eel ENTE TN

Soviet Lite

Soviet nuclear power station under construction on shore of the Caspian Sea. It will not only provide electricity but will desalinate water.

By Victor Perlo

e the past year I have been. puzzled
and disturbed by the intense activity, and

substantial influence among progressive -

people, of groups in the United States con-

cerned with a very specific ecological is- '

sue: they want to close down all nuclear
power plants and ban any future construc-
tion of such facilities. They claim: these
plants pose a mortal danger to millions of
people and that their waste products might
threaten all life at some future time. They
favor priority spending to develop solar
energy which they claim is the only pure
kind of energy. :

I've met with many anti-nuclear plant
activists in different parts of the country.
They exhibit a singular narrowness: most
refuse to oppose nuclear weapons, although
the danger involved is obviously incompar-
ably greater than that involved in peaceful
uses of atomic energy, or to support any
measures that would curb monopoly mis-
use of atomic energy, such as nationaliz-
ation of the industry.

I have spoken to active propagandists
against nuclear power plants who disclaim
any scientific know-how, yet. they insist
that those scientists who claim nuclear
power plants are inherently mortally dan-
gerous are correct, and that the scientists
who claim otherwise are wrong. They are
absolutely certain of this and reel off
technical data of which they admit having
no understanding. They distribute vast
quantities of literature. They seem to
have won over to their viewpoint the ma-
jority of people active in ecological causes,
including many progressives who are inter-
ested in the environment as well as in the
whole range of social and political prob-
lems. ;

At the same time. I have been reading
statements by scientists and power in-

dustry officials in socialist countries who-

assert that their atomic energy plants are
not only safe. but more so than traditional
power plants. and that they give off even
less radiation than the normal radiation
associated with daily human activity.

At the recent World Peace Council ses-

sion in Paris, I discussed this problem at
length with Academician Evgeny Fyodorov,
head of the Soviet Hydrometeorological
Service. vice chairman of the Soviet Peace
Committee, and formerly co-chairman of
‘the USSR-USA joint committee on ques-
tions of the environment. Fyodorov, who,
incidentally, is a veteran of the first (1937)
Soviet floating polar ice station. is espe-
cially concerned with the interaction of hu-
man society and nature, and he has con-
tributed serious articles and speeches on
this subject.

Having visited this country, and being
well acquainted with U.S. scientists, Fyo-
doroy was well aware of the anti-nuclear-
power positions.

This is his fundamental approach:

Atomic power is less dangerous to the
environment than earlier conventional
forms of power generation. Coal- and oil-
fired power plants were developed: during
an earlier period, without thought to their
effect on the environment. Only now are
people paying attention to pollution and
trying to correct the environmental dam-
age. But in the case of atomic energy it
was necessary to devote much attention to
this problem before beginning to build
large-scale plants.

Cs there can be an accident in an
atomic power plant, he said, as in most
other kinds of productive establishments.
But neither the likelihood nor the scale of
possible damage is more than rational peo-
ple can accept as a risk, while trying to re-
duce it to a minimum. Even the worst ac-
cident conceivable — an explosion of the
plant, would wreak serious damage over
only a radius of about a third of a mile, ac-
cording to Fyodorov. Of course, that is bad
enough, and can kill a number of people.
But on a scale of comparison, it would not
be worse than accidents with oil-or gas
storage tanks, earthquakes that destroy
dams. etc. And such accidents do happen.
He mentioned as an example a dam de-
stroyed by an earthquake in the USSR. Sim-
ilarly. there was a bad accident when a
liquefied gas storage tank on Staten Island
exploded.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1974}-PAGE 4

His main point was that. with rea-

sonable care, such an accident would hap- ©

pen in an atomic power plant only under
most extraordinary conditions, going be-
yond an accident of nature. For instance,
an atomic bomb would have to be dropped
on the plant to explode it, and then the
bomb itself would do more damage than the
exploding plant. :

I referred to the principal arguments
used by opponents to atomic power plants.
Most stressed currently is the fear
that both the primary and backup water
cooling systems would fail. In such a case,
it is claimed, the heat generated would

melt the outside shell of the plant and

radioactive material would escape and kill
everybody within ten to twenty miles.
There is disagreement as to whether the
chances of such an accident are one in a

_ million or one in ten thousand. The oppon-
_ ents of nuclear energy claim the latter fig-

ure is right and that, with 1,000 nuclear
power plants, there would be such a tragic
accident every ten years:

Fyodorov said such calculations are
absurd, including the estimate of such

Model of a “solar farm” for possible construction in deserts to collect solar energy: ~

: “ey i : =)
broad lethal damage. In the USSR,

the USA, he said, they have a PIA
ing system and a secondary bi
very remote from implication a
dent affecting the reactor, 2!
protected: Constant monitoring.
sential protection against an that
atomic bomb or something of ™
acter. : i
This, of course, raises the rea
The danger to humanity aris nicMy

nuclear power plants, but from os pars
este

hydrogen bombs and other
cae destruction, which already sé
tens or hundreds of thousands, Hi
built to kill tens of millions of pert i
are in the hands of imperialist !
who have no concern for human jaif?

The anti-power-plant people © |
full-scale cooling systems ve f
without — adequate experiment U
small-scale models. In the SOV", gg
Fyodorov assured me, many ™ ‘er
ments were conducted with Wefore
systems and other elements 1's |
mercial plants were construc ee cost
opinion that U.S. scientists We intel “le
ably careful. Of course, he Pao Me
private companies may cut on ae
ticular cases. And, I might ad "att oO
payroll, or for other reasons, Pp ate hy
panies might not maintain adeqm)
the clock monitoring systems:

25

they were “‘sold.a lemon” Py inst hit
facturer of the reactors and ny's

of the plant, or that the compas to WR
ously bad management exten® | p
sponsibility in handling the ae
plant, or both. Certainly, stt

a’
But that is quite different fron y
condemnation of all nuclear e?
The other problem ral
of nuclear power is that © te
radioactive wastes. Charac