of energy sources?
Solar Energy Pros and Cons
Wind Energy Pros and Cons
Geothermal Energy Pros and Cons
Biomass Energy Pros and Cons
Tidal Energy Pros and Cons
Wave Energy Pros and Cons
Fossil Fuels Pros and Cons
Hydroelectric Energy Pros and Cons

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? | Let's Talk Science

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? | Let's Talk Science




What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy?
Digital Development Team
January 23, 2019
Format
Video, Text, Images
Readability
9.1

Subjects
Environmental Science, Pollution, Climate change, Physics, Nuclear Energy, Technology & Engineering

Resurrection (novel) - Wikipedia

Resurrection (novel) - Wikipedia

Resurrection (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article is about the Tolstoy novel. For other uses, see Resurrection (disambiguation).

Resurrection

First US edition
Author	Leo Tolstoy
Original title	Воскресеніе
Country	Russia
Language	Russian
Genre	Philosophical novel, political fiction
Publisher	First published serially in Niva then Dodd, Mead (US)
Publication date	1899
Published in English	1900
Media type	Print (Hardcover, Paperback) and English-language Audio Book
Pages	483 (Oxford World's Classics edition)

Resurrection (pre-reform Russian: Воскресеніе; post-reform Russian: Воскресение, tr. Voskreséniye), first published in 1899, was the last novel written by Leo Tolstoy. The book is the last of his major long fiction works published in his lifetime. Tolstoy intended the novel as an exposition of the injustice of man-made laws and the hypocrisy of the institutionalized church. The novel also explores the economic philosophy of Georgism, of which Tolstoy had become a very strong advocate towards the end of his life, and explains the theory in detail. It was first published serially in the popular weekly magazine Niva in an effort to raise funds for the resettlement of the Doukhobors.

Contents

• 1Plot outline
• 2Popular and critical reception
• 3Adaptations
• 4Notes
• 5External links

Plot outline[edit]

The story is about a nobleman named Dmitri Ivanovich Nekhlyudov, who seeks redemption for a sin committed years earlier. When he was a younger man, at his Aunts' estate, he fell in love with their ward, Katyusha (Katerina Mikhailovna Maslova), who is goddaughter to one Aunt and treated badly by the other. However, after going to the city and becoming corrupted by drink and gambling, he returns two years later to his Aunts' estate and rapes Katyusha, leaving her pregnant. She is then thrown out by his Aunt, and proceeds to face a series of unfortunate and unpleasant events, before she ends up working as a prostitute, going by her surname, Maslova.

Ten years later, Nekhlyudov sits on a jury which sentences the girl, Maslova, to prison in Siberia for murder (poisoning a client who beat her, a crime of which she is innocent). The book narrates his attempts to help her practically, but focuses on his personal mental and moral struggle. He goes to visit her in prison, meets other prisoners, hears their stories, and slowly comes to realize that below his gilded aristocratic world, yet invisible to it, is a much larger world of cruelty, injustice and suffering. Story after story he hears and even sees people chained without cause, beaten without cause, immured in dungeons for life without cause, and a twelve-year-old boy sleeping in a lake of human dung from an overflowing latrine because there is no other place on the prison floor, but clinging in a vain search for love to the leg of the man next to him, until the book achieves the bizarre intensity of a horrific fever dream. He decides to give up his property and pass ownership on to his peasants, leaving them to argue over the different ways in which they can organise the estate, and he follows Katyusha into exile, planning on marrying her. On their long journey into Siberia, she falls in love with another man, and Nekhludov gives his blessing and still chooses to live as part of the penal community, seeking redemption.

An illustration by Leonid Pasternak in one of the early English editions.

