Exclusive Interview with Shuttle Pilot Robert Crippen


Exclusive Interview with Shuttle Pilot Robert Crippen

SCIENCE UPDATE/BIOLOGY2,4,5-T: More Evidence to Drop the BanSCIENCE UPDATE/TECHNOLOGYAdvance in Mass Spectrometry Will Aid Fusion DevelopmentFEF NEWSAnatomy of a Slander: FEF 'Bad' Because It's So Effective?Pa. Meeting Initiates Fight to Open TMI 1DepartmentsEDITORIALTHE LIGHTNING RODLETTERSNEWS BRIEFSVIEWPOINTINSIDE ENERGYFEF NEWSSCIENCE PRESS REVIEWDISPLAY ADSFormer congressman Mike McCormack addressing the FEF conferenceon fusion and national security May 13.From the Editor's DeskThe presidential victory of French Socialist Party candidate FrancoisMitterrand May 10 is an unexpected setback for the supporters ofnuclear power and economic growth. Already there are reports thatMitterrand plans to stop construction on five nuclear plants. In this issue(page 51) Pierre Aigrain, former French secretary for research, presentsthe view of French science that prevailed under Valery Giscard d'Estaing,Mitterrand's predecessor. Fusion will continue to cover the energy andscience issues in France, and we are expanding the French-languagenewsletter, La Lettre de Fusion, as well as organizing activities in France.Other items of note: Don't miss the report on the DOE's Fusion PowerCoordinating Committee (page 11); Interior Secretary Watt's testimonyon strategic minerals (page 15); a Fusion interview with the not-soimpartialCongressional Office of Technology Assessment (page 50),Friedwardt Winterberg's latest comments on the X-ray laser (page 54),and a new column, Inside Energy, by William Engdahl (page 47).Coming up in September is a cover story on why the world needsmore people—10 billion, according to Fusion editor-in-chief Dr. StevenBardwell. Also, a full report on the FEF conference on fusion and nationalsecurity May 13.Marjorie Mazel HechtManaging Editor

Lightning RodContinued from page 5"Isn't this a bit far to travel for atan?" I asked with a flippancy ofphrase which could not disguise thetrembling in my voice."These sun-worshippers had thehigh principle to oppose at all timesand places the construction of dams,canals, irrigation ditches—in fact, anythingwet from a backyard pool to anartificial lake," the parson replied."They showed a remarkable consistency,for which they receive this eventreatment in the solar cooker as recompense."By this time I was near to pleadingwith my guide if there were not someshortcut back to civilization we mightemploy. As if he read my thoughts,he asked if perhaps I might accept amode of transportation which "helpseverybody get where they're all goingfaster."No sooner had I given my eagerassent, then I found myself strappedinto a device that looked something

SENATE RESTORES SOME NASA CUTSThe Senate Commerce Committee voted May 6 to add $100.7 million to the$6.1 billion budget proposed for NASA in fiscal year 1982. This addition doesnot come near to restoring the budget to the original $6.7 billion levelrequested by the Carter administration. However, like the budget authorizationvoted up on the House side in April, the Senate budget restores fundingto the most critical parts of the program that were axed by Office ofManagement and Budget Director Stockman.Of the $100.7 million add-on, $55 million will go to NASA's aeronauticsresearch programs and the remaining $45 million to its space programs,including the Upper Atmospheric Research Program, materials testing inspace, and the Spacelab that will be put into orbit by the Shuttle. This is stillan austerity budget for NASA, but the language in the committee's reportleaves open the possibility for a fifth Shuttle orbiter, the resumption of theinternational Solar Polar Mission, and the funding of other important NASAspace programs—when and if the current budget cutting fever subsides.Breeder Reactor Corp.The second intermediate heat exchangerbeing delivered to the ClinchRiver breeder reactor site, September1980.HOUSE COMMITTEE VOTES TO KILL CLINCH RIVER BREEDERThe House Committee on Science and Technology passed an amendmentto the Department of Energy's fiscal year 1982 budget May 7 that wouldterminate the Clinch River fast breeder reactor project. The 21 to 19 vote wasthe result of an alliance of Democrats who are long-standing foes of thebreeder project and austerity-minded Republicans. In previous years, theRepublicans on the committee had voted overwhelmingly for the breeder,but this time there were eight desertions to the antibreeder camp.The committee vote, although a foreboding setback, does not inflict finaldefeat on the embattled U.S. breeder project. The probreeder forces on theHouse Science and Technology Committee now have the options of convincingthe committee to reconsider its vote or of bypassing the committee andattaching an amendment to the budget on the floor of the House. The Senate,meanwhile, is expected to fully fund the project.After the House committee vote, Senate majority leader Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) commented, "This is the first vote. But it is not the final word on thisproject. During the four years of the Carter administration, it was an endlessbattle to keep enough funds in the budget just to keep the Clinch Riverbreeder project alive. With the commitment by President Reagan to completethis project, I am confident that we will be able to restore a funding level thatwill clearly demonstrate this administration's goal of moving ahead with thebreeder reactor process."CDIF GENERATES ITS FIRST MHD ELECTRIC POWEROn May 4, the Component Development and Integration Facility (CDIF) inMontana, the only fully integrated test facility in the United States usingmagnetohydrodynamics (MHD) energy conversion, produced its first amountof electrical energy. The facility was dedicated less than a month earlier onApril 24 (see Washington news). Four hundred kilowatts of electricity weregenerated on this second test run. The CDIF is designed to produce 50megawatts of power when fully operational. The MHD process converts thegases from combusted fuel directly to electricity without using steam turbines.MEXICO PREPARES TO DOUBLE SCIENTIFIC TRAINING BY 1986Mexican Undersecretary for Education Elisco Mendoza Berrueto announcedApril 15 that a new government plan for higher education will more thandouble the number of students engaged in higher education studies in Mexicoover the next five years. There are currently 800,000 students enrolled inhigher education, he reported. Under the new plan now being drawn up, thenumber will rise to more than 2 million by 1986. "It is urgent to correct errorsand make serious efforts to reach an acceptable level of scientific andtechnological research," Berrueto said.

SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST ENVIRONMENTALISTSThe U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases April 28 that promise tosignificantly reduce the number and impact of environmentalist lawsuits thathave crippled the U.S. economy for more than a decade. In California v. SierraClub, the Court ruled unanimously that private citizens and organizationshave no standing to sue under a federal law protecting rivers and wetlands;only the federal government has statutory authority to enforce the law.At issue in this case was one of the largest water-diversion projects in thecountry, the 42-mile Peripheral Canal planned to siphon water from northernCalifornia for use in the chronically water-short southern part of the state.This project has been held up for more than a decade by the Sierra Club andits allies, who sued the state of California under the federal Rivers and HarborsAppropriations Act, charging that the canal would pollute northern California'sfresh water with salt water. The Court's decision not only will permit theproject to go forward, but will stymie a favorite environmentalist tactic—thefiling of legal actions by assorted private individuals and organizations andclass action suits on behalf of anything that walks, flies, swims, or crawls.In a separate water-pollution case, the Supreme Court decided that the stateof Illinois could not impose more restrictive clean-up measures upon the cityof Milwaukee than those of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.Atommash in the Soviet Union, theworld's first mass production facilityfor nuclear reactors.ATOMMASH PRODUCES WORLD'S FIRST MASS ASSEMBLY REACTORThe first pressurized water nuclear reactor rolled off the assembly line at thenew Atommash manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union this spring. Atommashis the world's first mass assembly plant for floating nuclear reactors. A total ofseven 1,000-megawatt PWRs are scheduled to be produced in the plant's firstyear of operation. A similar facility planned for the United States, Westinghouse'sOffshore Power System, has been in mothballs since 1978, when theadministration of New jersey Governor Brendan Byrne denied state utilitiesthe rate pass-on they would need to amortize the project.NRC LICENSE DELAYS WILL COST U.S. UTILITIES $15.5 BILLIONU.S. utilities, which currently have 10 new nuclear power reactors at or nearcompletion, estimate that continuing delays in obtaining licenses from theNuclear Regulatory Commission will cost them $15.5 billion in substituteenergy costs. This estimate was given in congressional testimony in Marchprepared at the request of Rep. Tom Bevill (D-Ala.), chairman of the HouseSubcommittee on Energy and Water Development. The 10 plants, all scheduledfor full operation by 1983, are located in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania,Ohio, Louisiana, and the Carolinas.FATE OF WEST GERMAN FAST BREEDER UNCERTAINWest Germany's Ministry of Research and Technology approved $200 millionin interim funding this spring for the 300-megawatt Kalkar fast breeder reactorproject. This commitment will enable Schnell-Brueter-Kernkraftwerks (SKB),the operator, to place new equipment orders and continue construction onthe facility for approximately six months. However, industry sources arestressing that the fate of the breeder project is by no means settled. TheBelgian and Dutch governments, which together have been contributing about30 percent of the project's costs, are demanding a ceiling on their contribution,although they have not specified the amount. SKB estimates that the totalproject will now cost $2.5 billion, three times the original 1973 estimate.LOUSEWORT LAURELS TO PRINCE CHARLESThis month's Lousewort Laurels award goes to its first royal recipient,England's Prince Charles. Among his many homilies to Americans on his recenttrip here, the Prince offered this gem of advice: "We have to learn that themodern way of growing great is growing small, so that man can operate insmaller units."August 1981

