opinion
New nuclear policy
‘a kamikaze act1
Last week Pres. Ronald Reagan issued his long-awaited
nuclear policy statement In that statement Reagan lifted
Jimmy Carter's ban on commercial recycling of spent nu
clear reactor fuel and aggressively called for breeder reactor
development. The policy statement also called for speedier
power reactor licensing and swift federal action — along with
states and nuclear industry — to prove the feasibility of
high-level atomic waste disposal
The Reagan annoucement must be viewed with nothing
short of horror. William Winpisinger, president of the Inter
national Association of Machinists called Reagan's nuclear
policy "a kamikaze act."
That’s an apt analogy for a nuclear policy that contains a
reckless disregard for the real dangers to human life and has
the potential to proliferate nuclear weaponry worldwide
The timing of Reagan’s nuclear policy is suspect in the
wake of the Diablo Canyon protests Why is the Reagan
administration purposely ignoring the anti-nuclear sen
timents of the country?
Winpisinger went on to say — “In terms of economics,
nuclear power is the most expensive, most inefficient and
most government-subsidized way to boil water ever designed
by man In terms of the nation’s health, each nuclear
power plant . is a communal cause of cancer."
If one were to gather the data on nuclear plant construc
tions around the country the evidence of cost overruns,
unsafe structural designs, inadequate safeguards, to men
tion only a few of the frequent problems, would overwhelm
ingly signal nuclear power should be approached with
extreme caution. If it should be approached at all.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said Reagan’s policy will
“create an artificial market for plutonium” that would ‘‘ex
acerbate the proliferation of nuclear weapons world wide "
Jimmy Carter banned commercial reprocessing in 1977 for
the certain possiblity that the technology would permit
plutonium being diverted for weapons programs Such a
source of plutonium was used by India in its clandestine
development of nuclear weapons.
Reagan’s policy all but destroys present international
safeguards against the spread of weapons made from
materials diverted from civilian power programs
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, called the Reagan policy
“creeping nuclear socialism ... a program of nuclear
boosterism and government intervention to aid the sagging
nuclear industry.”
The policy is a strange departure from the Reagan admin
istration's chant of less government intervention The nu
clear industry is totally inefficent and impractical in costs
The Reagan administration is providing what amounts to
government “welfare” for an industry the majority of people
in this country believe is unsafe.
Markey viewed the Reagan policy as “urging less safety
regulation, less public scrutiny of the atomic program, but
more taxpayer dollars thrown into the nuclear corporate
pot.”
But what’s more frightening, and all too probable, is
Markey’s contention that unregulated production of tons of
lethal plutonium will provide the raw materials for nuclear
bombs — even by unsophisticated terrorists
Reagan's nuclear policy is full of more dangers than
benefits for the country. To allow this policy to pass unchal
lenged spells disaster for the country’s future
The Emerald will accept and attempt to print all letters
containing fair comment on issues, ideas and topics of interest
to the University community.
The letters must be limited to 250 words, signed, and the
identification of the writer must be verified when the letter is
turned in to The Emerald offices, EMU 300
The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length,
style or content Publication is dependent upon the space
available
vours
Athletic ticket
Your editorial Thursday on
the new student athletic ticket
plan raised some good points
and correctly analyzed the sit
uation: the burden of support
ing UO athletics still is on
student shoulders
Unfortunately, however, your
comments stopped short of
suggesting a better way to deal
with the athletic subsidy issue
Editors must be more than
Monday-morning quaterbacks if
they expect to help their readers
understand difficult public
problems
Last year's ASUO President
Dave Eaton and Incidental Fee
Committee certainly would have
preferred to cut student support
of the athletic program, rather
than just shift from a full direct
subsidy to an indirect ticket sale
program But that wasn't possi
ble Pres Olum was firm that
students had to come up with
$766,571 for athletics one way
or another The ticket program
cut $222,505 from the direct
subsidy, a reduction of $5 per
term for students, on the as
sumption that a ticket program
is fairer to students who don’t
attend any events Admitted,
students who attend all games
and meets will pay more than
they would have under the full
subsidy, but that’s life Even at
the UO, there’s no free lunch
The Emerald editor isn't alone
in objecting to higher fees and
bigger taxes. Nor is he making
any earth-shattering sta
tements All of us would prefer
lower taxes and more services
Income taxes, property taxes,
cigarette taxes, liquor taxes,
gasoline taxes, incidental fees
the American system of taxa
tion is a vexing alternative to the
days of the Boston Tea Party
So what was gained by the
new ticket program, which are
pointed out to be "in theory,
sound, but in reality, shaky?"
The only answer may be time.
The success or failure of the
ticket sales will provide hard
statistics about student interest
in University athletics. That sort
of information will help the
ASUO executive, IFC, Pres
Olum, and, hopefully, the State
Board of Higher Education to
assess the fairness of direct vs
indirect student subsidy of ath
letics
You were wrong when you
said ASUO President Rich Wil
kins and myself refuse to com
ment publicly on who will ab
sorb the debt at the end of the
University’s two-year budget If
ticket sales fall short We have
said over and over that the bur
den of athletic support is still the
same as two years ago, on
students But we agree with you
that the posture of student in
volvement in athletic subsidy
negotiations remains a no-win
situation Until the state
Legislature changes the law on
allocation of incidental fees,
students have at best a weak
voice in the discussion of cam
pus finances.
The Emerald, the ASUO, and
every student at this University
should speak out on the athletic
subsidy issue It wasn't settled
by the new ticket-sale program
At most, it just was delayed until
a better system could be
developed
And in the card game of life, a
stall and pass may be infinitely
more productive than folding
with your aces still in the hole
Jim Edmunson
ASUO Vic* President
Supposition
In its opinion (Monday, Oct.5)
concerning the Revolutionary
Communist Youth Brigade. The
Emerald made the supposition
that the United States is a
democracy. To this assertion, I
would like to pose a couple
questions
Firstly, how is The Emerald
defining democracy? The
American Heritage Dictionary
defines It as “Government by
the people, exercised either dir
ectly, or through elected repre
sentatives."
Secondly, based on the ac
tions of America's central
government in the last five
years, can it claim to fit this
description? Since 1976, and
inspite of massive opposition to
nuclear proliferation, it has
continued Inspite of opposition
Popular opinion, of course, is
a sticky issue when there are
three major commercial televi
sion networks, and their
audience on any given night is
greater than that of all the books
published in the United States in
any given year One might
question how autonomous the
American people are in for
mulating their own opinions and
views in light of this un
precedented concentration of
power That the average Amer
ican is convinced that his or her
country is a democracy is not
surprising That he or she con
demns socialist countries as re
pressive dictatorships is not
surprising That he or she is not
familiar with America's relations
to popular massacres in El Sal
vador, Guatemala. Indonesia
and Angola is not surprising
That he or she have never been
told of workers' control of fac
tories and farms in Cuba.
Mozambique, the Soviet Union
or East Germany is not surpris
ing That our university news
paper falls into the same
groove, however, is upsetting
As students, I feel It is our job
to question everything And as a
student newspaper, I feel It is
The Emerald's job to help us
Christian Gunther
Junior, sociology
Rebels
So the "self-proclaimed
rebels with a cause," Young
Americans for Freedom, have
returned to campus As an ex
YAFer, I think that they are
patently absurd I’m, in fact,
forced to ask "Freedom for
whom?" To see this point let’s
examine some of their "freedom
oriented" policies from the early
1970’s, most of which were
espoused by their own publica
tion. New Guard:
1. They opposed the
renomination of Richard Nixon
in 1972, not because they had
the foresight to know that he
was a crook, but because he
was too liberal.
2. They produced buttons,
and probably expressed the
view elsewhere that we should
"Nuke Hanoi."
Ultimately, of course, the
"freedom” that they wish to
advocate isn't freedom at all,
but a renewal of
"McCarthyism ”
Michael J. Goodman
Graduate student,
political science