Popular and critical reception[edit]

The book was eagerly awaited. "How all of us rejoiced," one critic wrote on learning that Tolstoy had decided to make his first fiction in 25 years, not a short novella but a full-length novel. "May God grant that there will be more and more!" It outsold Anna Karenina and War and Peace. Despite its early success, today Resurrection is not as famous as the works that preceded it.^[1]

Some writers have said that Resurrection has characters that are one-dimensional and that as a whole the book lacks Tolstoy's earlier attention to detail. By this point, Tolstoy was writing in a style that favored meaning over aesthetic quality.^[1]

The book faced much censorship upon publication. The complete and accurate text was not published until 1936. Many publishers printed their own editions because they assumed that Tolstoy had given up all copyrights as he had done with previous books. Instead, Tolstoy retained the copyright and donated all royalties to the Doukhobors, who were Russian pacifists hoping to emigrate to Canada.^[1]

It is said of legendary Japanese filmmaker Kenji Mizoguchi that he was of the opinion that "All melodrama is based on Tolstoy's Resurrection".^[2]

Adaptations[edit]

Operatic adaptations of the novel include the Risurrezione by Italian composer Franco Alfano, Vzkriesenie by Slovak composer Ján Cikker, and Resurrection by American composer Tod Machover.

Additionally, various film adaptations, including a Russian film Katyusha Maslova of director Pyotr Chardynin (1915, the first film role of Natalya Lisenko); a 1944 Italian film Resurrection; a 1949 Chinese film version entitled "蕩婦心" (A Forgotten Woman) starring Bai Guang; a Russian film version directed by Mikhail Shveitser in 1960, with Yevgeny Matveyev, Tamara Semina and Pavel Massalsky, have been made. The best-known film version, however, is Samuel Goldwyn's English-language We Live Again, filmed in 1934 with Fredric March and Anna Sten, and directed by Rouben Mamoulian. The Italian directors Paolo and Vittorio Taviani released their TV film Resurrezione in 2001. The Spanish director Alberto Gonzalez Vergel also released his TV film "Resureccion" in 1966. Kenji Mizoguchi,s film "Straights of love and hate" (1937) was also inspired by "Resurrection".

A 1968 BBC mini-series Resurrection, rebroadcast in the US on Masterpiece Theatre.^[3] The Indian movie Barkha Bahar (1973) was based on this novel.

Notes[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Ernest J. Simmons, Introduction to Tolstoy's Writings http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/smmnsej/tolstoy/chap12.htm
2. ^ Shindo, Kaneto (1975). Kenji Mizoguchi: The Life of a Film Director.
3. ^ Resurrection on IMDb.

External links[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Awakening: The Resurrection

• Resurrection at Project Gutenberg translated by Louise Maude

알라딘: [전자책] 나와 가족을 살리는 기전수

알라딘: [전자책] 나와 가족을 살리는 기전수






[eBook] 나와 가족을 살리는 기전수
이용설 문광호 (지은이)유페이퍼2012-09-26






기본정보

제공 파일 : ePub(948 KB)
TTS 여부 : 지원


책소개
[책소개]
명상(瞑想)으로도 많이 알려진 참선(參禪)과 뇌 호흡을 통한 신체의 리듬과 상태가 어떻게 변하는가를 관찰하기 위해 한국과학기술원 물리학과 뇌 연구실에서 기 수련자 14명의 뇌파를 측정한 결과, 

무드 증대 및 통증 완화와 관련이 있는 호르몬인 베타엔돌핀이 

수련 전에는 평균 11.21pg/ml이었다가 수련 중에는 25.08로 약 2.3배 늘어나고, 

스트레스에 민감한 부신피질 자극 호르몬(ACTH)은 평균 46pg/ml에서 44로 줄어든다는 놀라운 사실이 관찰되었습니다.

 이는, 1997년 1월 15일 미국 하버드대학교 의과대학 심신의학연구소에서 열린 학술세미나에 발표된 바 있습니다.

『반일 종족주의와의 투쟁』을 출간했습니다.

25:0

여운택 이야기

이발사, 무학, 일본인 고객이 소개

끌려간 것이 아니라 연고를 동원하여 일본제철소에 취직

그러나 강제로 끌려갔다, 한푼도 받지못했다, 혹사당했다, 하고 이야기 하고 있다.

How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right? | Michael Moore | The Guardian

How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right? | Michael Moore | The Guardian



How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right?
George Monbiot


The filmmaker’s latest venture is an excruciating mishmash of environment falsehoods and plays into the hands of those he once opposed
@GeorgeMonbiot
Thu 7 May 2020 20.28 AEST
---

Denial never dies; it just goes quiet and waits. Today, after years of irrelevance, the climate science deniers are triumphant. Long after their last, desperate claims had collapsed, when they had traction only on “alt-right” conspiracy sites, a hero of the left turns up and gives them more than they could have dreamed of.

