EDITORIAL
Let us not be careless with the atom Neither let us be careless in evaluating the benefits and possible hazards of commercial nuclear power
S
heldon Novick in his book, "The Careless Atom" Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, ( 1969 ), may be doing for the commercial nuclear power industry what Ralph Nader did for the automobile industry and Rachel Carson did for the pesticides makers. Not that that is necessarily bad. Any major development that affects a large slice of our daily life, perhaps for the better but conceivably for the worse, should be closely scrutinized. Questions should be asked. Objective appraisals should be made and the benefits weighed against the potential hazards. But Mr. Novick's analysis in his book strikes us as not quite objective, somehow, and just a little tinged with sensationalism. He takes aim at the possibility of disastrous reactor explosions, describing several accidents that have occurred. He examines the dangers of radiation damage, both from a reactor accident and that resulting from disposal of radioactive wastes and from potential shipping accidents. He alleges that there are too many unknown factors involved in large-scale plants now being built and planned. "We seem to be permanently committed to a program, then, which is just a little bit ahead of the state of technology. This has been a long-standing state of affairs . . . . The industry continues to work at the outer fringes of technical experience Mr. Novick makes a number of flat statements and dire predictions with little substantive support evident. In short, Mr. Novick tends to view with alarm and often seems to take an
emotional stance. One jacket blurb reads: "Up to now, nuclear accidents have been relatively minor. How long can we hope to avoid fnajor disaster?" Still, Mr. Novick creates just enough of a nagging doubt to make us want to call for more thoroughgoing and continuing studies by unbiased authorities. Accidents do happen, as Mr. Novick points out. Equipment does fail. Humans do err. Even the best planned calculations sometimes go awry. We can all list major technical gaffes that shouldn't have or "couldn't have" happened. And, of course, we can't point with much pride to the way we have controlled our environment in other, nonnuclear respects. On the other hand, the nuclear safety record looks pretty impressive, all in all. So, let us strip away the science fiction aspects of nuclear power and avoid the scare headline approach in assessing any dangers involved. Nuclear power has apparently come of commercial age in certain areas and situations. Let us evaluate its benefits and hazards as against competitive forms of energy with authority and dispassion. If Mr. Novick succeeds in triggering open and fruitful discussion, then perhaps he will ultimately have done us all a service.
:
" &jr?"K
~GOAJ*H ^
C&EN editorials are signed and represent only the views of the signer. Unless stated to the contrary they do not represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Rather they are aimed at focusing attention on some controversial point, at sparking intelligent discussion, at raising legitimate questions.
MAY 5, 1969 C & E N
