Basic HTML Version
In the Chicago a rea. about a third
of the electricity supplied by the
Commonwealth Edison Company
comes from seven nuclear plants.
Proponents of nuclea r power cla im
th a t had this third been generated
from environmentally acceptable
low sulfur coal, the electric bilis paid
by consumers during each ofthe last
two years would have totaled about
$ 100,000,000 more.
Opponents, however, claim that
all the ballyhoo about cost savings is
a decept ive and illusory gloss to .
cover up the real costs of nuclear
energy - which so far have been
hidden by government subsidies.
But the prime concern, say oppo–
nents, is that a nuclear reactor might
release dangerous amounts of radio–
activity. They point out that plant
malfunctions have a lready released
small doses of radioactivity into the
environment. and th ey assert that a
major malfunction could c on–
tamin a te thousands of square miles,
killing tens of thousands or even
millions, considering the long-term
effects.
On March
22
o f last year. a nu–
clear disaster was na rrowly averted
when a crippling fire broke out in
the control room of two reactors in
Alabama. Other near disasters have
also occurred. Mo reover, some
pla nts are vulnerable to poss ible
earthc¡uak es in nearby faults. For
example, the Dia blo Canyon plant
under construction in Ca lifornia is
designed to survive a quake register–
ing
6.75
on the Richter scale. But
after construction began, geologists
discovered a n underwater fa ult tha t
runs only
2
1/2
miles west of thc plant
site.
A furth er source of worry is the
problem of radioactive was te stor–
age. High-level radioactive wastes
from the nuclear reactors must be
stored for thousands of years. Yet
doubts rema in over the long-term
suit ability of proposed methods for
nucl ear waste disposal.
Terrorists vs. Nukes
Another grave concern is nuclea r
terrorism and theft. If nuclear devel–
opment follows the course originally
charted for it, 440 million pounds of
24
plutonium will be produced by the
year 2020. A skilled bomb-maker
with the right materials would re–
quire less than nine pounds of plu–
tonium to make an atom bomb.
One "nuclea r option" for terror–
ists - short of atomic bombs -
would be to blow up a nuclear
power plant. Although th.is could re–
tease a considerable amount of radi–
ati o n , the a ctual r adi oa cti ve
contamination would be very sma ll
even compared to a low-yield nu–
clear explosion. Nevertheless, many
nuclear authorities and laymen a re
concerned that atomic power pla nts
are insufficientl y protected from dis–
ruption and sabotage. One power
sta tion which has received consid–
erable attention is the San Onofre
plant. located just
2 1;2
miles south of
the former Western White House in
San Clemente , California. Jf de–
stroyed by terrorists, th e San Onofre
reactor could be the source of radi–
at ion danger to tens of thousands of
southern California residents.
Are such plants safe from sa bo–
tage? Officials of th e Sa n Onofre.
power station were understandably
rel uctan t to discuss the details of
their security systems. But Kenneth
Chisholm, a spokesman at the San
Onofre site. mainta ined tha t the
plant's security was adequate.
"Who can say wha t will happen if
and when one armed group of men
encounters anoth er a rmed group of
men?" Chi sholm told
The Plain
Truth.
"Nobody ca n gua ra nt ee
there's no chance tha
t
terrorists
could succeed in damaging the
plant, but we believe our security
system is quite adequate - and we
do have the Marine base (Camp
Pendleton] close at hand."
A recent publi ca ti o n by th e
American Nucl ear Society agrees
th a t sa bo tage o f nucl ea r power
plants " is potentially possible," but
"the saboteur could more easily at–
tack food, wa ter, or communica tion
services with at leas t equally disas–
trous results."
Such statements are far from totally
reassuring; yet such are the uncer–
tainties ofthe times in whi ch we live.
"Nuclear facilities are, by the ir
nature, highly centralized," says nu–
clear expert Denis Hayes in a recent
report,
Nuclear Power: The
Fifrh
H
orseman. " l
ncreasing deployment
of nuclear power is likely to lead to
a more au thorita rian society, to pro–
tect nuclea r installat ions and trans–
mission lines."
The Uranium Crisis?
A fi nal di ffi culty is that, even if we
avoid the pitfalls of nuclear energy's
othe r dangers. we may fi nd tha t. like
oil and na tura l gas. we are running
short of urani um. The troubl ing fac t
is that no new
major
uran ium pro–
ducing a reas or potential producmg
areas have been identified in this
country during the pas t 17 yea rs.
Ye t based on current est imares of
the number of plants we will re–
qu ire, Amer icans will need to fin d
from 4 to
8
times as much uranium
as the present
U
.S. to tal of proven
reserves .
The breeder reactor could make
use of the urani um
238
tha t is now
largely unused by present reactor
power pla nts, but this would mean
t he p roduct io n o f p rodigious
amounts of plutoni um, wh ich is not
only incredibly toxic, but also di–
rectly usable in nu clea r weapons.
Li ke it or not, the decision to de–
ve lop the breeder reactor seems cer–
ta in ifwe choose to rely on the atom
fo r power in the future.
Nucl ea r energy - is it a kin d of
Fa ustian bargain? Do the risks out–
weigh the adva ntages? "Nuclear en–
ergy is nota Faustian ba rga in," says
famed nuclea r authority Edwa rd
Teller . " Ra ther, it is powerful in–
strument tha t can be used or mis–
used. Jt would be completely naive
to recommend nuclear energy as a
cu re-al!. At best it is a poten tial an–
swer that will have to be accom–
pa nied by a determinat ion to use
this power in a constructive man–
ner. ' '
Most Ame rica ns seem to be in
favor or bui lding add itiona l nuclear
plants . Indeed, the recent Ca lifornia
re fe rendum o n nuclear power
showed tha t the majority of Califor–
nians believe we must rely on nu–
clear power in the future. Bu t only if
we a re fully aware of the risks in–
volved in using nuclear reactors and
only if we ins ist tha t every pre–
ca ution be taken to insure their sa fe
operat ion can we be reasonably se–
cure in relying on the awesome
power of the atom. To do otherwise
is to invi te disaster.
o
The
PLAIN TRUTH August 1976