COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub" source
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub" source
∂HOM %2Grapevine%1↓P.O. Box 11572↓Palo Alto, CA 94306∞
Dear %2Grapevine%1:

	Your article on the Diablo Canyon demonstration mentioned in one
word that there were also pro-nuclear demonstrators.  Perhaps your readers
would like to know why we demonstrated in favor of nuclear energy.
We wanted to show that the nuclear issue is not mainly a conflict between
utilities and public organizations but is rather an issue
between two groups of citizens - those who believe that it is
desirable to continue to develop nuclear energy and those who think it
is undesirable.

	Normally, when people favor something public utilities or other
industries happen to be doing, they see no need for demonstrations.
They count on the industries to present that side of the case.  When
necessary, they consider it sufficient to present their views
in articles, letters to the editor, testimony before
legislatures, and by voting for candidates for office.

	Unfortunately, it no longer seems to be sufficient to win
elections.  Although we won by about two-to-one in California and six
other states last year, it doesn't seem to have made any difference.
Every nuclear plant is still subject to interminable delaying lawsuits
that greatly increase the cost of energy.  Oil and gas, which will soon
run out, are still being used to generate electricity.  We are outbidding
the poorer part of the underdeveloped world for the remaining oil to an
even greater degree than before the crisis was recognized in 1973.

	We see the failure to develop nuclear energy as the cause of a
real crisis that threatens the American standard of living which we see as
worth preserving.  Already we have had blackouts because of a lack of
electric capacity.  By the end of the century, we will need to use nuclear
energy not merely to generate our electricity but also to produce hydrogen
to replace natural gas and to help make synthetic motor fuel, and we
haven't even started to develop such processes.

	I don't know how the readers of %2Grapevine%1 feel about the
preserving our material standard of living.  Some express contempt
for it, and others complain that not everyone has it.  However, those
who think people should live differently should try to persuade people
to live differently and not try to force them to do so by legal sabotage.
When the Carter non-energy policy causes a crisis, even he will turn out have
never favored it, and the resulting crash program will sweep away the
worthwhile environmental constraints along with the silly ones.

	I will not ask for space here to answer the arguments about
waste disposal, accidents, sabotage, proliferation, etc., although
I would be glad to do so if the editors are willing to publish a pro-nuclear
article.  I recommend Beckman's %2The Health Hazards of
Not Going Nuclear%1 and Cohen's %2Nuclear Science and Society%1.

	To sum it up, we felt that nuclear energy is too important to
be left to the public relations department of Pacific Gas and Electric.
Incidentally, they asked us not to come - nominally because they feared
that we would get into a fight with the anti-nuclear demonstrators, but
we conjecture that professional public relations people are dubious about
any activity not under their professional control.  After all, if citizens
demonstrate for nuclear energy, what need is there for a large PR department.

.sgn