The first lecture of the
Provost’s series was given by
Dr. Maxine Greene on Tuesday,
April 17, in the gallery lounge.
Her lecture was entitled “State
of Higher Education.”
Dr. Greene emphasized that
educators today are plagued by
increasing doubts concerning
their roles in our society. While
they are being held more and
more responsible for the train
ing of our youth, they are also
met by increasing skepticism
and cynicism with respect to
their professionalism. She sta
ted that today’s educator is
repeatedly facing issues where
difficult choices must be made
between contradictory alterna
tives.
Dr. Greene also discussed
our society’s standards on the
worth of individuals. This is
Nuclear Power
Energy We Can't Afford
Lately, it seems the atomic
power industry crumbles a lit
tle more each month.
On March 28, 1979, what
was perhaps the worst com
mercial nuclear power plant
accident in American history
occured at the Three Mile I
sland nuclear power plant in
Harrisburg, Pa., when a cooling
pump broke and radioactive
steam escaped into the atmos
phere.
Earlier this March, the Nu
clear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) ordered that 5 reactors
be shut down because of faulty
designs. Last year, the Com
mission closed 5 other reactors
because important safety pipes
were cracking.
In February of this year, the
NRC withdrew its support for
the 1975 Rasmussen report,
which estimated the likelihood
and consequences of a nuclear
accident. The report, long the
bulwark of the nuclear power
industry’s defense, largely un
derestimated the risks.
One manufacturer ofnuclear
reactors, General Atomic, has
already withdrawn from the
market. Rumors persist on Wall
Street that the nuclear giant,
General Electric, will soon be
pulling out.
And presently, people are
crowding theatres around the
country to see “The China
Syndrome,” a new motion pic
ture about a nuclear reactor
accident and an attempted cov
er up, starring Jane Fonda and
Jack Lemmon. “The China Syn-
Where A re We Going?
drome” is a fictional thriller to
be sure, but its technical reality
and balanced script are expect
ed to set the citizenry thinking
about the real dangers of nu
clear power.
The movement for safe and
clean energy is building mo
mentum, but it has not won yet.
The building of additional rea
ctors pushes on. However .more
and more the public is demand
ing answers about the safety,
cost, and reliability of this
technolgy. Is it dangerous? Is it
economic? Is it needed’O
Now is a good time to
review briefly some of the
important facts about this hotly
debated topic.
1. Nuclear power facilities
produce toxins which pose seri
ous health problems. About 40
radioactive elements are pro
duced by nuclear fission. One
trillionth of a gram of one of
these, plutonium, has caused
cancer in laboratory animals. A
millionth of a gram can cause
massive fibrosis of the lungs,
leading to death within days of
exposure.
2. Decommissioning react
ors and disposing of radioactive
wastes present serious, uns
olved safety problems. After
about 35 years of operation,
whole sections of atomic react
ors are irreversibly contamina
ted with radiation, such that
routine maintenance cannot be
performed. At this point, the
NRC says the entire facility
must be decommissioned or
especially true in the field of
education where teachers have
sorted out students for years. It
is becoming more and more
difficult to justify this process.
People today, more than ever,
feel they entitled to a
decent quality of life, not j’ust
ordinary care.
Professor Greene’s lecture
was well received by the audi
ence. The next lecture in the
Provost’s series will be held on
Tuesday, May 15. Richard
Kaplan, an independent film
maker will be the speaker.
A professor of education at
Colombia University’s Teache
rs College in New York, Dr.
Greene has also published art
icles in many educational jour
nals. She has also written four
books, the latest of which is
entitled “Teacher as Stranger.”
by ralph nader
“mothballed” for hundreds of
years. The entire plant itself
becomes radioactive waste and
must be contained. The costs of
decommissioning may be as
much as the original costs of
building the reactors.
Moreover, only time can
reduce the toxicity of radioact
ive waste. Plutonium 239 has a
half-life of 24,400 years-mean
ing that in that time the mater
ial will have lost only half its
toxicity. Scientists suggest
radioactive elements should
decay through 10 half-lives be
fore becoming inert. Hence,
plutonium must be securely
isolated for over 240,000 years.
3. The insurance industry
and the nuclear power industry
have tacitly admitted the risks
of reactor accidents by refusing
to accept complete liability for
accidents. Take a look at any
individual homeowner or auto
policy and note the clause ex
cluding protection against nu
clear or radiological accidents.
No protection against nuclear
tragedies is available on the
conventional insurance market
anywhere.
To entice private companies
to invest in nuclear power, the
federal government imposed a
ceiling on the amount of finan
cial liability corporations will
face in the event of a reactor
accident. The government
knew the insurance industry
would never accept any signifi
cant liability, so they passed
the Price-Anderson Act in 1966
Dr. Maxine Greene of Colombia lery Lounge. Her speech was
University was the first guest entitled “State of Higher Edu
speaker in the Provost’s lecture cation."
series on April 17, in the Gal-
which limited to a tiny fraction
of the damage from an atomic
plant melt down.
4. Nuclear power is a mar
ginal energy source, requiring
enormous financial expense
with low reliability. After all is
said and done, it is important to
note that nuclear power’s total
contribution to energy produc
tion is 3 percent. Even if the
most ambitious nuclear prog
ram were to be realized, at best
nuclear power could supply 10
to 12 percent of our total
energy needs by the year 2000.
By contrast, the President’s
Council on Environmental Qua
ity states that “today’s fuel
consumption levels can be re
duced by more than 40 percent”
through conservation measur
es. The Council concludes that
if we improve our energy pro
ductivity, the U.S. should not
need more than 10-15 percent
more energy by the year 2000.
And the government predicts
that renewable energy sources,
the sun, tidds, wind and heat
from the earth could contribute
as much as 25 percent of our
energy needs by 2000.
What the country needs are
energy systems that are safe,
clean, reliable-and affordable.
Unfortunately, nuclear power
doesn’t meet any of those basic
criteria. .
Forjmore information about
the nuclear issue, and how to
get involved in your area, con
tact our safe energy group,
Critical Mass, P.O. Box 1538,
Washington, Di€. 20036.
‘i • fc * -