COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	     This is a personal statement on nuclear power.  In the wake
C00010 ENDMK
C⊗;
     This is a personal statement on nuclear power.  In the wake
of the Three Mile Island accident and "The China Syndrome," a lot
has been said about nuclear power plants.

     I saw "The China Syndrome" last Friday.  The scary thing
about it was that it IS believable.  Everything in "The China
Syndrome" has a basis in something that has occured in the past.
From greedy utility-company executives, to fly-by-night
construction firms with their own goon squad ("security force"),
to ordinary people who when faced with an emergency make a hasty
decision which turns out to be a mistake; the people all fit
models I was familiar with.

     I grew up in Newark, NJ, and remember it quite well.  The
mayor of the city at that time is presently in prison for
extortion relating to construction industy kickbacks.  He is
lucky to live in a nice secure prison, compared to the people who
live in the buildings built by those contractors.  Newark is
admittedly an extreme case, but the fact remains that the
practices are widespread far and wide beyond Newark.  Yet I am
supposed to accept as safe a nuclear power plant built by the
same turkeys who can't build a safe apartment complex?

     Frankly, the risks associated with nuclear power plants
terrorify me.  The attitude of the pro-nuclear people does
nothing to reassure me.  To many advocates of nuclear power,
anybody who is anti-nuclear is a "cretin"; and anybody who has
yet to make up his/her mind is to be condescended to like a
child.

     I am suspicious of statements like "the ONLY option is to go
nuclear or not have any energy."  I cannot believe that this
nation of innovation cannot find another way.  This sort of thing
strikes me as the statement of a monopoly (as the utilities are),
which are not obligated to find alternatives.  To diverge for a
minute: I wonder what the story would be if the energy business
was one of cut-throat competition, where even the largest firm
might be driven into bankruptcy if it didn't continuously take
measures to out-guess and out-perform its competition?  [I have
another idea: Pass laws setting absolute maximum prices for
energy sources, and minimum operating hours.  Something like 50
cents/gallon of gasoline and 6am-8pm for gas companies, and the
alternative being nationalization.  The utility executives are
smart people.  They'll find a way to stay in business within the
law...remember when Detroit screamed that the air pollution
standards were impossible?]

     Statements like "the odds against such-and-such happening
are n to 1" or "the system works" don't reassure me.  Statistics
can be made to say whatever the speaker wishes them to say.  I
have yet to hear a non-condescending, objective presentation of
the FACTS of nuclear power; one which does not attempt to
pressure its reader toward either side in the controversy.

     Similarly, comparisions with using an automobile, or flying
in an airplane, are equally inappropriate.  I will accept that my
operating an automobile is more dangerous to me than living in
the neighborhood of a nuclear power plant.  However, at the same
time I am making a conscious decision that the use of my
automobile is worth the risk.  Also, I know that to a great
extent the risks depend upon me; directly in my driving skills
and attention, and indirectly in my keeping my automobile
properly maintained.

     I don't have the personal control if I fly in a commercial
airliner, but I have made the conscious decision to board the
airliner (and earlier, purchase the ticket).  I still have made a
decision on the risks; in this case that flying long distances is
more pleasant than driving and considerably faster.

     I can also change my mind at any time, and give up driving
or flying if I ever decide the risks outweigh the benefits.  I
don't expect to ever make that decision, but the fact remains
that I HAVE THE OPTION.

     With a nuclear power plant I do not have the decision, nor
the option to change my mind.  It is physically there, and I have
no power to have it removed once it is built.  My options are to
accept the risks, or to leave.  But what happens if nuclear
plants checkerboard the country?  History has shown that one
cannot flee a problem forever; one can only delay the time to
take action.

     There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that harnessing
nuclear power for an energy source is a great idea.  I doubt that
you will find anybody who would disagree with that.  Matches are
a great idea too.  But four-year-olds cannot competantly handle
matches.  They may be able to USE matches, and to understand that
there is a danger; but they have not matured to the point of
being able to use matches effectively and safely.  I question
whether or not our present technology (and mankind itself) is
able to use nuclear power effectively and safely.

     My belief is that the evidence overwhelmingly states NO.


					-- Mark Crispin 4/16/79