Planet of the Humans, whose executive producer and chief promoter is Michael Moore, now has more than 6 million views on YouTube. The film does not deny climate science. But it promotes the discredited myths that deniers have used for years to justify their position. It claims that environmentalism is a self-seeking scam, doing immense harm to the living world while enriching a group of con artists. This has long been the most effective means by which denial – most of which has been funded by the fossil fuel industry – has been spread. Everyone hates a scammer.Climate denial is the latest hobby horse of the German far right | Bernhard Pötter

And yes, there are scammers. There are real issues and real conflicts to be explored in seeking to prevent the collapse of our life support systems. But they are handled so clumsily and incoherently by this film that watching it is like seeing someone start a drunken brawl over a spilled pint, then lamping his friends when they try to restrain him. It stumbles so blindly into toxic issues that Moore, former champion of the underdog, unwittingly aligns himself with white supremacists and the extreme right.


Occasionally, the film lands a punch on the right nose. It is right to attack the burning of trees to make electricity. But when the film’s presenter and director, Jeff Gibbs, claims, “I found only one environmental leader willing to reject biomass and biofuels”, he can’t have been looking very far. Some people have been speaking out against them ever since they became a serious proposition (since 2004 in my case). Almost every environmental leader I know opposes the burning of fresh materials to generate power.

There are also some genuine and difficult problems with renewable energy, particularly the mining of the necessary materials. But the film’s attacks on solar and wind power rely on a series of blatant falsehoods. It claims that, in producing electricity from renewables, “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place”. This is flat wrong. On average, a solar panel generates 26 units of solar energy for every unit of fossil energy required to build and install it. For wind turbines the ratio is 44 to one.


Planet of the Humans also claims that you can’t reduce fossil fuel use through renewable energy: coal is instead being replaced by gas. Well, in the third quarter of 2019, renewables in the UK generated more electricity than coal, oil and gas plants put together. As a result of the switch to renewables in this country, the amount of fossil fuel used for power generation has halved since 2010. By 2025, the government forecasts, roughly half our electricity will come from renewables, while gas burning will drop by a further 40%. To hammer home its point, the film shows footage of a “large terminal to import natural gas from the United States” that “Germany just built”. Germany has no such terminal. The footage was shot in Turkey.

There is also a real story to be told about the co-option and capture of some environmental groups by the industries they should hold to account. A remarkable number of large conservation organisations take money from fossil fuel companies. This is a disgrace. But rather than pinning the blame where it lies, Planet of the Humans concentrates its attacks on Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, who takes no money from any of his campaigning work. It’s an almost comic exercise in misdirection, but unfortunately it has horrible, real-world consequences, as McKibben now faces even more threats and attacks than he confronted before.Once again Michael Moore stirs the environmental pot – but conservationists turn up the heat on him

But this is by no means the worst of it. The film offers only one concrete solution to our predicament: the most toxic of all possible answers. “We really have got to start dealing with the issue of population … without seeing some sort of major die-off in population, there’s no turning back.”


Yes, population growth does contribute to the pressures on the natural world. But while the global population is rising by 1% a year, consumption, until the pandemic, was rising at a steady 3%. High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low. Where population growth is highest, consumption tends to be extremely low. Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people. When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, “it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.” It’s not hard to see why the far right loves this film.

Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarchic power, capitalism. Population is where you go when you want to kick down.

We have been here many times before. Dozens of films have spread falsehoods about environmental activists and ripped into green technologies, while letting fossil fuels off the hook. But never before have these attacks come from a famous campaigner for social justice, rubbing our faces in the dirt.

• George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist



Topics
Michael Moore
Opinion
Climate science denial
Climate change (Science)
Climate change (Environment)
Fossil fuels
Energy
Population
comment

신비 중의 신비 Kang-nam Oh

(2) Facebook



Kang-nam Oh

23 hrs · Public

신비 중의 신비





며칠 전 <새로운 종교, 새로운 기독교>라는 글에서 우리가 십자가에서 흘리신 예수님의 피 공로로 죄 사함을 받는 다는 대속 신앙(Atonement Theology) 대신에
우주에 편만한 신비를 체득하면서 경외심(awe)을 가지고 즐겁고 밝은 삶을 사는 것이 더 훌륭한 신앙생활이 아닌가 하는 글을 올렸습니다. 

