]]]]]]]]]]]     PRO-NUCLEAR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR         [[[[[[[[[[[[ 
              By Hank Phillips [Freeman 78753PHIL]           (9/10/88)

[Long-time AtE subscriber Hank Phillips in Austin, Tex., is a champion 
Letters-to-the-Editor writer, who has had more pro-nuclear letters 
published than anyone else I know. Here are some of them. P.B.]

	The best trick I've learned in getting letters published is to 
type them on the back of supporting material from Access to Energy or 
a scientific journal.  Here are a handful that made it--

NUCLEAR AGENCY SCORED:   Statesman 11/23/80
     I was shocked to read of the nuclear regulatory agency's apparent 
capitulation to local antinuclear agitators. It is one thing to squander 
money, even when it is somebody else's, another thing entirely to waste 
people's lives via political manipulation.
     The officials of the NRC cannot plead ignorance of the fact that each 
one-month delay of a nuclear plant costs consumers about $15 million in 
interest, escalation and alternate power. Neither can they deny that the 
"alternate power" used to make up for the missing nuke costs an extra
20 to 100 lives per year.
     I suppose one could argue that the NRC is only responsible for 
protecting the citizens who pay for it from hazards associated with nuclear 
anergy and are thereby absolved of responsibility for deaths attributable 
to their delaying tactics. Such callous evasiveness is wasted on those who 
seek to maximize safety on ALL fronts.
     The blame cannot be shifted to Houston Light & Power or Brown & Root 
for they are doing the best they can in fighting their way through an 
artificial swamp of red tape and induced hysteria. Despite all that, the 
South Texas Nuclear Project is okay by me.

NUCLEAR ENERGY 7/29/88
  Professor Woodson's Public Forum article on the Nuclear Project 
was a perfect example of the moral cowardice that has hindered the 
development of nuclear energy.  Abetted by careless reporters, 
energy opponents circulate the most appalling lies about imagined nuclear 
hazards.  Unethical lawyers and politicians have exploited the resulting 
hysteria and greatly increased the monetary costs of nuclear electricity.
  It is only natural that persons unschooled in the technical aspects of 
nuclear generation be concerned about having deformed children.  So did 
Professor Woodson point out that nuclear energy causes fewer deaths and 
disabilities per energy produced than any other source?  Did he mention 
that the emissions are less radioactive than those from a coal plant? or 
that the wastes become safer than coal wastes after 600 yrs? or that radon 
gas trapped by energy conservation produces a higher radiation dose? No!  
The prattling about dollar costs, diversification and investment returns 
only reinforces the suspicion that the industry is lying through its teeth 
about nuclear safety.  With friends like these, who needs enemies?
---in the published version, the Editors changed "lies" to "statements" 
and "moral cowardice" to "thinking."

NUKES SAFER THAN FOSSILS: 7/11/80
     Armies of professional as well as amateur propagandists have made it 
their business to panic the public with scare stories and economic 
gobbledygook in a concerted effort to force Austin out of the project.
     Forget the money the city stands to save and concentrate on human 
lives for a moment. Coal plants cost us over 45,000 lives per year from 
lung cancers and mining accidents. Sure this is more than made up for by 
the increased life expectancy we enjoy as a result of our higher standard 
of living derived from coal use, but there is no need to settle for that 
when we have a safer method on hand--safer based on experience as well as 
the opinions of the best minds in the world. If anyone can be likened to a 
murderer, it is the person who ignores these facts and propagates lies in 
order to further their political interests.
     Know Nukes...they're safer than fossils.  

NUCLEAR ENERGY HEALTHIEST:  8/21/83
     The statement in a letter (Aug. 3) that no one has been able to prove 
that nuclear power is safe is meaningless. Energy conversion is dangerous, 
period.
     The question to be addressed is: which of the methods available to us 
is the safest way to generate electricity? The answer is nuclear power. 
     Emission standards for nuclear plants are a hundred times lower than 
for oil or coal fired plants. Coal alone causes over 45,000 deaths every 
year and oil and gas explosions add to this gruesome toll on an almost 
daily basis. The cost in lives per unit of energy generated is hundreds of 
times lower for nuclear power than for any other method except hydro, which 
is still less safe than nuclear.       
     The fact that nuclear power is the cheapest option is just icing on 
the cake. Not only will we spend less on energy, the money we spend will 
stay right here in the U.S. instead of being shipped off to some desert 
halfway around the world to become a trade deficit.
     Go nuclear, it's healthier.  

REACTORS      5/11/86
     The funniest thing about Soviet reactor accidents is the reaction they 
invoke among American media and opinion-molders.  Whether disintegrating 
worldwide in crash orbits or spraying radionuclides well beyond Europe, we 
can count on apologetic bits and pieces tucked back into a dull section.  I 
can't say I miss the screaming headlines  and hand-wringing columns that 
follow our own reactor accidents for months on end... but I'm still 
worried.  The silence of the "concerned" scientists and social physicians 
has me wondering if the radiation has made me deaf or them lose their 
voices.
     A likelier explanation is that they are saving their energy for more 
important things.  Foremost among these is the task of convincing the 
public that although the Soviets lie about  and disallow on-site inspection 
of ordinary reactor accidents, we can take their word about nuclear arms 
treaties -- again with no onsite verification. If they succeed, abetted by 
our trusted media watchdogs, they will once again prove that nobody ever 
goes broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American voter.

Reference: H L Mencken, who else?  --Hank Phillips

                         *    *    *

Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page