THE ATOM AND EARTHQUAKES

When Time writes that the ultimate disaster is a nuclear plant undergoing an earthquake, its editors do not merely display ignorance of nuclear power, but of earthquakes and disasters in general.Of all energy facilities, nuclear plants are the only ones reasonably well protected against earthquakes; and the consequences of an earthquake-caused accident can be far more terrible for other energy facilities, such as hydroelectric dams quite apart from the drastically different probability.

Earthquake protection of nuclear plants is achieved not only by site selection, but also by structural design, flexible piping, extensive seismic testing of cores and other equipment before installation, automatic shutdown when sensors detect earth tremors, and a number of other measures required by tough earthquake protection standards that are imposed on nuclear plants (only).

There is, of course, no such thing as "absolutely" earthquakeproof, for there is no such thing as the " biggest possible" earthquake (each degree of the Richter scale corresponds to a 10 fold increase in intensity, e.g., 3 degrees higher means 1,000 times more intense). But in an earthquake, even Time's editors would doubtlessly rather be in a nuclear plant than in a BART train crossing the St. Andreas fault in a tube under San Francisco Bay, or for that matter, anywhere else in San Francisco, in the care of the city's Office of Emergency Services, where disaster relief would be conducted over 23 regular telephone lines passing through 5 regular exchanges. [More: "Goodbye, San Francisco," by M. Koughan, Harpers, Sep. 1975.]

But let's keep to energy facilities. There are several hydroelectric dams in the US, which could almost instantly kill more than 100,000 each if ruptured; one of them, in California, could kill more than 200,000.

[Study by the Univ. of California, presented at State Legislature hearings - because of potential terrorism we will give no further specifics.] In comparison, if the highly improbable happened, and radioactivity were released from a nuclear plant in an earthquake, the great majority of deaths in population centers would take place from 10 to 40 years later, and their number could be detected only by sophisticated statistical methods .

We voice no opinion about what should be done about those dams; but certainly the scaremongers who led the demonstrations against the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California had not the slightest concern for human lives or safety, or they would have been more concerned with dams. (Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand earthquakes of more than 6 on the Richter scale.)

The date of the demonstrations, the anniversary of the Japanese nuclear bombings, was itself a foolish publicity stunt. Why not make August 6 the national day to protest all nuclear power? That was the day (1890, at Auburn Prison, N.Y.) when the electric chair was used for the first time.

The leaders at Diablo were old acquaintances. Harry Commoner, whose grotesque book on power claims that a nuclear bomb is "the only other existing man-made device which has the physical capability of causing . . . catastrophe in a single event" Such as might be caused by a nuclear power plant. Ignoring dam bursts or LNG; explosions, this respectable scientist gave a sfmple of cold reasoning based on scientific evidence. "I'll speak loud enough to get through your thick heads," he shouted into the microphone (Sun-Bulletin, San Luis Obispo, 8/1 1/77); "nuclear power is a failure!"

And as it to remove any doubts about his rationality that might still linger, he attacked that bunch of pro-nuclear fanatics, the Carter administration. "The White House," charged he, "is going to push for nuclear power as fast as it can. "

Daniel Ellsberg, as law-abiding as Commoner is erudite, praised those who were to be arrested in the occupation of the power plant's ground: but as on previous occasions, he let others be martyrs without getting arrested himself.

And Richard Hubbard, one of the three ex-GE "experts" who makes money by knocking nuclear power (AtE Feb.77) as directed by the CIF's para-religious teachings on the "Third Dispensation," has been intervening to stop the plant's license, for his concerns for safety do not extend to the more dangerous forms of power generation - a year ago, when this writer asked him in public which form of electric power was safer than nuclear, he kept evading an answer in spite of repeated prodding.