COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	CALIFORNIA SCIENTISTS' AND ENGINEERS STATEMENT ON PROPOSITION 15
C00006 00003	As I see it the statement has the following weaknesses:
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
CALIFORNIA SCIENTISTS' AND ENGINEERS STATEMENT ON PROPOSITION 15


	We, as scientists and engineers, believe that the energy
crisis is a serious and growing problem for the United States.
As Californians and concerned citizens we believe this State
has a responsibility to formulate and implement a rational
and comprehensive energy policy which complements the efforts
being made to resolve the nation-wide crisis.  We therefore
believe that passage of Proposition 15, the California Nuclear
Power Plants Initiative, is contrary to the best interests
of the people of California and the United States.

	The complex technical issues arising from the increased
use of nuclear energy are manifestly national and international
in scope and should be resolved for all of the people of the
United States by Congressional action and by the responsible
regulatory agencies of the federal government.  Settlement of
these issues cannot, and should not, be attempted by the Legislature
of any one state as is proposed by Proposition 15.

	Every day our Country becomes more and more dependent
on foreign nations for our energy resources.  If we do nothing
to free ourselves from this dependence, we will soon reach the
point where another oil embargo could result in a massive
disruption of our economy.  Conservation of energy, while urgently
necessary and highly desirable, alone cannot solve our energy
problems.  Clearly our short-term policy must be to reduce
energy waste and to expand development of our available domestic
resources, principally coal and nuclear energy.

	The eventual solution to this nation's energy problems
will involve the marshalling of our nation's scientific and
technological resources to improve our use of present energy
sources and to make alternative sources, such as solar power
and nuclear fusion, economically and scientifically practical.
However, Californians should recognize that it will be decades
before solar power or nuclear fusion will be able to make major
contributions to our energy supply, and in the meantime we cannot
afford to arbitrarily curtail our use of nuclear energy.

	In conclusion, we believe Proposition 15 to be ill-advised.
Its practical effect would be to restrict the use of one available
major source of electricity just when it is most needed.
We urge the voters of California to vote NO on Proposition 15.

(signed by Alvarez, Hofstadter, Bloch, Seaborg, Libby, Bacher, and Yaffe.)
As I see it the statement has the following weaknesses:

1. It might mention that our oil and gas supplies may be down to
half what they are in 15 years, and we already import more than
half the oil.

2. It might express the opinion that nuclear power is safe enough.

3. It might mention that life-style is a matter for individual choice
rather than coercion, and express the opinion that there will be
enough energy to maintain our customary life-style if we act vigorously.

4. It might express the opinion that nuclear energy is at least a
serious candidate for a long term solution.

5. It might say that America should not outbid the poorer countries
for dwindling energy sources.

Here are some formulations of these points.

1. Oil and natural gas make up 70% of our current energy.
Our oil and gas production are declining in spite of vigorous efforts
and we may be down to half our present production in 15 years.  Last
month, for the first time, we imported more oil and gas than we
produced.

2. Commercial nuclear energy has killed not one person
and has been shown to be safer
than many other sources of energy and other activities of our society.

3. While other sources such as fusion or solar energy may become
available in a number of years, nuclear energy is already making
a large contribution, is capable of rapid expansion, and is a serious
candidate as a long term source.

4. Life-style should be a matter of individual choice, and
a vigorous policy can maintain at least our present range of
choices at acceptable economic cost and with improvement of
our present environmental standards.

5. Besides the danger of our increasing dependence on foreign sources
of energy, it is wrong to outbid the poorer countries and those
with fewer domestic energy sources for the world's dwindling supply
of oil.