With 46 years experience inwater resources, I have witnessedmany accomplishments. Butover the past several years, I haveseen our water resources developmentgoing steadily downhill. Inorder to reverse this trend of decliningwater resource development,we must prepare a total waterprogram.No matter how you view it, theever-changing pattern of life in ournation is accompanied by one constantreminder: We require waterfor many uses, and the uses forwater are increasing.As in the past, we cannot expectto forecast the shifting priorities inwater use with a great deal of accuracy,but we can predict thatwater demand and water use willcontinue. These uses are bound togenerate conflicts. However, suchconflicts are to be expected andmust be resolved in order toachieve a proper balance in meetingour water requirements andother requirements as well.Taking a page from our history,we must avoid the mistakes of thepast, such as the piecemeal solutionsthat have been the trademarksof settling every water crisis fromthe battles in the West over waterholes to the devastating floods ofthe 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.We must not only consider futureneeds; we must continue to improveand provide for existingwater needs. We cannot rely solelyon conservation, defined by someas less demand and less use.We must adopt true conservation,which is wise use.Through the years, in carrying outwater programs, too much emphasishas been placed on numbers.We failed to establish a program, agoal, or an objective. Instead, wejustified each individual project byso-called benefit to cost analysis.Then came the legislative productsof the 1960s and 1970s—NEPA, cleanwater, wild rivers, scenic rivers,trails, fish and wildlife, endangeredspecies, and many others, all accompaniedby new ground rules.America Needs aTotal Water Programby B. Joseph TofaniThere was no benefit to cost analysishere, just total programs withgoals and objectives. Why not takea page from these legislative acts—acts that did not develop programsin a piecemeal fashion but by a totalprogram approach, which has beenvery effective.Instead of the piecemeal approachto water policy, it would bemore logical to develop a waterprogram and an agency to implementthe policies that such anagency would generate. I believethe best approach in the managementprocess is to designate oneagency and assign to it the responsibilityfor developing a water programfor each of our river basins.This should start with an agencythat is given nationwide capabilityto conduct river basin studies, utilizinginput from other federal,state, local, and private agencies. Awealth of material and nationalwater assessments is available asstarting points.Within this framework, I suggesta two-phase solution. First, developa program for individual river basins,since each basin has differentrequirements. I recommend theCorps of Engineers, which developeda water program many yearsago and has the nationwide capability,to do it again. The responsibilityof the Corps would be aimedsolely at developing the programand not at becoming involved withpolicy issues.The second phase, the policyphase, should be developed by aninteragency arrangement. There isno doubt that the federal governmentwill continue to participate inone way or another in water resourcesinvestment. It naturally followsthat the agencies that plan,construct, and operate the projectsshould be members of the group—like Army, Interior, Agriculture, andEPA. This organization should beheaded by an independent chairmanappointed by the Presidentand confirmed by the Senate, whowould obtain input from states andlocal governments and regional, interstate,and private organizations.It should also have an advisorygroup representing the states or regions.The responsibilities of the organizationwould be to review thebasin programs, set priorities, recommendwho should build theprojects and who should pay—inshort, to make the necessary policiesfor a total water program. Inno way should this organization becomeinvolved in the operation ofthe federal, state, local, or privateagencies.The agency would act as an overallcoordinating body. All its programs,policies, guidelines, andpriorities should receive the ap-Continued on page 22An aerial view of Shasta DamLake on the SacramentoRiver.and

Fusion ReportFPCC Quarterly Meeting:'Moving Ahead with Uncertainty'Not only is the new administration'spolicy toward fusion uncertain, thereis even "an uncertainty as to who thepeople are who will be overseeingthe program," Edwin E. Kintner toldthe April 14 meeting of the Departmentof Energy's Fusion Power CoordinatingCommittee (FPCC) at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.The FPCC is an advisory body toOffice of Fusion Energy Director Kintner,and its membership includes theheads of each magnetic fusion program,industry representatives, andconsultants.Kintner noted that in this uncertainsituation, one of the major questionsbeing raised about fusion was "itsdesirability versus a panoply of energyoptions,", including the nuclear fastbreeder reactor."We have to work hard for the nextdecade," Kintner said, "to settle thequestions of the technology, costs,and environmental effects of fusionvis a vis all the others. Fusion is thelast known energy source for mankind."The first day of the open meetingwas spent reviewing the results andprogress in the fusion experiments atthe MIT laboratory. After a summaryof MIT's energy and fusion facilitiesby Dr. Ron Davidson, head of MIT'splasma physics program, the most recentresults on MIT's Alcator-C tokamakdevice were reviewed by Dr. RonParker, who directs the Alcator program.For the past year, the Alcator hasshown a disturbing leveling off in predictedconfinement of the fusionplasma, Parker said. It had been predictedthat the time the plasma couldbe confined would increase in a linearrelationship to the increase in theplasma's magnetic field strength anddensity. However, at the point thatthe key fusion parameter—the densityof the fusion fuel multiplied by thetime that the plasma is confined—hasedged toward the region of 10 14 particlesper square centimeter per second,the experimental results haverefused to progress further.A Physics ChallengeVarious experiments have beenperformed to make sure that impuritiesin the plasma from the wall of theThe Alcator-C tokamak fusion experiment at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The past year's experimentalresults have raised new questions about the relationship between energy confinement and density.Fusion Report August 1981 FUSION 11

