🚀 go-pugleaf

There was a bit of eco-hobbit propaganda bashing our favorite form of non-
renewable energy, nuclear power. I thought some of you a.d.t.e.-ers might
enjoy my bashing the boneheads with a few factolas...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@SLICE!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


  I am writing in response to Harvey Wasserman's alleged "Brief History of the

Nuclear Age". Mr Wasserman's article is typical of the factually incorrect

and misleading anti-technological propaganda that has become popular with

the advent of todays fashionable "environmentally aware" movement.

  One aspect of this so-called history that is grossly incorrect is the

association of Einstein's statement "I should have been a plumber" with an

anti-nuclear stance. The statement was, in fact, directed toward Einstein's

dissatisfaction with modern Quantuum theory, a discipline he found 

philosophically distasteful.

  Another gross error is Mr Wasserman's assertion that Einstein was most 

responsible for the creation of the fission bomb. In fact Einstein's 

involvement in the matter was minimal, his main contribution being a letter to 

President Roosevelt (Which was actually a letter from Leo Szilard forwarded to 

the president by Einstein because of his greater public visibility). To 

make such a statement implies an extreme ignorance on the history of physics. 

Far more responsible for the development of the fission bomb were Oppenheimer,

Szilard and Fermi.

  Mr Wasserman goes on to quote some ridiculously misleading statistics (a 

common practice of those who have no facts to back them up; see the "War on 

Drugs" for many examples of this nefarious practice). I would adress these 

had I a forum to explain to the general public the way in which these 

statistics are cooked up, but instead I will quote some little known, but

absolutely true nuclear _facts_. Some of these are about our energy options,

should nuclear power be completely abandoned.

1) The Scrubbers and exhaust gasses in coal-fired plants produce more 

"radioactive wastes" than nuclear plants do. Worse; this radioactive waste, 

which contains the same long-lived radioactive elements as the waste 

produced by nuclear plants, is _unregulated_ by the nuclear regulatory 

commission. A large coal-fired plant will release on the order of one

ton of uranium to the environment every year. In addition to radioactive 

isotopes, coal-fired plants produce many carcinogenic chemicals. Just because 

there is no "nuclear reaction" taking place, do not assume that there is no 

radioactivity present.

2) Nuclear power produces _no_ greenhouse gasses.

3) Cosmic rays, the radioactive isotopes in your body and food, minerals in 

the earth's crust, isotopes in the air, medical radiation, air-travell, 

watching television, and smoking cigarettes all contribute many orders of 

magnitude more radiation than nuclear power to the yearly dose of the average 

american (or citizen of any other country, including Russia).

4) Even including the most paranoid fantasies of the enemies of nuclear power,

coal burning plants produce anywhere from 60-255 times more deaths per 

megawatt than nuclear plants.

5) The Chernobyl disaster was not a nuclear explosion. It was caused by the

burning of carbon moderators in the reactor core. The Soviet Union is the only

country using carbon moderators; the rest use water. Incidentally, if the nuke 

reaction should somehow "get out of hand" and boil away the water, the lack of

a moderator makes it impossible to sustain the fission reaction. Despite 

propaganda to the contrary, nuclear power plants are incapable of a nuclear 

explosion; the uranium 235 is not concentrated enough to permit such an 

explosion.

  Of course the pundits of "common sense" will argue that "everyone knows

nuclear power is dangerous". I would argue that common sense is what tells

one that the earth is flat. If the writer had done some research beyond the

paranoid ravings of those who know nothing of the matter, or, goddess forbid, 

opened a textbook on the subject, he may have realized the foolish 

superstitions he was perpetuating. Historically we saw similar scare tactics 

used by those attempting to ban the use of alternating current electricity at 

the turn of the century for their own economic gains. Indeed, it may be 

interesting to find out exactly who is underwriting the current anti-nuclear 

movement. 

  The best argument against nuclear power is neither environmental, nor public

safety related; it is economic. Though Mr Wasserman does devote one paragraph

to this topic, it too is riddled with misinformation. Had Mr Wasserman taken 

the route of the objective fact-finder instead of using the ignorance and 

primitive fears of the general public, he may have produced a more convincing 

thesis. Perhaps, in the future, the Advocate may devote some space to the 

more obviously destructive (but publically unnoticed) practices of the chemical
 
industries.

-Scott Locklin

(Bibliography for factoids)

D.J. Rose, P.W. Walsh and L.L. Leskovjan _Nuclear power viv-a-vis Its 
Alternatives, Chiefly Coal_ (Cambridge MIT 1975)

J.E. Martin et al. "Comparison of Radioactivity From Fossil Fuel and Nuclear
Power Plants" 91st Cong. Joint committee on Atomic Energy, Hearings on the
Effects of Nuclear Power, vol 1 1969 pp773-809

Skousen, Eric, _The War Against Nuclear Power_ (The Freeman Institute, 1981) 

H.Hurwitz Jr, "The Indoor Radiological Problem in Perspective" G.E. Technical
Information Series Feb 1981.



P.S. I would hope that the Advocate will have the journalistic integrety to
print at least part of this letter to correct the ridiculous assertions of
Mr. Wasserman. I was dissapointed to see such a reactionary piece of
establishment propaganda in a paper that has so often come to the rescue of 
objective fact. I do not work for the nuclear power industry, have any 
association with it, or even particularly support it. 

Scott Locklin