Editorial Opinion 'Referendum?' No matter what might be said about Students for a Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group leader Jeff Goldsmith, it- cannot be denied that he possesses great perseverence. Despite a rather spec tacular non-victory in last week’s PennPIRG referen dum, Goldsmith is now confidently predicting that the Undergraduate Student Government Executive Council will endorse Penn- PIRG, a student-run con sumer agency, as well as PennPlßG’s proposed fun ding system which would solicit contributions for the organization through the University’s tuition billing system. Goldsmith has always maintained that widespread student support and approval must be demonstrated for both PennPIRG and its funding concept before the inclusion of a PennPIRG fee, even a refundable one, on tuition bills could be justified. Presumably, he now feels that popular blessing can be granted by proxy, by representatives elected by the students-at-large, or at least 26 percent of them, anyway. Strangely, before the PennPIRG referendum Goldsmith seemed to have a slightly different barometer of popular approval in mind, a majority of 25 percent of the student body itself voting ‘yes’ on the PennPIRG question, or something like that. And, if our memories serve us correctly, last Spring the Students for PennPIRG r *'• f * L. Do us a favor I wonder if John Lewis Evans 111 looked that pawnbroker in the eye when he robbed and shot him in Mobile, Alabama in 1977? Crime in this country has come to a ridiculous extreme. Millions of our tax dollars are wasted housing, feeding and tending to those who have grossly abused society. Essentially everyone has. the potential to kill. That’s why people are against capital punishment; by condoning it they would be admitting to that potential. However, in most of us it is well suppressed.ln many people, it’s not. They are the ones who aren’t able to be rehabilitated; the ones who commit the same crime they’re out on bail for; the ones who must be stopped! John Lewis Evans 111 has admitted to murder. For two years, he has been well-fed and housed. He has wasted court time and money, and made public statements pointing fingers at everyone but himself. No John, the guy that throws the switch won’t be committing a crime. He’ll be doing us all a favor. No risk, no fault Although the accident at Three Mile Island may at first appear to be damaging to the future of the nuclear power in dustry, an opposing argument may be formulated. Future nuclear plants could have been unconditionally terminated due to public shock and anger, had a more disastrous event taken place. As long as the back-up safety mechanisms and precautionary safety measures proved more than adequate to cover anticipated problems, the hasty construction of new plants was inevitable, stemming from growing confidence amongst supporters. A speedy process might have laid the groundwork for a more serious occurrence than that which has taken place. While I consider the frightening dangers we may be sub jected to if we continue to use nuclear power, I must also face the frightening facts of limited natural resources and no 'lll M I !' 3 V ' > 'X mm. .DO MW WE USUALLY DO, 1 SUPPOSE - -JUST SIT HERE AMP LET IT ALL HAPPEN,,, Coordinator had ambitions of collecting 23,000 student signatures or half the University community, in cluding Commonwealth campuses on a petition supporting PennPIRG. Well, the petition drive failed PennPIRG sup porters were able to gather only 3,000 signatures in six months as did the referendum. Voting irregularities or no, less than 12 percent of the student body vpted to support PennPIRG and its inseparable (ac cording to Goldsmith) fun ding concept, and only 19 percent bothered to venture an official opinion on the question at all. It seems obvious that no matter what the merits of the PIRG concept and it has quite a few, judging from the performance of PIRGs in other states Penn State students are simply not in terested in having a negative checkoff or a refusable refundable PIRG fee on their tuition bills. Despite Goldsmith’s claims to the contrary, there are PIRG’s working through positive checkoff Washington, D.C., PIRG is one example. Even Ralph Nader, originator of the PIRG concept, admitted privately to The Daily Collegian last year that while such would not provide the bountiful revenues estimated for a refusable-refundable system,, it might provide a start, at least and that’s a lot more than PennPIRG has right now. Carol Nemeth 9th-electrical engineering April 5 Letters to the Editor feasible alternatives to rely upon while existing supplies are nearing depletion. Let’s assume we develop a different source of energy to aid us in the near future. Might also an event occur that would create a potential hazard as was the case of Three Mile Island? How can we be so secure as to abandon our badly-needed energy-producing,nuclear reactors and hope that we can soon place the partial load on another source of energy, when the human error factor cannot be eliminated no matter what source is used gnd no matter how technically advanced we become? Can we rid ourselves of these monsters, only to find that the pussycats that we replaced them with were too domesticated to do the job of protecting our future energy needs? Then the monsters will be found all the more terrifying if we find no alternative but to call them back as a last resort. We won’t have the weapon of time to take the necessary precautions and allow adjustments that will'permit us to keep them caged and productive. I agree that one can never be too cautious that is, except those who adopt the no-risk, no-fault policy held by the anti nuclear groupies. We the victims How quickly the rhetoric of reassurance becomes outright lying when nuclear hazards and costs are the issue. At first the media were careful to report the crisis at Three Mile Island as the worst commercial nuclear accident. Now, according to your lead article (Associated Press 4-4-79), it’s the “worst