vacuum vessel are not causing thefusion plasma to cool off, but theplasma has been found to be relatively"pure."An important clue to the nature ofthe problem, however, has been ameasured difference of an order ofmagnitude between the ion and electrontemperatures as the density hasincreased. This loss of thermal energyin a reactor has led some scientists toquestion the accuracy of measurementboth of the ion and electrontemperatures.Parker reported that new diagnosticinstruments are under developmentto more accurately measure the ionand electron temperatures. But heasked the scientists present fromaround the country to help solve aproblem that might otherwise preventthe high magnetic field Alcator tokmakfrom reaching the near breakevendensity and confinement timerequired to go forward with the nextgeneration tokamak experiments.Density ScalingSome of the participants at theFPCC meeting were confident thatexisting theories could account forthe seemingly anomalous energy confinementresults from recent experiments.Several researchers at the MITAlcator laboratory have indicated thatthe scaling relationship between energyconfinement and density has notbeen violated, but that this relationshipwas more complicated than itappeared in the usual, empirical form.In fact, these researchers point outthat the theoretical form of the scalinglaw has always shown a sensitive dependenceon the density and currentprofile within the plasma (not just theaverage density), and this profile dependencegoes a long way towardresolving the anomaly. According tothese researchers, the profile dependenceof the scaling law gives researchersa much wider range for experimentationand more flexibility inthe design of tokamak reactors.The most exciting reports givenduring the meeting were those onnew experiments coming on line andnew ideas that expand the dimensionsof the experimental work in magneticfusion research.For example, Dr. Harry Dreicerfrom the Los Alamos National ScientificLaboratory in New Mexico reportedon the preliminary results obtainedon a new reversed field pinchdevice at LASL, which began plasmadischarge Feb. 18. Dr. Tahiro Ohkawafrom General Atomic Co. in SanDiego then reported that GeneralAtomic's new reversed field pinch experimentalso began operations inFebruary and that it looked as if themachine would be as successful as theestablished ZT-40 device at Los Alamos.One of the most intriguing discussionswas by the new director of thePrinceton Plasma Physics Laboratory,Dr. Harold Furth. Furth has beenthinking about the possibility of combiningthe best aspects of the traditionaltokamak and the older stellaratoridea. Although pioneered in theUnited States in the 1960s, the stellaratoris not under current developmenthere.A stellarator is a donut-shaped fusiondevice, which, unlike the tokamak,does not have an electrical currentflowing in the plasma. All themagnetic fields that contain the stellarator'sfusion fuel are outside thevacuum vessel, and the plasma is containedby nonsymmetric helical magnetwindings.Furth suggested that it might bepossible to develop a combined tokamakand torsitron (a type of stellarator)called a tokatron. Using aseries of hand-drawn sketches, Furthsparked the curiosity of the FPCC scientistswith this unusual combination.Impressed with the progress in theexperimental results, the new ideasgenerated by a "better understandingof the physics of fusion," and thechallenging questions raised in theMIT program, fusion director Kintnertold the open FPCC session that inthe near future "we need a machinethat produces enough fusion energyto answer all of the questions."The Stockman BudgetDuring the second day of the meetring, Dr. Paul Gray, president of MIT,gave a brief welcoming speech to theFPCC. Gray said he had just comefrom a meeting of the Association ofAmerican Universities in Washingtonwith two cabinet members and thehead of the National Science Foundation.He reported that during dinner"OMB director David Stockmangave a one-hour discourse on thebudget-making process for 1982-84.The AAU members were verygloomy.""There was unanimity among universitypresidents," Gray said, "thatthis would gradually disassemble theability of America to meet the demandfor engineers and scientists."—Marsha FreemanASDEX Runs CleanMajor Advance inTokamak ImpuritiesFusion scientists at the Max PlanckInstitute for Plasma Physics in Garching,West Germany, have achieved amajor advance in controlling the impuritiesthat plague efficient magnetic-confinementplasmas with theirASDEX (Axial Symmetrical DivertorExperiment) tokamak, according tosources in the U.S. fusion community.The ASDEX has successfully produceda virtually pure hydrogen plasma withan effective Z of 1; that is, no impurities.The problem of impurities is a majorone for magnetic-confinement fusion,since these heavier elementsdrawn from the walls of the tokamakcause rapid cooling and thus energyloss through electromagnetic radiation.The ASDEX was built to producethe purest plasma possible using poloidaldivertor fields. The magneticdivertor is a sort of "hole" in themagnetic bottle that contains theplasma, which diverts part of theplasma out of the tokamak so that theimpurities can be removed. The firstexperiments in May 1980 showed aclear decrease in plasma radiationwith an exceptionally long plasma dischargetime of 3 seconds, using ohmicheating alone.Now that the ASDEX has been upgradedwith neutral beam heaters and8 megawatts of heating, the initialresults seem to be completely sue-

