Some issues in the nuclear power controversy

Dr. Cohen points out that issues in the public controversy over whether and how fast we should develop nuclear power in this country are constantly shifting. Issues on routine releases of low level radioactivity, thermal pollution, and power plant accidents have each had their times at or near the top of the list. Now, disposal of nuclear waste has been elevated in the public concern, and Ralph Nader has put his recent emphasis on the economics of nuclear power. These three presently paramount issues--economics, power plant accidents, and waste disposal--form the subject of this article. Numerous Tennessee Valley Authority studies conclude that nuclear power is the most economical; conclusions reached by most utility studies, public and private, concur. When compared with accidents postulated for hydroelectric dams or fossil-fuel power plants, nuclear power is indicated as much safer. Comparisons with other risks, e.g., smoking cigarettes or driving one's automobile, shows nuclear power to be even more safe than the above. On reviewing all data dealing with how groundwater or other elements of man's environment will come in contact with disposed radioactive wastes, Dr. Cohen concludes that ''in any long-time perspective, nuclear power must be viewed as a method for cleansing themore » Earth of radioactivity.'' On the issue of the projected burden on future generations to guard radioactive wastes, he concludes that a 1,000-year accumulation of wastes could be buried in a 10-mile square area, requiring a security fence with one patrol officer. This generation's rampant use of fossil fuels and metals and minerals places an infinitely heavier burden on our progeny, Dr. Cohen feels, and that we owe them in return ''a source of cheap and abundant energy, and the only source we have for it is nuclear power.'' (MCW)« less