nuclear accident in U.S. history.” Sir, it’s not even close.. Obviously it’s not worse than the fiasco in Detroit on Oct. 5, 1966 (See: “We Almost Lost Detroit,” John G. Fuller) when the Enrico Fermi liquid metal fast breeder reactor went out of control and melted much of the core. It took them over a year to open the reactor, which at any time could have detonated with a force equivalent to 1,000 pounds of TNT, releasing tons of radioactive material into the air. Energy's future demands discipline The tradeoff point must be found Editor’s Note: This is the second in a two-part series on the effects of the Three Mile Island accident on future fuel sources in America. By WILLIAM T. McSWEENEY Research Associate Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Where do we go from here? As an individual I cannot say. I have some reservations concerning the disposal of nuclear wastes, but I do enjoy the electrical power generated by the nuclear fuels these wastes come from. It is nice to say that I could live on restricted quantities of electrical power, but I know I wouldn’t like it much. I’m not sure I want to pay increased electric bills and tax dollars either, but I can’t have my cake and eat it too. How then do we decide? Collegian Forum The manner in which our society decides its collective policies is via the political process (the efficiency of this process in transforming voters’ desires into realities is somewhat questionable but is not a topic for discussion here). The important point is that we do have a means of expressing our viewpoints. My hat is off to those who vehemently oppose nuclear power, for although I don’t believe all their claims and rhetoric, at least they are concerned enough to be involved. What most of us do not realize, however, is that we have another way of expressing our wants and desires. This method is used by all of us, yet most of us remain unaware of it. I’m speaking of the market place. That magical mystical place we economists are forever babbling about where buyers meet sellers. All too often we cast our political votes at the polls in one direction, and our dollar votes at the market in a contradictory one. For example, we tend to vote for those candidates who vow to lower energy costs, clean up the environment and Renee Kosydar lOth-industrial engineering April 5 reduce taxes; yet we buy goods such as blenders, toaster ovens, micro-wave ovens, hair dryers automatic this and automatic that. These goods will be provided as long as we keep buying them. They all increase our consumption of electrical power and contribute to higher electric bills. For electric bills to decrease, or at least hold steady, one or both of the following must occur: 1) a decrease in demand for electrical power signaled by. our giving up the above mentioned necessities (luxuries?), or 2) production costs must not rise, something not likely to occur with the tangle of environmental dos and don’ts currently on the books. If we decide that we want increased availability of electrical power, lower electric bills, lower taxes, and a cleaner environment, then obviously fossil fuels are not the heat source we seek to Nor was it worse than the power excursion explosion in a reactor near Idaho Falls on January 3, 1961. (A power ex cursion is a runaway nuclear chain reaction in the core, against which scramming and Emergency Core Cooling Systems are useless.) Apparently it was not rapid enough a reaction to blast open the container building, but it did drive a control rod through the groin and out the shoulder of one operator, and the three men killed in the building had to be buried with the rest of the radioactive “waste.” I felt a bit sick at my stomach last Monday when I heard Energy Secretary Schlessinger declare, over a national hookup, that no one had ever died as a consequence of a nuclear accident in America. That he can dissemble so blandly appalls me, not merely because of what it tells us about his character, but because of his confidence in public ignorance. The way various authorities pretend unpublicized accidents have not happened makes me wonder what has happened that we may never know about. The hush-up of the terrifyingly idiotic commedy of errors at Brown’s Ferry, Alabama, on March 22, 1975, further enhances our fears that economics takes priority over public safety. Five days after the accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a single brief news release to the effect that a fire had occurred, but that back-up systems had been more than adequate to the situation. However, reading “The Brown’s Ferry Incident,” David Comey’s fumble-by-fumble account, one feels that only dumb luck spared us the devastation of thousands of square miles of northern Alabama and Tennessee. Of course, Secretary Schlessinger sees no reason to include the radiation induced leukemia and other cancer cases that shorten thousands of lives. And though these hidden atrocities have been documented voluminously, authorities will not acknowledge this slow but equally deadly violence. Where are we to fit this into the cost sheets? And if, for all this, any one wishes to believe nuclear power an acceptable risk, why would no insurance company touch it? Our government’s estimates of possible damage in a com mercial reactor catastrophe range from $6 billion to as much as $2BO billion, with outright deaths from 3,400 to 43,000 and contamination of an area larger than Pennsylvania. In response to this, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limits total liability of nuclear plant insurers to a paltry $125 million, with an additional $435 million guaranteed by the federal government that is, the taxpayer, including the victims. For full information see Senator Gravel’s report: “Price-Anderson: A No-Fault Nightmare.” And if you read this unimaginably reprehensible piece of legislation carefully you will discover how improbable it is that anyone but the power companies and their lawyers will collect any of these funds. The people