이런 글을 쓰면서 가르치려 드는 태도로 비칠까 걱정이 됩니다만, 그냥 이런 생각들도 있구나 하는 정도로 봐주시면 고맙겠습니다.

----

오늘은 우주의 신비 중 어떤 면에서 놀라움과 신기함을 느껴야 할까 한 번 생각해볼까 합니다.  우리 주위를 둘러보면 정말 신비해 할 것이 많습니다.  시편 기자는 우리 몸이 “신묘막측”하게 지어졌음을 감탄해 하고 있습니다.  그렇습니다.  우리 몸에서 일어나는 여러 가지 생리 현상은 너무나 신기하고 신비스럽습니다.  그러나 오늘 주목해 보고 싶은 것은 우주 만물이 서로서로 연결되어 있다는 사실입니다.  영어로  interrelatedness, interdependence라 할 수 있습니다.  상호연관, 상호의존입니다.

상수도가 없으면 하수도가 있을 수 없지만 하수도가 없어도 상수도가 있을 수 없습니다. 출발이 없으면 도착도 없지만 도착이 없으면 출발도 없습니다.  계곡이 깊은 것은 산이 높기 때문이지만 산이 높은 것도 계곡이 깊기 때문입니다.  훌륭한 상품을 만드는 사업가가 없으면 고객도 없지만 고객이 없으면 사업가도 있을 수 없습니다.  음악에 음표가 중요하지만 쉼표가 없으면 음표도 의미 없다는 것입니다. 음(陰)이 없으면 양(陽)도 없고 양이 없으면 음도 없습니다.  이런 쌍들은 서로 배타적이나 반대가 아니라 서로 보완적(complementary)이라는 것입니다.  제가 자주 쓰는 말로 이것이냐 저것이냐 하는 "냐냐주의(either/or)"가 아니라 이것도 저것도 하는 “도도주의(both/and)”입니다.  거창한 용어로 하면 라틴말로 "coincidentia oppositorum"(대립의 일치, harmony of the opposites)라 합니다.

조금 복잡한 예를 듭니다.  우리가 먹는 밥이 있기 위해서는 벼가 있어야 하고 벼가 크기 위해서는 땅도, 물도, 공기도, 해도 있어야 합니다. 벼를 기르는 농부도 있어야 하고 농부의 부모와 조상도 있어야 하고, 그들이 사용하는 농기구가 있어야 하고 농기구를 만드는 대장간 사람도, 농기구의 쇠붙이를 캐내는 광부도 있어야 하고, 쇠붙이를 품고 있는 광산도 있어야 하고, 쇠붙이를 녹이는 불도 있어야 하고....  끝이 없습니다.  그렇게 보면 쌀 한 톨 속에 온 우주가 다 들어있다고 말할 수 있습니다.  쌀 한 톨 속에 우주가 다 있다면 내 속에도 우주가 다 들어와 있습니다.   우리는 홀로 외로이 떠다니는 부평초가 아니라는 뜻입니다.

예 한 가지만 더 듭니다.  문이 없으면 완전한 집이 성립되지 않습니다.  반대로 집이 없으면 물론 문이라는 것도 무의미합니다.  문과 집은 서로 연관되어 있습니다.  마찬가지로 창문이 없으면 집이 없고 집이 없으면 창문도 있을 수 없습니다.  문이나 창문이라는 말 속에는 집이라는 것이 포합되어 있고 집이라는 말에는 문이나 창문이 이미 포함되어 있습니다.  문이 없으면 집이 없고 집이 없으면 창문도 있을 수 없기 때문에 문에는 창문이, 창문에는 문이 들어가 있습니다. 그 외에 지붕, 벽 등과도 이와 같은 관계가 성립됩니다.  이 모든 것은 서로 연관되고 서로 의존하고 있습니다.

