CHAPTER 10
What Can Citizens Do About Nuclear Electricity?
Recommendation for a Moratorium
On New Nuclear Electricity Plants
It is undoubtedly clear to the reader by now that
the authors of this book have grave reservations about
the stampede to nuclear electricity being promoted
through the AEC, the JCAE, and the electric utility
industry. Wholly aside from the views of nuclear
critics, a large, and steadily growing, citizen concern
has developed. The question is repeatedly asked, "How
can this madness be checked?"
Nuclear electricity generation, as it has proceeded
up to now, is a classic example of the misuse of science
and technology that has brought on our deepening
environmental crisis. It is a particularly important
case-in-point because of the devastating possible
consequences for all men and for all time. Once nuclear
pollution has occurred on a large scale -- (and nuclear
electricity generation gives every promise of causing
it) there will be no hope of reversing the pollution for
hundreds or thousands of years.
Some gloomy individuals believe we might best let
the madness go forward, eliminate the human species, and
hope that at some dimly distant time in the future, the
biological accident that led to the development of the
human species in the first place, might occur again with
a better result.
Others believe a solution will come by another
route, short of obliteration of the human species.
Persons knowledgeable in this field predict that a major
accident in nuclear electricity generation will occur as
a result of the proliferation of nuclear plants. They
believe that before long such an accident will
annihilate the inhabitants of a major city, such as New
York or Chicago. If such a disaster should happen
through a nuclear accident, we would undoubtedly
re-assess our "need" for nuclear electricity generation.
It is a horrifying thought: -- major calamity as the
route back to a rational approach to electric power
generation. However, the Atomic Energy Commission and
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy are still pouring
taxpayers' millions into sales promotions devoid of
realistic safety considerations. Tragedy may indeed be
the ultimate resolution the problem finds.
Are there more reasonable solutions? People in a
democratic society such as ours have been taught that
the government's role is to protect our inalienable
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No wonder they are perplexed when virtually all branches
of the national government operate in a way that seems
to deepen the environmental crisis, rather than resolve
it.
Numerous federal agencies operate in a way that
either pollutes and destroys the environment directly,
as does the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, or they
indulge the excesses of industrial polluters. Congress
may pass laws to protect the public -- to protect the
consumer. But somehow the very agencies Congress creates
to provide the protection almost invariably end up
subverting Congressional intent.
Congress put the regulatory and promotional
(pollutional, really) agencies together in creating the
Atomic Energy Commission. So, in this case, even the
semblance of a separate governmental agency to protect
the public's interest is non-existent. What can the
public hope to accomplish by appealing to the Atomic
Energy Commission for curbs on atomic energy?
The AEC allows for the public to be heard. The
Commission announces formal public hearings prior to the
issuance of construction permits and operating permits
for nuclear power reactors. In principle, it is
possible, therefore, for the public to intervene, to
protest construction or operation of a reactor.
Who hears such protests? The Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, selected from a panel appointed by the
AEC. Nuclear power advocates dominate the membership of
this panel. The chances for an unbiased hearing for an
intervening group are clearly imperiled. It is true that
some delays can be introduced into the whole system
through such interventions, but, by and large, the
delays are minimal. It is safe to say that if the public
relies on open hearings in their fight against nuclear
power plants, successive interventions on the next 600
nuclear power reactors will be followed by the
construction and operation of the 600 reactors.
Nuclear electricity generation has developed under a
set of, at best, questionable radiation standards --
standards that are right now under sweeping review. Yet
the licensing boards refuse to hear any challenge to a
particular reactor that is based upon the invalidity and
illegality of the radiation standards. The board accepts
the standards as sacrosanct. It is up to the intervenor
to prove that a proposed reactor will fail to meet the
(current) standards. This is a patently ridiculous state
of affairs.
This does not mean citizens should avoid such
hearings. Certainly the opposing statements made there,
reported in local papers, help educate the community on
the true facts about nuclear power generation. Consider
the effect: 500 people appear at such a hearing, all of
them opposed to an impending nuclear power plant; this
fact is reported locally. The community at large, and
its officials, come to an early understanding of what
they are up against, when the hearings produce nothing
constructive and plans for the power plant go forward as
if there had been no hearing.
Within the democratic process there are other
avenues that can be effective. In the order of
increasing effectiveness, these are:
a. The U.S. Congress
b. The State Legislatures
c. Direct Public Referendum to Achieve a Moratorium on
New Above-Ground Nuclear Power Plants.