responsible for the disaster are not only covered for their own loss, but for their legal fees to fight suits brought against them by their victims. Amazingly few people seem to be aware of these verifiable obscenities, but if we do not inform ourselves, we shall become victims of our own ignorance and lack of judgment. % ** •« iflo" p Scared and proud Well, Three Mile Island is about over. As the fear and un certainty that pervaded even the most ardent advocates of nuclear power begins to fade, the nuclear apologists and propagandists among us are seemingly out in record numbers* Let’s not panic, they say. After all, no one was killed. Let’s be realistic, they cry, we can’t afford to lose this valuable source of energy. Unfortunately, these poor misled or uncaring in dividuals don’t realize that we can’t afford not to. Sure, no one was killed in this accident. And rpaybe it’ll take years for another accident to occur. But occur it will, no matter how many new safety measures are taken. Why? generate our electrical power. Keep in mind that I have stressed current levels of technology; I fear that we will make up our collective minds long before research and development will bring currently exotic generating methods, such as solar and geothermal, into widespread use. As I have alluded to earlier, the trade off does not necessarily have to be in the type of heat source, but could be in the type of lifestyle we choose. We could choose a disciplined lifestyle, or we could find ourselves saddled with one if we make hasty decisions. In the April 2, 1979 issue of The Daily Collegian, Dr. Samuel Levine put it most succinctly when he said, “. . . this country is going to have to discipline itself with regard to energy use. Americans will have to be disciplined like they’ve never been disciplined before.” John Haag Associate professor of English April 4 Because we’re dealing with the two strongest catalysts! for accidents known to man greed and human error. And next time, maybe the accident will again be controlled, or maybe there will be a catastrophe. Do we need a catastrophe! to convince us that nuclear energy is a time-bomb awaiting the right combination of accidents before it does, indeed, destr.oy our land and lives? Perhaps we do. g} Certainly the utility companies don’t care. Who much time convincing us that an accident such as the one-at Three Mile Island could not possibly occur? And who is now trying to downplay the importance of these accidents? Metropolitan Edison, of course. And Met Ed stands to lose nothing from the Harrisburg accidents. If an airline has an accident, their profits decline for the business quarter. Met Ed they will pass on any losses to the consumer and will again show a profit this year. It seems to indicate where their priorities lie. I find it interesting that there has been so little movement towards solar and other safer energy sources on the part of the electric companies. Why? Perhaps it’s because a company can’t own the sun, so there is less profit to be made technology is developed and refined. Are these the people tfsat we are trusting with our future well-being? Sadly, yes. They and other nuclear proponents are counting on people forget ting Three Mile Island, so that nuclear growth and profit, as usual, can continue untouched. So what do we do? Do we choose, by our apathy, to submit to virtual extortion by the utility companies and propaganda from nuclear engineers securing and protecting their profession? Or do we realize that accidents will always occur, and the next time we might not be as lucky as we have been at Three Mile Island? I only wish I were more secure in the choice we will make. Yes, Thomas Palchak and others, l am scared and I admit it. Edward S. Kljyn graduate-education of exceptional childreiti April 5 Haven't you? To he who respects the nuclear power industry and exercises his freedom of speech, there are alternate energy sources. The fossil fuel and nuclear industries just haven’t figured out a way to put a meter on them and therefore don’t promote them. Living units do exist that derive an absolute minimum of. 12 percent of their energy requirements from solar devices, enough to replace that 12 percent contribution of nuclear power plants. If the billions of dollars needed to build a nuclear power plant were distributed among those who would benefit from it, perhaps they would install such devices, especially itit meant not having to pay such a large electric and heating bills for the next 40 years. The incentives would include increased real estate value. Why not move away from socialized energy and let the consumer support his own needs, using the utilities as a suppliment in times of unfavorable weather conditions? Being realistic, I cannot support an industry which has the potential of destroying thousands of square miles and the probability of doing so equal to that of say .■. . two 74Vs colliding. Haven’t you ever heard of Murphy’s Law? Christopher C. Peeples 9th-computer science April 5 Friday, April 6, 1979—Page 2 Pete Barnes Editor The issue of discipline in our lifestyles must be answered before, not after we decide our choice of fuels. For use in' the near future to find out tomorrow that we can’t live with the consequences arising from today’s decisions will be too late. The decisions are not just economic ones, nor are they simply political orifes. They are decisions which must involve the socio-economic-political structure of our society. Ignoring any one of these three could lead to unacceptable con sequences. The decisions must not be hasty ones. They must be wise only then can we pass the best possible world onto our descendants. I will continue to do a lot of thinking on this matter. I hope that you will do the same so that we can decide policies in which our social, economic, and political behaviors are consistent with i)ie another. /*/?<© oiwjwai^ Marjie Schlessinger Business Manag^ © 1979 Collegian Inc.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers