I
Nuclear power:
more problems
This week marks the fourth anniversary of the acci
dent at Three Mile Island. Since the near catastrophic
melting of the inner core of TMI 2, as the plant is called,
the utility responsible for the plant and the nuclear in
dustry in general has worked to improve its image and re
main indiscreet at the same time.
This hasn’t worked in Oregon. The Washington
Public Power Suppy System (WPPSS), the nation’s largest
issuer of tax-exempt bonds, is dealing with the default on
billions of dollars of bonds and law-suits. Two of the five
plants have been stopped. One is mothballed and one lies
unfinished. Only one of the five is operating.
Since TMI, the industry has worked hard to regulate
itself and prove the “safety” of nuclear power. An In
stitute of Nuclear Power Operators set up after TMI in
vestigates and evaluates all the plants, issuing papers on
safety and establishing a network of case reports on
“events” at nuclear power plants.
Perhaps the biggest reason nuclear power plants are
not on their way out is the amount of energy they present
ly supply. Currently 12 percent of the nation’s energy is
nuclear and twice that amount is possible if the 65 plants
now under construction were finished.
Three Mile island was the beginning of a rethinking
of national policy on nuclear power. However, the industry
has worked and succeeded in countering this, despite the
fact that the inherent problems in the nuclear industry
have not been met: namely, waste disposal.
Federal deadlines to dispose of low-level waste sites
by 1986 will not be met. No permanent dump sites, only
temporary ones, like Hanover, have been established.
Human error is the major long-standing problem for
operational plants. Little has been done to train operators
to deal with crisis situations — even at TMI which rates
seven out of 12 of its priority problems to be management
related ones.
Rising utility bills may be the best defense against
building more nuclear power plants— plants without pro
per emergency “event” precautions, plants without
transportation networks to move radioactive waste, plants
without radioactive waste disposal sites.
Meanwhile, though TMI is only one-third through
cleaning-up the March 28,1879 accident they are planning
a "Run-By.” Zealous pro-nuclear power supporters can
pay $5 to run past the cooling towers and show their sup
port of their plant — improve the image.
opinion
j letters
Who cares
After reading the letter
about fashion by Drew
O’Rouke, my main thought
was "Who the hell cares?”
O’Rouke, Oregonians are a
laid back sort of people. We
wear what is comfortable. That
is not to say we don't wear
nice clothes. We are only con
cerned with making ourselves
presentable to the average
John Smith. What you suggest
is that people spend hundreds
of dollars to wear designer
clothes.
As far as your comparison
to Eugene businessmen with
Wall Street businessmen, I
have yet to see anyone dress
ed in a polyester suit I That Is a
little far-fetched. If in
dividualism includes clashing
color combinations and Items
that were never meant to be
worn together. (Bermuda
shorts and paisley ties), then
leave me out. That son of
dressing doesn't dictate style,
it shows bad taste.
ff you feel that you can't find
the clothes you desire here,
then get out of Oregon,
O'Rouke. Go to the places
where you can be on top of the
trends and be able to feed your
vanity until your eyes bug out,
like California, New York or
France.
O’Rouke, fashion does not
make a person kind loving or
intelligent. The clothes don't
make the man, the man makes
the clothes.
Kritton Hybartson
music education
Word gender
This letter regards Harry
Esteve's column concerning
sexist language in yesterday's
Emerald.
One who chairs a commit
tee may be a “chairman" or a
“chairwoman,” however, they
are never a "chairer."
The correct, non-sexist term
for one who chairs a group is
simply “chair.”
Because the "chair"
presides, the term president is
also correct.
As writers in the media, one
needs to utilize one’s existing
non-sexist terms before resor
ting to one's own grammatical
inventions.
C. Bergeron
junior, visual design
Pro Watt
James Watt is one of the
best friends our nation can
have. In advocating private
ownership of government
lands rather than the unjust
seizures of more private lands,
he is attempting to perpetuate
the system that has made this
the gr jatest nation on earth —
free enterprise.
My grandmother once own
ed part of a Florida island in
the 1950s that was seized by
the government to preserve its
undisturbed wilderness.
Despite the fact that the
government had justified
seizure of this land to protect
its pristine nature, they
authorized the building of
docks and various structures
and began a ferry service to
the island.