Many members of the House of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate are thoroughly informed on the true
character of atomic energy promotion; if they are
incensed, they feel powerless to do anything
constructive. Largely the problem centers upon the
stranglehold the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has on
the Congress. Suppose a bill were introduced into the
Congress calling for a moratorium on construction of new
nuclear electricity plants. The parliamentarian would
undoubtedly refer it to the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy. There the bill will languish forever. Imagine
what the chances are that the super-promotional Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy would recommend a halt in
such construction.
The early retirement of Congressmen Holifield and
Hosmer would be helpful. More important would be action
to keep all considerations of electric power generation,
including nuclear power, from ever getting into the
hands of this Committee. This does not appear imminent.
An alternative approach would be to block the annual
Appropriations Bill for the Atomic Energy Commission, in
an effort to force a reasoned consideration of nuclear
electricity generation. All in all, it is difficult to
develop much optimism about constructive action at the
Congressional level, considering the archaic,
obstructionist features of the existing Committee
system.
It wouldn't do any harm, however, for a citizen to
discuss these expedients with his congressman and
senators. They might be willing to try some of the
strategies outlined here.
It is extremely important to educate individual
Congressmen and Senators concerning nuclear electricity
generation and its hazards, not so much for what these
men will accomplish in Washington, but for the influence
they can have in their own states, where constructive
action is definitely possible. And some effective
measures might be achieved in the Congress itself, since
the public is increasingly aware that politicians'
lip-service, without action, only aggravates an already
alarming environmental crisis. The early retirement of
such Congressmen could change the complexion of the
Congress enough to make progress toward a rational
nuclear policy possible. But this would take time,
possibly a few elections, and be too late to prevent
much of the nuclear power plant proliferation currently
being promoted.
The Fastest Way to a Moratorium
Individual state legislatures are awakening to the
concern of their constituencies, over the nuclear
electricity juggernaut, especially where the plans call
for nuclear electric stations that will leave almost no
region of the state safe from the effects of an accident
at one or another nuclear plant. Pennsylvania's state
legislature recently responded to citizen pressure by
initiation of extensive Hearings on Nuclear Electricity
Generation, almost wholly focused on environmental,
health and safety aspects of nuclear power.
Such hearings (in striking contrast with those
conducted by the AEC) serve the extremely important
function of providing the state legislators, and the
public, with balanced information and an open-forum
education on the less publicized aspects of nuclear
electricity generation, such as health and safety. Until
recently, the major source of information was the AEC's
"gospel of the peaceful atom."
However, it appears that the most likely action of
the state legislature will be to initiate interminable
studies of the problem. Still, elected officials, when
provided with full and honest information on both sides
of a question, can aid materially in educating citizens
of their own constituency.
To restore rationality to the nuclear electricity
generation scene, the most likely avenue to success is a
moratorium on new nuclear power plants above-ground for
some period like 5 to 7 years. And the fastest way to
achieve this is to get direct public vote, by initiative
or referendum on the ballot, forbidding planning,
constructing, or licensing such plants during the
moratorium period.
The citizens of Eugene, Oregon were able to put a
referendum on the ballot by citizen petition, which won
a moratorium on construction of a nuclear plant that had
already been approved. The action in Eugene proves that
it is possible to educate the public about the dark side
of nuclear electricity generation, in the face of a
mountain of well-financed pro-nuclear propaganda.
It is very important for citizens to get involved,
as directly as possible, in these major environmental
issues. For too long, the public has been excluded from
any significant participation in the dialogue, it has
been thoroughly bypassed in considerations of what
hazards to life and future will be accepted for
specified benefits, or ostensible benefits.
This must change in the very early future. It is
evident that the public is vitally concerned about the
preserving of an environment habitable by humans and
other living things. Public dismay at the progressive
deterioration of the environment, with an almost total
absence of any constructive action by government to
alter this ominous trend, is equally evident.
Government agencies are often the chief promoters of
pollution activity, aided and excused by huge public
relations staffs that grind out reams of one-sided,
uninformative press releases. The AEC is just one
governmental agency which appears to have little regard
for the public interest.
