Undercurrents 61 October/November 1983
5 Eddies – NIREX, City Stopped, US Peace Camp and other news
10 Workers Stop The Drop – Paul Todd‘s analysis of the uneasy relationship between nukes and unions
12 Yanomano – Tribal rhythms in aid of the World Wildlife Fund
13 The Genius – Andrew Tyler, who has an IQ at least in double figures, interviews Howard Brenton.
15 Red Death – Greenpeace inform us of poisons in the sea
16 Desert Island Discord – Leonie Caldecott on women’s anti-nuke activity in the South pacific, from Reclaim The Earth
18 A Pain In The Gill – Nigel Dudley‘s Acid Rain update
21 Beast News – John May‘s Animal Lib Column
28 Briefing – Activists’ info
30 Froth & Subscriptions
Undercurrents would like to thank John Bradbrook, Tom Burke, John Dawe, Greenpeace International, Stephen Joseph, Jonathan Porritt, Nick Hart- Williams and World Wildlife Fund-UK, who all kindly dug into their pockets to help finance this issue.
Your Questions Answered
Undercurrents subscriber Stephen Morgan writes: “In 1981 you decided to issue the magazine 10 times a year. Since then, 13 issues have appeared – the same number which would have appeared had the magazine remained on a bi-monthly schedule. Is it not time for the UC collective to admit that, for whatever reasons, it is unable to issue the magazine 10 times a year, and therefore to revert to bi-monthly production?”
Yes, it is high time. In fact maybe it would be more realistic to describe ourselves henceforth as sporadical. This is only our fourth issue this year, and every issue has been a struggle to produce. It’s no secret that we’re desperately short of funds – and no money means no magazine.
Recently we’ve tried a few schemes to boost our circulation, and our staff have foregone pay for several months, but our position isn’t improving. Our friend John de Lorean offered to do a massive coke run for us, but unfortunately he got caught. Now we’re running out of ideas.
Should we blame the Tories for the mess we’re in? A disproportionate number of alternative papers have gone under since Mrs Thatcher came to power. Should we perhaps blame our non-existent business manager who absconded with our non-existent funds? Or is it just down to the fact that no one’s interested in our product? If so, then what’s wrong with us – and what’s right? We’d be very interested to hear from you. Why don’t you tell us what you’d like in the magazine? Should we have more AT, fewer poodles, wider political coverage, a campaign notice board … ?
All correspondence will be read and choked over, and any cash which you may inadvertently slip to us instead of the IR, we will eagerly bank. Without you we’re in danger of rapid decay . . .