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

Abstract

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.