cessful. ASDEX has now operated withits divertor removing the impurities,and a special predischarge cleaningprocedure has also been used successfully.This involves putting a thinfilm of titanium on the reactor chamberwall, "titanium gettering."The Impurities ProblemThe single most important technologicalbarrier to building a successfulprototype fusion reactor like the FusionEngineering Device or the UnitedNations' Intor is the problem of impurities.Thus the ASDEX results, ifconfirmed, will be of great importancein fulfilling the mandate of theMagnetic Fusion Energy EngineeringAct of 1980, "to achieve at the earliestpracticable time, but not later thanthe year 1990, operation of a magneticfusion egineering device based on thebest available confinement concept."ASDEX's effective Z of 1 means thatthe plasma is of completely ionizedhydrogen. The Z of any atomic elementis equal to the number of protonsit has in its nucleus, which is alsothe atomic number of that element.When hydrogen, for example, withatomic number 1, or 1 proton, isstripped of its electrons, it has a positiveelectrical charge proportional toitsZ.Impurities cool the fusion plasmasthrough radiation, thus decreasingthe chances for commercial feasibility.The effect of the impurities ismeasured in terms of Z, the effectiveionic charge of the plasma. The rateat which a plasma radiates away electromagneticenergy is proportional tothe square of Z, or the effective Z.If just 1 atom of iron from the wallsof the tokamak is added for every 500hydrogen atoms in the plasma, therate at which the plasma loses energywill more than double. This is becauseiron has a Z of 26, and the square of26 is 676. The square of 1 is 1 for purehydrogen, but adding iron's square of676 to this figure and then dividing bythe 501 atoms, increases the effectiveZ of the overall plasma from 1 toalmost 2. This why even minute quantitiesof impurities have such a devastatingeffect on the attempt to keepthe plasma hot enough to sustain anet fusion reaction.Experimental work in magnetic fusion made significant progress over thelast year. Shown here, the ZT-40 device at LANSL.Los Alamos ZT-40 PinchEnters Tokamak RangeThe Los Alamos National Laboratory's ZT-40, a reversed-field toroidalzeta pinch, continues to make substantial progress, according to a reportby Dr. Joseph DiMarco of the Los Alamos Controlled Fusion Division,which was presented to the Fusion Power Coordinating Committeemeeting in Boston this April.The discharge times of the ZT-40 have now been increased to 8milliseconds. If this proves to be an accurate measure of energy confinementtime, the ZT-40 will enter the range of operation of tokamaks,although with much lower magnetic field strength.These results go far beyond the early-1960s results of the British Zeta,which were not understood at the time.As reported in the June issue of Fusion (page 18), the magneticstructure in a zeta pinch is initially unstable in the form of a twist in theplasma, a kink, that moves around the torus. As the kink reacts with thewalls of the vacuum chamber electromagnetically, it causes the outershell of the confining magnetic field to reverse directions. The kinkdisappears, setting up a stable magnetic configuration.The field-reversed nature of the ZT-40 is its most significant feature,allowing the device to explore those plasma regimes that may permitthe design of stand-alone plasma field-reversed configurations, wherethe need for external magnetic coils is substantially reduced. This couldlead to very economical magnetic fusion reactors, since a large portionof the total cost of a magnetic fusion reactor involves the cost of themagnetic system used.The ZT-40 success is creating great interest among all fusion theoryand experiment groups since many aspects of this machine's operationare applicable to alternative types of magnetic confinement devices.Los Alamos scientists also report that the British HBTX A1 reversedfield toroidal zeta-pinch experiment has just been brought on line, andresults of the first run are expected soon. The HBTX A1, which is at theCulham Laboratory, is slightly larger than ZT-40.Fusion Report

Environmentalists Target Watt:'A Prodevelopment Extremist'A coalition of environmentalistgroups led by the Sierra Clublaunched a national campaign thisspring to oust Interior Secretary JamesG. Watt, and hopes to collect 1 millionsignatures demanding his resignation.With no identifiable legislative goal,and given the assassination attempton President Reagan, the "oust Watt"campaign could well create the climatein which the prodevelopmentInterior Secretary himself becomes anassassination target, sources in the intelligencecommunity have warned.A second flank in the campaignagainst Watt is the "Seaweed Rebellion"in California, which is protestingWatt's efforts to expedite the longstalledleasing of promising oil andgas tracts off the coast. Citing theplight of California sea otters andother coastal marine life—which neednot be uprooted by the stepped-upoil development—environmentalistgroups and California Governor JerryBrown filed twin suits in late Aprilcharging that Watt "has taken an unbalancedand unsupported view" ofthe national interest in recommendingsome 34 tracts for leasing.Other lawmakers lining up with theenvironmentalists are California SenatorAlan Cranston and RepresentativePhillip Burton, both Democrats,who claim that Watt has declared"unconditional war" on their state'snatural resources. In his first speechas secretary, Watt emphasized that hein fact advocates the "orderly development"of energy resources andgreater access to public parks andwilderness.Behind the 'Oust Watt'ers'A look at the roster of environmentalistgroups protesting Watt suggeststhat the motives behind their campaignare other than preserving untouchednature. The "oust Watt" coalitionincludes the WildernessSociety, the Friends of the Earth, theInterior Secretary lames Watt (right) and Energy Secretary James Edwardsrespond to questions at the press conference at which they announced anaccelerated five-year leasing program for offshore oil and gas.National Resources Defense Council, tions also had major input into thethe Audubon Society, the Environ- drafting and promotion of the Globalmental Policy Center, and Environ- 2000 Report, whose recommendamentalAction.tions on world population control andLike the Sierra Club, these groups resource conservation hinge on theare all heavily funded with tax- premise of finite, dwindling redeductiblegrants from the Rockefel- sources. Watt's stance—that there areler, Ford, and Atlantic Richfield foun- plenty of resources there, if we willdations, on whose boards sit members only develop them—pulls the rug outof top ranking Eastern Establishment from under the arguments of theinstitutions like the New York Council Global 2000 crowd,on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral The Sierra Club's chief criticism ofCommission, and the U.S. Association Secretary Watt, in fact, is that he isfor the Club of Rome. These institu- "a prodevelopment extremist."14 FUSION