Public ownership took away
any private incentive to keep
the land clean The formerly
privately owned wilderness
now resembles a publicly own
ed garbage dump gaining
the name "beercan beach."
Government ownership wasn’t
the cureall after all, actually
doing more harm than good.
72 percent of Oregon is
government owned, and LCDC
squelches development of
most of the remaining 28 per
cent of private land. Oregon
thus is destined to remain in
economic stagnation unless
the goverment adopts a
laissez-faire approach. Oregon
public lands should be put up
for sale as Watt advocates,
and LCDC must be struck
down as unconstitutional.
This would reduce property
taxes and allow our state
economy to grow.
It is ridiculous to believe
that federal or state govern
ments can preserve land bet
ter than local governments
and free enterprise. Pseudo
intellectual liberal college pro
fessors, Tip O’Neills, Jane
Fondas, and Ted Kennedys all
fail to realize that, despite over
50 years of their intense
socialistic indoctrination of
our nation’s youth, free enter
prise still emerges as the
dominant and superior force in
America. Private ownership is
the only real and fair answer to
mismanaged federal lands.
Brandon Shepard
Misconception
Several concerned students
have written letters complain
ing that their Incidental Fee
Committee money is funding
subversive, political organiza
tions like Students for a
Nuclear Free Future. They
have expressed some
misconceptions that I would
like to set straight.
emerald
The Oregon Daily ErwiH) is published Monday through
Friday escept dunng week and vacation*, by in* Oregon
Dally Emarald Publishing Co a It* University ol Oregon.
Eugene. OP 97403
The Emerald operates independently ol in* University
with ollw.es on in* third floor ol th* Ert> Memorial Union and is
a member of the Associated Press
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Aaalatar.i News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
Ci/orts Editor
Aaaociata Sports Editor
Entadammanl Editor
Night Editor
Higher Education
Departments and Schools
Student Government
Feat urea
Politics
Student ServicealCcmmuniiy
General SUN
Advertising Manager
Claesitied Advertising
Production Manager
Controtter
Marry E Steve
John Mealy
Marian Green
Cort Fernaid
Joan Nytand
Bob Baker
Mike Riplinger
Paul Danzer
Jonathan Slagle
Cort Fernaid
Sandy Johnstone
Frank Shaw
Richard Burr
Sean Meyers
Michele Matassa
Ateta Zak
Darlene Gore
Sally Oliar
Victoria Koch
Jean Ownbey
Sterling Coke argues that
nearly everything SNuFF has
printed advocates “political
action that would...take the
United States on a path away
from nuclear power." Not true.
In the past few years SNuFF
has focused exclusively on the
arms race.
Coke also complains that
SNuFF spent this incidental
fees on an advertisement sup
porting the nuclear freeze. Not
true. The ad was paid for by
the individuals whose names
appeared in the ad. SNuFF
also did not spend any money
to send protestors to Vanden
bufg/Thief protestors wbnt on
their own acCdliht u&hfb their
own money.
SNuFF is an educational
organization with one political
belief: Nuclear war is an un
thinkable catastrophe, and
therefore, we should adamant
ly work for disarmament. We
are committed to educating
the campus community about
the dangers presented by the
nuclear arms race and to
discussing possible alter
natives to its continuation.
America needs to discuss
this issue and SNuFF hopes to
help facilitate that discussion.
We invite everyone to write an
article for our newsletter ex
plaining their beliefs regarding
the arms race.
Coke doesn't want to sup
port SNuFF with his incidental
fee, but what about the
students who don't want to
support the athletic depart
ment or the Emerald? What
about Islamic students who
don't want to support a Jewish
Student Union and vice versa?
Nobody agrees with every
organization that is funded.
The incidental fee is designed
to fund student organizations
based on their needs and how
well they represent the stu
dent body. SNuFF’s $220
breaks down to roughly a half
cent per student per term. If
opponents of SNuFF would
form an organization opposing
disarmament, I would support
their funding based on the
number of students involved
and their contribution to the
campus community. I think
such a group could help
facilitate a campus-wide
discussion of the arms race,
and that is what we need, not
bickering over pennies.
Bill Hall mar*
sophomore, psychology