TID-BITS

*A new organization that will encourage defeat of the California Nuclear Initiative in the Bay area: People for an Energy Policy, Box 23368, San Jose, CA 95153.

*A Harris nationwide survey finds 63% of the general public in support of building more nuclear plants. The investigators found more support among neighbors of nuclear plants than among the public at large. For example, among neighbors (within 25 miles) of Southern California Edison's nuclear plant at San Onofre, 72% favor nuclear power as the main energy source in their community. "Familiarity," comments the study, "breeds confidence in the safety of nuclear plants."

*The roots of crime are controversial, but at least the cause of murder, forcible rape and aggravated assault is now much clearer, thanks to G.D. Hanks, a faculty member of Indiana University Northwest in Gary. Speaking at a biological convention in Oregon, he announced that he had found increases in these crimes near nuclear plants after they went on line. "We have been brainwashed that nuclear plants produce only small emissions, if any," said this investigator of Nature's mysteries. Radiation biologists at the convention found Hanks' figures hard to believe, but we take this opportunity to point to another indisputable correlation: Ever since the electronic hand-calculator was invented, the price of thumb tacks has been increasing; and as the use of hand calculators becomes more common, the price of thumb tacks keeps on rising, too.

*To combat sulfur dioxide emissions from coal, EPA favors flue gas desulfurization systems, a method which allows the pollutant to be created first and tries to get rid of it afterwards. These desulfurization systems are costly, unreliable, and have other problems which were pointed out by P.H. Abelson in Science. The process gives rise to a soupy sludge containing fly ash and all kinds of other icky goo. "If EPA standards were to be met for all new stationary sources," wrote Abelson, "the production of sludge would rise to about 300 million tons a year." Russell Train fired back a letter longer than the original editorial. "Abelson's reference to the magnitude and severity of the sludge disposal problem is misleading," fumed the Grand Protector of the Environment. "EPA staff estimate that about 120 million tons of sludge would be produced each year." Abelson had pointed out that in 20 years the sludge would form a body 10 feet deep covering 240,000 acres, but, glory be, all is well again: By Train's figure, the sludge on those 240,000 acres would only be 4 feet deep.