Interior Secretary Watt onThe Best Strategic Minerals PolicySecretary of the Interior James G.Watt testified before the Science,Technology, and Space Subcommitteeof the Senate Commerce CommitteeMarch 2 on America's growingdependence on foreign sources forminerals vital to national security—socalledstrategic minerals. Excerptsfrom the testimony appear below.Hearings on this issue and governmentact/on are mandated by the NationalMaterials and Mineral Policy,Research and Development Act of1980. Many State Department officialshave used the strategic minerals issueto motivate a U.S. foreign policy ofimposing the perspective of theGlobal 2000 Report internationally—population control and conservationof all resources—or one of riskingU.S. involvement in proxy wars overAfrica's supplies of the strategic resources.Watt, on the other hand,argued that the best strategic mineralspolicy is to develop America's undevelopedmineral-rich lands, as well asthe vast, untapped resources that liein deep seabeds.* * *... In the past 10 years, mineralsexploration in America has declined.New mine development in this nationhas declined. Smelting and refining ofAmerican ores on American soil hasdeclined. We are importing from foreignnations the most critical elementof our civilization, the universal buildingblocks of an industrial economy—strategically important minerals.The National Materials and MineralsPolicy, Research and DevelopmentAct of 1980 is clearly a congressionalreaffirmation of its 10 year oldpredecessor. It is an effort to end thetroubling decline of America's mineralsindustry. Congress has onceagain directed the executive branchto "foster and encourage" America'sminerals industry. . . .In your invitation to me to appearNationalbefore you today, you asked me todescribe the [Interior] Department'sstate of readiness and the steps weare prepared to take to meet ourdomestic and defense needs if confrontedwith a foreign interruption ofstrategic minerals and materials. Inthe case of an interruption of immediateconsequence, there are in placeappropriate mechanisms to mitigatethe short-term impacts and to providefor appropriate subsequent actions. Ihave attached to my statement anabbreviated list of possible actionsthat, depending upon the seriousnessof the situation, could be undertaken.This response capability, includingstockpile allocation, relates to defensepreparedness in the face of a nationalemergency. As such, the type and sizeof stockpile goals reflect a measure ofthe security of foreign sources. However,while the whole of the emergencyprocess available under theStrategic and Critical Materials StockPiling Act of 1979 and the amendedDefense Production Act of 1950 isintrinsically part of a strategic mineralspolicy, it is not minerals policy in thesense of a sustained national effort tostrengthen this very base of our productivecapacity. In fact, the emergencyprocess is necessary in part becausewe have no minerals policy. . . .The Department of the Interior,through the secretary and throughthe assistant secretary for energy andminerals, must be, as the 1970 Actintended, the "amicus" for the mineralsindustry in the court of federalpolicymaking—not as a representativeof private mining interests per se, butContinued on page 59Speeding Up the Leasing ProcessSince his confirmation as Secretary of the Interior, James Watt hastaken some decisive actions to extirpate the Carter administration'slegacy of environmentalism and zero growth.In a joint press conference April 10, Watt and Energy Secretary JamesEdwards announced they were taking action to accelerate the process ofleasing offshore oil and gas tracts. This move will increase the numberof proposed Outer Continental Shelf lease sales over 1982-86 from 36 to42, adding approximately 70 percent of the total acreage available forexploration in Alaska, California, and Gulf of Mexico areas. The U.S.Geological Survey estimates that one of the areas—the Beaufort Sea offAlaska—may contain some 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 27trillion feet of natural gas.Watt is considering legislation that would promptly open up formultiple use lands that have been determined to be unsuitable forwilderness designation under section 603 of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976.He is also reviewing the burdensome regulations blocking strip mining.Perhaps most politically significant, Watt was instrumental in preventingthe team of Carter administration holdovers from returning to theLaw of the Sea Treaty negotiations at the United Nations in March. AsWatt stressed in congressional testimony March 2 (see accompanyingarticle), the exploration and development of the world's deep seabeadsare crucial to both international economic prosperity and security. WhatWatt did not say explicitly is that the Law of the Sea Treaty undernegotiation would put seabed mineral development under the controlof a supranational body like the United Nations and squelch development,using the guise of protecting Third World nations' equal access tothe resources off their shores.