불교 화엄(華嚴) 철학에서는 이것을 “법계연기(法界緣起)”라는 말로 표현하고 있습니다.  우주의 모든 것은 서로서로 얼키고 설켜서 일어난다는 뜻입니다. 화엄에서 쓰는 말로 상입(相入, interpenetration) 상즉(相卽, mutual indentification)입니다. 노자의 <도덕경>에서도 이 비슷한 세계관을 펼치고 있습니다. 신비 중의 신비(玄之又玄)라고 했습니다.

이런 신비스러운 사실을 깨닫게 되면 나 혼자 잘났다고 독불장군처럼 거들먹거릴 수가 없습니다.  더욱 중요한 것은 우리 모두가 서로 연결되었다는 사실을 알면 이웃의 아픔이 나의 아픔이 되고, 내가 대접받기 원하는 대로 이웃을 대접하고, 내가 원하지 않는 것은 남에게도 하지 않는 마음이 생기는 것입니다.  궁극적으로는 사랑할 원수조차도 없어지기 마련입니다.

이런 놀라운(awesome) 진실을 깨닫는 사람들이 많으면 이 세상이 그만큼 평화스럽고 더 살기 좋은 곳이 되지 않을까 생각합니다.  이 경우 humanist들이 말하는 "Can we be good without God?"에 뭐라고 대답해야 할까요..

탈북청소년 위한 한겨레학교를 아십니까? - 오마이뉴스

탈북청소년 위한 한겨레학교를 아십니까? - 오마이뉴스




탈북청소년 위한 한겨레학교를 아십니까?세계에서 하나밖에 없는 학교 - 1편
08.07.04 10:19l최종 업데이트 08.07.04 10:19l
장영주(kp4075)



크게l
작게l
인쇄l
URL줄이기
스크랩

0


원고료로 응원하기
공감2 댓글댓글달기













탈북자 청소년 대안학교인 한겨레중고등학교(교장 곽종문)는 세계에 하나밖에 없는 분단학교다. 한겨레학교는 경기도 안성시 죽산면 칠장리 10-1번지에 소재한 대안 자율학교로 새터민(탈북자) 청소년들을 위한 교육과정을 운영하고 있다.



한겨레학교 교포의 붉은색, 청색은 태극을 상징하며 녹색은 하나 된 일원임을 나타낸다. 교포는 전체적으로 남과 북이 꿈틀되는 기상을 나타내고 있으며 역동적 움직임 속에 인간을 중심으로 하여 우리나라가 세계의 중심에 우뚝 서자는 포부를 담고 있다.







한겨레학교는 탈북한 새터민 가족 중 청소년을 대상으로 6개월에서 1년간 남한사회에 적응할 수 있도록 기본 교육을 시키는 것을 주목적으로 한다. 지난 2003년 영지성지학원이 설립되고, 2006년 1월 특성화중고등학교로 지정되었으며, 그해 3월에 개교하여 2007년 2월 1회 졸업생 5명을 배출했다. 그해 9월 이병태 제2대 이사장이 취임했고 지난 2월 제2회 졸업생 16명을 배출했다.


한겨레학교는 통합학교다. '학교법인 전인학원'이 설립한 특성화 자율학교이다. 남북한 교육체제(대표적인 예로 남한 초등학교 6년, 북한 소학교 4년)의 차이를 극복할 수 있도록 완충지대 역할을 하고 있는 것이다. 바로 일반 학교로 편입될 경우, 학습내용과 교과과정 등 남과 북이 다른 점들이 많아 대다수의 탈북청소년들이 적응하기 힘들어 한다. 한겨레학교엔 중학교 3학급, 고등학교 3학급이 있으며 학급당 정원 20명이다.


전국에 있는 새터민 청소년들을 대상으로 해서 수시로 모집하고 있다. 최근 이 학교를 선호하는 새터민들이 늘어 법정 정원을 훨씬 초과한 학생을 수용하고 있다. 정원제를 강력히 시행할 수 없는 형편이라 한다. 120명 정원에 현재 178명이 재학하고 있다. 최소 1년 정도 남한사회 적응 교육을 받아야 전학에 용이하고, 대학 입학(특례입학)에도 필요하기 때문이다.