James Turner, a consultant with Ralph Nader's Center
for the Study of Responsive Law, describes the
incredible situation with respect to food additives
thus:
"Over 95 different ingredients and
chemicals can be added to bread by the
manufacturer, as he desires, without adding
them to the label. There are 76 such
ingredients in soft drinks. There are 33 in
cheese. In fact the whole standard setting
procedures of the Food and Drug Administration
and the Department of Agriculture are
irrational and do not reflect the best
interest of the consuming public." (September,
1970)[1]
Michael Wollan[2] pointed out that an analogous
situation exists in several other governmental
regulating agencies, including the National Science
Foundation with respect to weather modification
projects, the Federal Aviation Administration with
respect to the SST project, and the Public Health
Service with respect to fluoridation.
We have shown that the approach, philosophy, and
methodology used in developing the radiation standards
that govern the nuclear electricity program were
erroneous. The electric utility industry has been misled
concerning the radiation hazards associated with nuclear
electricity. The leading physicist-engineers have been
misled. Even the Chairman of the Joint Congressional
Committee on Atomic Energy thinks we can safely be
exposed to the amount of radiation it would take to
produce a major public health disaster for this
generation and for all future generations.
All this has been possible, and nuclear electricity
generation has developed, as a major industry, through
studiously maintained public ignorance of potential
risks.
The only hope in this, and other desperately serious
environmental problems, is to provide all the
information to the public (all sectors of it). A growing
segment of the public now realizes the hazards
associated with nuclear electricity plants planned for
above-ground construction on the very boundaries of
major metropolitan centers. The full effects of
catastrophic accidents that could occur remain unknown.
Yet these gigantic, totally experimental plants are
being constructed.
No responsible body of scientists, and no individual
scientist, is now willing to minimize the potential
radiation hazard to this and future generations. Indeed,
when he was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare,
Robert Finch called for a total review of all radiation
standards to reassess all the new evidence concerning
hazards of ionizing radiation.
Those formulating the review are so concerned that
they indicate it will take two years to study the
evidence and to arrive at final conclusions as to just
how serious these hazards are. Meanwhile, two Nobel
Laureates[3] have come forward with their estimates,
both even more severe than ours. A third Nobel
Laureate[4] has expressed himself as opposed to nuclear
power plant construction, simply because the gaps in our
knowledge of radiation injury to humans are so large
that he believes this alone justifies abandoning the
construction of such plants.
There seems little doubt that the public must act
directly to stop any further proliferation of this most
dangerous, rashly promoted, nuclear electricity
industry. The most constructive action seems to be a
national moratorium on any further construction of
nuclear electricity plants. In such a moratorium period,
all the crucial questions can be thoroughly aired, and a
rational future assessment planned.
It will be essential to press for action within
individual states. In the 28 states for whom a nuclear
electricity future has already been planned by those who
never consulted the public, citizens groups are now
thoroughly alerted and are seeking moratorium action in
their own state.
In several states, the initiative is available and
is the procedure of choice. Initiative is the procedure
by which a specified number of voters may propose a
statute, constitutional amendment or ordinance and
compel a popular vote on its adoption. This is the
highest form of effective participation in the
democratic process. An initiative can be put on the
ballot in such states to call for a 5-year or 10-year
moratorium on nuclear power plant construction. Once
passed, such a moratorium invalidates all attempts
atomic energy interests might devise to have their way.
Certainly where the initiative is available, it is the
best course of action toward a moratorium.
The public must be prepared for a massive barrage of
propaganda, from the Federal Atomic Energy Agencies and
the electric utility industry. They will tell you that,
after all, members of these bodies breathe the same air,
drink the same water, and live on the same earth as the
rest of us. And it is true. So true that if they can
forget, for a moment, their immediate, parochial
interests, they too might endorse a moratorium on
nuclear power plants, at least until we can learn to
handle this technology safely.
The ads about your "Good neighbor, nuke" will pour
forth in the newspapers, the television, and in the
lovely monthly utility company throwaways. Expensive
2-page newspaper ads will remind us that the western
White House is located 4400 yards from the 430-megawatt
San Onofre Nuclear Plant, and that it has not yet
suffered injury. How can the American people, whatever
their politics, stand idly by in such perilous times,
while their President sojourns often at his Western
White House? The region is one where a disaster
evacuation plan is required by the AEC to allow
operation of the nuclear reactor at all! One of the
major accomplishments of a moratorium on nuclear
reactors might be to remove the President of the United
States from this senseless risk.
[the advertisement reads:
To Our Patients
We Physicians In Santa Cruz, Concerned About
Radiation Hazards to Human Beings, Question
The Safety Of A Nuclear Power Plant In Our
Community.