Special ReportWill America Take UpThe flight of the Shuttle rekindled the American population's excitementabout conquering space, the next frontier. Shown here, zero hour at theKennedy Space Center April 12."The Shuttle will remoralize America,"Shuttle pilot Captain Crippensaid before the launch of the OrbiterColumbia April 12.The jubilant reaction of the Americanpeople to Columbia's maidenvoyage indicates that, indeed, theShuttle has begun to remoralizeAmerica. Now the question is political:Will the nation make the capitalinvestments to expand the U.S. industrialand scientific base here on Earthin order to put civilization into space?In the period between the mannedApollo Moon program and the recentlysuccessful Shuttle flight, theU.S. space program foundered in itsinitial commitment to spread humancivilization throughout the universe.In terms of where man could immediatelygo in space, the groundworkwas laid by the mid-1960s whenNASA established the fact that mancould survive in space. By the end ofthe decade, man had landed on theMoon and returned safely to Earth ina remarkable mastery of the scienceand technology of space flight.Until the flight of the Columbia,however, the next step—establishingand maintaining a permanentlymanned series of space stations thatwould allow Americans to live andwork in space to prepare for the nextphase of colonization—was not seriouslypursued.This permanent presence of Americansin space is what is now needed.The scientific exploration of Earth'sneighbors in the solar system that arefarther away than our own naturalsatellite, the Moon, proceeded withspectacular unmanned flights overthe 1970s. But if we are to ever livein and "Earth-form" these barrenworlds, the nation needs an entirelyrenewed vision and commitment toits space program.The United States right now doesnot have any funded programs forspace colonization. In real terms, theSpecial Report

An Interview with Capt. Robert CrippenGetting the U.S. Back into SpaceWe all saw how exuberant AstronautsJohn Young and Robert Crippenwere when they stepped out ofthe Columbia Space Shuttle after itsmagnificent performance. Here, in anexclusiveinterview, Capt. Crippentalks about the flight, where he thinksNASA is going, what the Shuttle hasdone for America, and what an acceleratedspace program would meanfor the nation's youth.Asking the questions is Fusion'sMarsha Freeman, who watched thelaunch in person at Cape Canaveraland who frequently writes about thespace program.Fusion is proud to claim Capt. Crippenas a regular reader.Question: While you were up inspace there was a geat deal of discussionby the media, former astronauts,and people who have been followingthe Shuttle very closely about its potential,especially about the militaryversus civilian uses. From your senseof working in the program and actuallyflying the plane, could you giveus an idea of what you think of theprogram and its potential?Actually, what I would say aboutthe Shuttle and what it has openedup for us is what I was saying prior todoing the flight. It proved that it coulddo everything we said it could do, atleast to this point in testing. We stillneed to complete all the other testflights that we have outlined in theprogram, and these are very importantto us to ensure that we understandits full operating capability. Butthe main thing it will do for us is getus in and out of space easily.Some people refer to it as a spacetruck, both derogatorily and, in my18 FUSIONopinion, not derogatorily. That's whatit is—it's a truck.But it's important to us from manyviewpoints, starting from the scientificstandpoint. It is important to us fromthe standpoint of science: being ableto get out and study the environmentof space and also to study our ownenvironment back here on Earth. It isimportant from the standpoint ofbeing able to exploit space for manufacturing,and your magazine hasdone a good job of exploring for usthe things we can do while we're outusing the vacuum and weightless environment.It's important to us fromthe standpoint of communications,weather satellites, and what have you,because we can build the satellitesmore cheaply and we can also putourselves in a position to repair satellites.And the military aspects of it—evenbeing a military manned station downhere we don't deal directly in theDOD [Department of Defense] things.All we're planning on doing right nowis being able to carry them [DODthings]. The DOD is a heavy user ofspace already. It's proven very beneficialto them and that's just one ofthe reasons that the DOD was a bigsupporter of the Shuttle. They needto utilize it and they want to do it aseconomically as possible because theywork under tight budget constraints,the same as we do.Just the fact that we have openedup space to get into and out of easily,that's really the prime thing.Question: We've tried in the magazine,as you mentioned, to give peoplea sense of what the NASA programhas created on Earth economicallyand in terms of giving us a global viewof our environment through LandsatAugust 1981and new communications possibilities.What do you think about whenyou are up there and you see theEarth from 170 miles away? What kindof perspective do you gain on everythingthat's going on down there?Actually, I'll probably disappointyou with that question, because wewere so darn busy we really didn'thave time to be philosophical at all.We had planned a very tight flightplan to get as much out of the flightas we possibly could and we werepretty successful in accomplishingmost of it, but that required that wewere pretty busy.Other than enjoying being weightlessand getting a chance to observethe Earth from that altitude, which isa fantastic thing—it's a beautifulplace—I really did not have time tosit down and be very philosophical.I'll tell you what: It's the kind of thingthat I wish more people could get toenjoy. It's really a treat.Question: The excitement among thepress and the guests who were therefor the launch was tremendous. Wefelt that we were almost up there withyou and Young—I've talked to several people whoobserved both the launch and thelanding, and apparently that was afairly general feeling. I really thinkthat the flight shows that what peoplequite often say, that the general pub-Special Report