한겨레학교 학생들은 남북한의 교과편성의 차이와 편성된 교과의 구성 및 내용의 상이함과 용어의 차이로 학습 인지능력이 매우 떨어지며 제3국(북한 이탈 이후 중국 체류자가 전체의 70%임)에 오래 체류한 이들이 많아 상당수 학생들이 중국어 활용 능력은 뛰어나다. 하지만 북한에서의 통제된 생활습성으로 자율적 능력이 매우 떨어져 교사들의 체계적인 수업 지도가 절실히 필요하다.













나이 고하를 막론하고 기초기본학습이 부진하기 때문에 학년을 편성하여 수업을 진행하는 것은 의미가 없다. 하나원 퇴소 후 바로 편입이 이루어지므로 전반적으로 남한사회를 이해하는 정도가 매우 떨어진다. 이들은 남북한의 학제의 차이와 긴 탈북과정으로 인해 남한 학생들에 비해 개개인의 연령이 높지만 배움에 대한 갈망은 매우 높다.

현재 북한에서 소학교 졸업 5~10%, 고등중학교 졸업 5~10% 이외에 80~90%는 중퇴자(북한에서는 생활이 어려워 학생들이 학교 졸업에 대해 무딘 경향이 있다. 고등중학교를 졸업하고 대학교에 바로 들어가는 것을 직통제라 한다)로 학력심의위원회에서 학령을 배정하는 방식을 취하고 있다.


전 교과 이동수업을 하는 데 교사는 특별교실에 근무하고 학생들이 이동하며 수업을 받는다. 전학생 기숙사(10명 단위 1명 지도교사 숙식 참여) 생활을 하며 학생 1인당 월 18만원 정도의 기숙사비를 국고에서 지원받는다.


교육은 교과과정 40% 지원과정 30% 적응과정 30%로 편성 운영하는데 30% 적응과정은 지하철타기, 동사무소 일보기, 도서관 활용하기, 대중교통 이용하기 등에 활용하며 1박 2일 간 문화기행(10명 1조, 1명 지도교사)은 서울에서 체험활동으로 진행된다.

















북한 이름을 그대로 사용하는 경우와 남한에서 부여받은 이름을 사용하는 경우가 있다. 통일교육은 화공교육(화합하여 공존하자는 뜻)이라 하는데 학교장의 교육철학이 중요하며 2006년 개교 이래 적응 능력이 빠른 속도로 좋아지고 있다.


곽종문 교장은 "가뭄이 든 황토밭에 물을 뿌리면 100% 빨리 빨아들이는 힘과 같이 이들도 이를 악물고 남한사회에 적응하려 노력하고 있다"며 "솔직히 학력은 부족하다, 1년 이후 일반학교에 전학 가려면 많은 애로 사항이 있다"고 말했다. 이어 "그들도 똑 같은 한국인이다, 이념적으로 갈려 있는 상태가 아니"라며 "그들은 조금만 가르쳐 줘도 학력이 최대한 향상된다, 배움에 한이 맺혀서 갈증을 느끼기에 그들의 요구 해소에 최선을 다할 것"이라고 말했다.


한겨레중고등학교는 현재 주민들과 상당히 우호적인 관계를 유지하고 있으며 특기적성 교육은 외부강사를 활용하며 자원봉사자도 모집하고 있다.


한겨레중고등학교의 교훈은 '맑고 밝고 훈훈하게'다. 교사훈은 '자리이타(自利利他)'이다. 학교 상징인 교목은 소나무(푸름은 강인한 생명력을 상징함), 교화는 연꽃(진흙 속의 깨끗함과 온화함), 교색은 하늘색(희망, 평화, 화합, 단결)이다.


이 학교는 북한에서 생활하던 청소년들이 자유를 찾아 남한에 터전을 잡고 통일을 열망하며 생활하는 동안 남과 북이 하나되는 공간이 될 것이다.




덧붙이는 글 | 이기사는 제주인터넷뉴스에도 실렸습니다. 오마이뉴스는 직접 작성한 글에 한해 중복 게재를 허용하고 있습니다.

