Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:20:08.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further Comments on Hazards of Nuclear Power and the Choice of Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

John T. Edsall
John T. Edsall
Affiliation:
President, VI International Congress of Biochemistry; Member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; Biological Laboratories of Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper continues an earlier discussion of the hazards of nuclear fission, and of the choice of alternatives (Edsall, 1974), in Environmental Conservation, 1(1), pp. 21–30. Important changes have recently occurred in energy policy in the United States. The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), whose mission is to promote the development of all promising forms of energy production, has replaced the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). A Nuclear Regulatory Commission, independent of ERDA, has been set up. The proposed ERDA budget, however, is largely dominated by the very heavy costs of research and development for the liquidmetal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). The AEC, in one of its last acts, produced a voluminous environmental impact statement on the LMFBR. A preliminary version of this statement (spring 1974) was sharply and widely criticized as inadequate, and as highly biased in favour of the breeder. The revised statement is now under critical review (March 1975). The AEC has also produced a comprehensive report (the Rasmussen report) on the safety of the current light-water reactors in use in the U.S.A., with the conclusion that a major accident in a nuclear power-plant is so unlikely as to be almost negligible by comparison with other hazards of daily life. It does not consider the hazards of radioactive waste disposal, or of theft and sabotage. Critics have pointed to what they consider grave flaws in the reasoning of the Rasmussen report, so the matter is still highly controversial.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1975 , pp. 205 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bair, W. J. & Thompson, R. C. (1974). Plutonium: biomedical research. Science, 183, pp. 715–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bockris, John O'M. (1974). The coming energy crisis and solas sources. Environmental Conservation, 1(4), pp. 241–9, 7 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, P. F. & Mortimer, N. D. (1974). Energy Inputs and Outputs for Nuclear Power Stations. ERG 005, Sept.-1974: Energy Research Group, The Open University (Milton Keynes, Bucks., England). A preliminary report cited by Lovins (1974c).Google Scholar
Cochran, T. B. (1974). The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: an Environmental and Economic Critique. Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London: xvi + 271 pp.Google Scholar
Edsall, J. T. (1974). Hazards of nuclear fission power and the choice of alternatives. Environmental Conservation, 1(1), pp. 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation (1974). A Time to Choose: America's Energy Future. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts: xiv + 511 pp.Google Scholar
F.A.S. Public Interest Report (1975). Nuclear power: three schools of thought contend. Federation of American Scientists Public Interest Report, 3(1), 8 pp.Google Scholar
Gillette, R. (1974). Low marks for AEC's breeder reactor study, Science, 184, p. 877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, A. L. (1974). Complications indicated for the breeder. Science, 185, p. 768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, Robert L. & Rice, William L. R. (1974). Nuclear fission power and the environment. Environmental Conservation, 1(4), pp. 251–62, 13 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, H. W. & Moglewer, S. (Eds) (1974). Preliminary Review of the AEC Reactor Safety Study. Joint Review Committee: Sierra Club-Union of Concerned Scientists. San Francisco and Cambridge, Massachusetts: iv + 119 pp. + 6 appendixes.Google Scholar
Lovins, A. B. (1974 a). World energy strategies. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30(5), 05 1974, pp. 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovins, A. B. (1974 b). The case for long-term planning. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30 (6), 06 1974, pp. 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovins, A. B. (1974 c). Nuclear Power: Technical Bases for Ethical Concern. Friends of the Earth, for Earth Resources Research, 9 Poland Street, London: 52 pp.Google Scholar
Meinel, A. B. & Meinel, M. P. (in press). Solar photothermal power generation. Environmental Conservation.Google Scholar
Norman, C. (1975). Analysing the U.S. energy budget proposals. Nature (London), 253, pp. 490–1.Google Scholar
Shurcliff, W. A. (1975). Solar Heated Buildings: A Brief Survey (7th edn). Distributed by Solar Energy Digest, P.O. Box 17776, San Diego, California 92117: 76 pp.Google Scholar
Tamplin, A. R. & Cochran, T. B. (1974). Radiation Standards for Hot Particles. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1710 N. Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036: 52 pp. + two appendixes of 8 pp.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. (1975). Figures show leukaemia link with plutonium workers. Guardian (London), 13 01. See also A. Tucker, ‘An element of doubt’: Guardian (London) 30 January. For correspondence in the Guardian on plutonium hazards, see the issues of 20, 22, and 28 January, and 21 February 1975. There were related letters in The Times (London) on 4 and 6 February 1975.Google Scholar
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1974 a). Reactor Safety Study. An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Power Plants. (A Study Directed by Norman C. Rasmussen.) Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.: WASH-1400, 4 vols, ca 3,300 pp.Google Scholar
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1974 b). Proposed Final Environmental Statement. Liquid-metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.: WASH-1535, 7 volumes, ca 4,300 pp.Google Scholar
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1974 C). Environmental Impact Study on the Liquid-metal Fast Breeder Reactor. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.: 5 volumes, ca 2,200 pp.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1975). Two atomic plant workers die of leukaemia. Daily Telegraph (London), 11 01.Google Scholar
Willrich, M. & Taylor, T. B. (1974). Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts: 256 pp.Google Scholar
Postscript: An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the National Nuclear Energy Conference, at the University of Syracuse, New York, in 04 1975.Google Scholar