CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING
NEWS ΛΙΙΥ 2 , 1 9 5 6
VOL· 3 4 * Ν Ο . ^ / -
APPUED JOURNALS, ACS . Director of Publications: C . B . Larrabee ;, ^ \ Editorial Director: W. J . Murphy > 1 J - Ύ ExecutiveEditor: J a m · » M. C r o w · J Production Manager: Joseph H . Kurtey ?
CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS - > Editor: l Richard L» Kenyon Managing Editors Robert F. Gould
EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS W A S H I N G T O N 6, D. C 1166 Sixteenth S t , N.W. P h o n e Republic 7-6300 Teletype WA 23 Associate Editors: Robert G . Glbbt, David M . Klefer 'Assistant Editons Kathryn C a m p b e l l , Helen H . B l u n t , I r o n · G. Kiefer, Gieorge B. Krantx, B e t t y V. Kleffor, WhIIden W. J o h n s o n . Morton Sal kind, David E. G u s h e e Editorial Assistants: Ruth C. Laubach, Batty J . Corday, - Barbara R. C h r i s t ] · , H a n n s L. Sperr Staff Artist: - ' M el v i n D . Buckner * BRANCH EDITORIAL OFFICES CHICAGO 1 . I L L . 86 East Randolph S t . Phone S t a t · 2-7686 . - Teletype CG 725 J v '\ - „ Bush House» Aldwych, London ν 1 P h o n e T e m p l e Bar 3605 Cable JIECH EM > Associate cxfifoh W i l l i a m Q . H u l l ^ VCox, J r . , Maurice F . C r a s s , JP.," R. \ % ' ' L. Ericsson,* H . JU Fisner,^ Theodore S. _ Hodgins, J . Ft. Hoover, J. Warren K i n s m a n , ^r -*- %τ H . v F." Mark, Lloyd H. Reyerson, E . G, , ϊ* ί Roehow, Carl S e t t e r s t r o m , Frank J. Sod ay i -l}'':^,^} Advertising Managements ^ — ^ - - y ' ; REINHOLD „ PUBLISHING CORP. V H. 430 Park Ave., New York 22, Ν . Υ: - _ 1 ^ •? .-_ ; (For Branch Offices s e e p a g e 3 3 Τ 5} -*•% Th· American Chemical Society assumes no' rcspoaii» - bility tor die statements and opinions advanced by coo· „. xribotons to its publications. Views expressed in the cdi- „ ' xorials are those of die editors and do not necessarily rcprc- /,. sent die offidalposttiocof the American Chemical Society. "'-•'
ARE WE LOSING OUT IN NUCLEAR POWER? SubdlvfsfofB of Nuclear Technology Formed by ACS Division of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry C>ONTROVERSY and strong difference of opinion on most topics are part and parcel of t h e Washington political scene. T h e question of whether the United States is losing its commanding position in the development of nuclear power is no exception. Among those w h o know the facts, there are opposing points of v i e w including, according to newspaper comments, those of mem bers of the Atomic Energy Commission. With experts in disagreement, i s it any wonder that the public is confused and disturbed? One vocal group insists that the U. S. is falling behind quite rapidly i n the "international atomic power race" and that the Soviets and nations which the Soviets are aiding are outstripping u s . Lewis L . Strauss, A E C Chairman, speaking recently at commencement exercises at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, criticized proposals that the Government finance major atomic power plants. H e strongly objects to a "crash** program of building large-scale plants just to keep ahead of Russia in a *Tdlowatt race/' A "crash** program, while it might result in a nation gaining considerable initial leadership, would generally require "freezing" designs at an early stage. In tlie long run, this course would not seem best suited to our special conditions and requirements. Considering our tremendous resources of coal, petroleum, natural gas, and hydroelectric power and the present status of development of atomic power reactors, atomic power does not appear to b e competitive at the present time in the U . S. On this basis it seems desirable t o conduct more research, development, and testing of the many possible types of reactors and thus determine w h i c h is the most efficient and economic before settling arbitrarily on one type or another. By following this research-development-testing course, w e may at t h e same time g e t answers to such related problems as the important matter of disaster insurance and the disposing of radioactive waste materials. A committee of the British Insurance Association and Lloyd's has com pleted the first stage of a study of disaster insurance. Although its report is still confidential, the association has stated that t h e fire and.explosion risks should b e little different from those associated with conventional power plants. Considering known safeguards, the committee feels that a catas trophe with risk of radioactive contamination is remote. What should our course be? Research and more research, w e believe, is basic. In addition w e should continue developmental work such as that already under way. In parts of the world where conventional fuels are scarce or expensive, U . S. industry might consider building larger scale atomic power plants. These would provide a means of testing various reactor designs under practical conditions and would help build better relations with countries needing technical and financial assistance i n devel oping their power needs. ( A current report on the status of the nuclear power race appears on page 3244.) Many divisions of the ACS, its Division of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry i n particular, have long b e e n interested in the field of atomic power. T o help foster research in reactor technology, as well as in other fields of nuclear chemistry and engineering, the I&EC Division has just announced the formation of a new Subdivision of Nuclear Technology. Most fortunately it has secured as its first chairman, Stephen Lawrosld of Argonne National Laboratory, and as secretary, Henry J. Ogorzaly of the Esso Research Center. Included on the executive committee are D. H . Ahman of t h e Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory of General Electric; F. W . Crawford, manager of production research, research division of Phillips Petroleum; and L. M. Currie, vice president of Union Carbide Nuclear Co. The new subdivision, -we believe, will prove to b e of great assistance in the dissemination of nuclear energy information, a field which obviously will grow rapidly in the years ahead.
V/mim^M'f^J