74세 나이에도 매일 영어 공부하는 노력가 - 중앙일보

74세 나이에도 매일 영어 공부하는 노력가 - 중앙일보




74세 나이에도 매일 영어 공부하는 노력가
[중앙선데이] 입력 2010.04.25 02:07 | 163호 31면 지면보기
인쇄기사 보관함(스크랩)글자 작게글자 크게
기자김환영 기자

『맹자』에 나오는 측은지심(惻隱之心)은 ‘불쌍히 여겨 언짢아하는 마음’을 이른다. 누구에게나 측은지심이 있지만 그 마음이 실천으로 이어지기는 힘들다. 이기심 때문에 외면하거나 잊어버리기 일쑤다. 측은지심이 실천이 되기 위해서는 그 자신이 측은지심을 유지하고, 남의 측은지심을 행동으로 옮기게 하는 역할을 하는 사람이 필요하다. 원불교 박청수 원로교무가 바로 그런 성직자다.





내가 본 박청수 원로교무남의 불행은 박청수 원로교무를 불행하게 한다. 도움이 필요한 사람에게 도움을 주지 못하면 그는 밤잠을 설친다. 측은지심은 박 원로교무로 하여금 캄보디아 지뢰 제거 활동을 후원하고 이라크 전쟁 피해자를 돕고 아프가니스탄에 의족·의수를 지원하게 했다. 중앙아시아에서 연해주로 돌아온 고려인에서 자연재해를 당한 중남미 사람까지 도움이 필요한 사람이 있다는 것을 알게 되면 그는 본능적으로 못 견딘다.

박청수 원로교무가 말하기 시작하면 대상자들이 그의 측은지심을 같이 느끼기 시작한다. “자기가 한 일에 대한 보람과 대가, 성취감을 수확하고 싶지 않습니까”라고 그는 묻는다. 그는 우리 내면에 자리 잡고 있는 따뜻한 가슴, 소외 계층을 살피려는 마음을 자극한다.

박청수 원로교무의 엄청난 설득력은 그가 공부하는 성직자이기 때문인지도 모른다. 그가 스물두 살 무렵이었을 때 어른 교도들이 ‘요즈음은 교당에 와도 교무님 설교 내용이 들을 것이 없다’고 수군거리는 것을 듣게 됐다.

그래서 그는 ‘교무가 되려면 반드시 큰 실력을 갖추어야 되겠구나’라는 생각을 했다. 그는 독서 계획에 따라 각종 고전을 독파하기 시작했다. 학창 시절 박청수 원로교무는 ‘휴식을 두려워하는 학생’이었다.


박청수 원로교무는 74세인 지금도 매일 아침 5~10분은 영어 공부를 한다. 20년 동안 계속된 습관이다. 박 원로교무는 영어로 강연도 하고 축사도 할 수 있다. 원고 없이 즉석에서 30~40분 동안 자신의 체험과 하고 싶은 말을 중심으로 강연하는 게 가능하다.

50년 원불교 성직자 생활과 세계 55개국에 걸친 봉사활동으로 박청수 원로교무는 유명 인사가 됐다. 그는 2000년 12월 김대중 대통령 노벨평화상 수상식에 초청받아 손님으로 참석했다. 박청수 원로교무는 청와대에 아무도 아는 사람이 없었다. 그러나 청와대 사람들은 그를 알고 있었던 것이다. 국외에서도 인지도가 높다. 인도 라다크의 상가세나 스님은 1997년 『거룩한 어머니(The Divine Mother)』라는 제목의 책을 펴냈다. 박청수 원로교무가 히말라야 지역 라다크 사람들을 도운 미담을 영문으로 저술한 것이다.

박청수 원로교무는 2007년 은퇴했다. 그러나 그의 봉사활동은 멈출 수 없었다. 백낙청 서울대 명예교수는 『하늘 사람』이라는 박 원로교무의 저서에 대한 추천사에서 이렇게 썼다. “박청수 교무를 아는 사람으로서 정년퇴임이 그의 봉사활동에 마침표를 찍으리라 예상하는 이는 없으리라 믿는다.” 아니나 다를까 전재희 보건복지부 장관은 그에게 농어촌청소년육성재단 이사장 자리를 맡겼다.
관련기사“작더라도 좋은 일 시작해보세요, 눈덩이처럼 커집니다”