WHEN ANTINUKES ARE RIGHT

Two letters by antinukes to the Wall St. J. vehemently protested that their editorial comparing TMI and the Mexican disaster should not have "implied that nuclear energy poses less danger than LPG." They were right: this should not have been implied; it should have been unambiguously stated and supported by the results of a new, thorough and authoritative study by the American Nuclear Society, which makes even the Rasmussen Report obsolete, as will be explained in a moment.

Quite similarly, one of America's leading radiologists, Jane Fonda, was right in claiming that the incredible estimate of a nuclear accident "devastating an area the size of Pennsylvania" came out of some AEC report in the 1960s. Yes, it did; but why stop in the 1960s, why not go back to the 1820s when her spiritual ancestors opposed the railroads, and official reports claimed that the human body could not withstand speeds of 25 miles per hour?

What has escaped the antinuclear luminaries is that as experience accumulates and science develops, early beliefs become obsolete.

Until recently, the best available study was the 1975 Rasmussen Report (WASH 1400). Last September, the ANS published the Report of the Special Committee on Source Terms, which differs from the Rasmussen study mainly in two respects: First, it concentrates on the consequences of severe nuclear accidents rather than on the probability of their occurrence. Second, it reports detailed analyses and experimental work in chemistry performed to explain a recently discovered discrepancy: At TMI and all other accidental or intentional cases of a radioactive release from a damaged core to the environment, the dangerous parts of the radioactive inventory (such as iodine) were found to be present in only minute quantities, several orders below the hitherto accepted predictions.

The report is not difficult to read, but for laymen the shorter and less detailed (also less authoritative) reports suggested below may be easier.

The antinukes will, of course, say that the report is biased because it was sponsored by the ANS. This is saying that any report by the American Medical Association should be distrusted, for it deals with health, "but" is authored by physicians. But beyond that, this objection overlooks a simple fact: if all of the lab, field and computer tests are wrong, manipulated or misinterpreted, then the Union of Charlatans and Sorcerers (UPS) win make hay; but the members of the committee who wrote the report, and who work in the nuclear industry, will be the first to contract cancer.

They will also say that it is too early to draw conclusions. Indeed: During the past quarter century of nuclear power, hundreds of thousands have had their lives shortened in the non-nuclear fuel cycles by air pollution alone. (Accidents like the one in Mexico are spectacular, but insignificant in the total count.) But let us not be rash, and play it safe: let us wait until the needless deaths are in the millions. However, the real reason why this thorough study will make no difference to the media and their parrots is this: The UPS alleged (for no good reason) that the Rasmussen report was too optimistic by a factor of 1,000. But that would still make nuclear power between 100 and 1000 times safer than coal. If the parrots were unimpressed by a source that their own gurus estimate to be 100 times safer than what we live with now, what difference can a few additional powers of ten make?

You are dealing with an imbecile religion that cannot be dented by-experiment, records, natural laws, consistent logic or anything else that has the slightest connection with rationality.

[More. The ANS report is available for $24.50 from ANS, 555 N. Kensington Ave., La Grange Park, IL 60525; for easier reading, try "Realistic estimates of the consequences of nuclear accidents," by M. Levenson and F. Rahn, and the other articles in the special issue of Nuclear Technology, May 1981. An overview for the laymen is given in "Reactor accidents: a global reassessment of consequences," EPRI Journal, Jul/Aug 83, and a brief but insightful summary "Studies predict much reduced consequences from nuclear accidents" (July 84) is available from Mass. Voice of Energy, 8^th floor, 120 Boylston St., Boston, MA 02116.