CAN A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BE CONSTRUCT-
* ED CLOSE TO A CITY WITHOUT ENDANGERING
THE PUBLIC?
WOULD A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN SANTA
* CRUZ BE SAFE FROM NATURAL DISASTERS,
EARTHQUAKES, SABOTAGE, OR WAR?
WHAT ARE THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THE
* EXPECTED RADIATION ON MARINE LIFE AND
THE AIR WE BREATHE?
Scientists disagree about the answers to these
questions.
AS YOUR PHYSICIANS WE FEEL A RESPONSIBILITY TO
URGE SUFFICIENT DELAY ON PLANNING FOR A NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT TO ALLOW FURTHER STUDY FOR THESE
QUESTIONS.
(and then follow 84 (21 rows by 4 columns of)
Santa Cruz Medical Doctors' names.) ]
In various parts of the country citizen groups have been formed to
fight the construction of nuclear power plants. The above ad
appeared in the local newspaper of Santa Cruz, California.
Whatever the pressure of the pro-nuclear,
power-propaganda barrage, it is worth remembering that
the American public is not stupid. Given an opportunity
to look at the facts, they will surely decide for a
moratorium on nuclear electric plants. Fortunately, the
press has been reporting the grim prospects associated
with radiation hazards fully and honestly, so the public
is becoming informed. Further, the public is undoubtedly
more interested in self-preservation than in preserving
the AEC bureaucracy or the profit margin of the electric
utility industry. The public is justifiably skeptical of
an industry which proclaims that it must build new
electric power plants to meet demands, then proceeds to
spend millions for advertisements dedicated to
increasing electric power consumption. The polluters'
cliches are rapidly becoming appreciated for what they
are, a manifestation of total unconcern for the
environment.
In the states where the mechanism of the initiative
is, regrettably, not available, citizens should work
hard to get it established, for the environmental
struggle is only beginning. One has only to observe the
politicians inaction on environmental matters and the
collusion of governmental "regulators" with those they
regulate, to realize that traditional approaches will
only hasten the deterioration of our environment.
A moratorium petition, signed by tens-of-thousands
of constituents, can have a powerful effect in awakening
sleepy state legislators and can even activate governors
to take a position with the public on such matters.
Those who refuse to wake up and bestir themselves may
simply have to be retired. Obviously, the more names
petitions contain, the more likely it is that state
legislators will be shaken from their lethargy.
The informed part of the public, with respect to
nuclear hazard, must become active in educating those
who are still uninformed, or worse, misinformed. All the
logic and all the evidence to counter the empty
platitudes of the proponents of nuclear power are
available. Proponents who are able to present any
logical points to support their position in a debate are
rare. Encourage the AEC and the utility representatives
to debate in public forums, where any weaknesses and
illogic in their arguments are exposed to full view. Man
the negative side of the debate with the most
knowledgeable combatants available. Each such debate
guarantees additional support for the moratorium we are
urging.
AEC and the electric utility industry suggest that,
unless we go through with the nuclear power plans, the
iron lungs in our hospitals will have to shut down for
want of electricity. Such assertions can be countered
with facts. It is industries that consume most
electricity, not iron lungs, not stereo sets, not
air-conditioners, and not electric toothbrushes.
Recycling aluminum, for example, instead of wastefully
using electricity to produce new aluminum, would help to
solve our solid waste problem as well as our power
problem.
The electric utility industry may one day find
itself backing the effort to obtain a moratorium on
nuclear electricity-generating plants. This industry is
caught in a vice and is currently trying to extricate
itself gracefully. Deceived by AEC assurances of cheap,
safe sources of additional electric power, they invested
prestige and billions of dollars in the nuclear
enterprise. The directors of these corporations will
realize, sooner or later, that they have made a
disastrous mistake and decide not to throw good money
after bad. The time will have come to cancel the "Good
neighbor, nuke" propaganda line.
A moratorium on the building of above-ground nuclear
electric plants can give us breathing space for some
rational considerations of the power supply problem. If
we make our determination to have it widely and firmly
enough known, the research and development funds of the
nation will go to those areas needed, to supply
necessary, safe, clean electric power.
1. San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle.
2. "Controlling the Potential Hazards of Government
Sponsored Technology." Michael Wollan, George
Washington Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 5, pages
1105-1137, July 1968.
3. Professor Linus Pauling and Professor Joshua
Lederberg (cited earlier [LP, JL])
4. Professor James D. Watson (cited earlier)