think that getting back intospace and getting the economygoing on a scientificnote creates jobs, and peoplewant to fill those jobs,and that is going to stimulatethe educational system tomake people smart enoughto fill them.NASA technicians assist astronautsJohn Young and Robert Crippen afew hours before the scheduledliftoff. Left: Capt. Crippen.lie is kind of lackadaisical about goinginto space—I really don't think thatthat is the case. Any indication thatI've ever had in going out and talkingto people is that we still have a lot ofenthusiastic supporters, and it waseven more obvious during this flight.Even in the press—there are alwayspeople who are going to be critical ofus in the press and knock us for beinga little bit late in our schedule and soforth—but in the end, when we wereproving that we could do what we setout to do, I think we had nothing butsupporters.Question: I think the excitementyou're talking about was not limitedto the pride Americans felt in theShuttle but was really somethingshared internationally. For example,the Shuttle launch and landing werecarried live on TV in Japan and India.Now I'd like to ask you where youthink the space program should begoing over the next 20 years, lust afew hours after the launch formerastronaut Harrison Schmitt, the NewMexico senator, told ABC-TV's "Issuesand Answers" show that the realpotential of the space program wasthat it would help us spread humancivilization throughout the universe.What do you see as the horizons forthe space program over the next twodecades?One of the things that SenatorSchmitt, myself, John Young, my bossChris Kraft at the Johnson Space Centerhere, and a large number of otherpeople feel very strongly about is thatwe need to put a United States manand woman in space permanently.Our goal that we would like to proceedon in that direction, which lookslike the best, is what we're calling aSpace Operations Center. That's afancy name for a permanently orbittingmanned satellite that will allowus to explore some of the manufacturingthings that we talked about,some of the scientific things, and also,one that we feel is very important,seeing how we can develop usingsolar energy from outer space andbeaming it back to Earth. We thinkthere is a large amount of potential inthat particular area.We would like to get the go-aheadfrom the administration and startworking on such projects very soon.In fact, John and I, when we get theopportunity to go to Washington,plan on trying to make that point veryheavily both to the administration andto the Congress. I guess I would liketo see that done in parallel with continuingto utilize the Shuttle not onlyto build that space station but to seeit really put to work getting satellitesup.We want to get the Shuttle operational,where it's like an airline kindof operation. In parallel with that, wewould like to put up some kind ofpermanently orbiting space station. Itwould take quite a bit of time, butcertainly in the next decade we couldhave something going of that nature—ifwe could get that kind offinancing.Beyond that, we hope to go back tothe Moon, but before we go back tothe Moon, we want to be in a positionso that when we get there we couldput up a colony that would allowpeople to stay up there for extendedperiods of time. I expect to see uscolonize the Moon and, eventually,travel out beyond. We'll get a trip toMars some day. Unfortunately, I don'tthink it will be while I'm flying.Question: One of the areas that wehave been most interested in is thecontributions of NASA in education.About four months ago we beganpublishing a children's science magazinecalled The Young Scientist,geared to junior high school youth.Have you given any thought to thekind of role that a more invigoratedspace program might play over thenext decade in upgrading all our scienceeducation programs?We tend to cycle somewhat of asine wave with regard to where westress education. I still think that wehave fairly important and good scientificand engineering developmentin our education, all the way fromSpecial Report August 1981 FUSION 19

Special ReportScience is very fundamentalto our nation, and so is technology.It is important thatwe continue to have peoplethat stress those areas at alllevels, from the man on thestreet all the way up to thepeople who run the country.Above: Technicians lower a payloadof experiments into Cargo IntegrationTest Equipment at Kennedy SpaceCenter. Right: Students at CamdenHigh School in New Jersey with theexperiment they submitted to fly onthe Shuttle: an ant colony to studyhow social animals behave in space.grammar school on up. It is also true,I believe, that the general trend ofeducation has seemed like we're notproducing the same caliber of studentson an overall level. I'm not sureexactly what the reason for that is. Ithink if we knew what the reason is,we'd go solve it.I know from the standpoint of themilitary, quite often when we go outand recruit people who are highschool graduates, you would anticipatethat they have a certain caliberand knowledge. At least they oughtto be able to read training manuals,but we've had problems with that.I think that getting back into spaceand getting the economy going on ascientific note creates jobs, and peoplewant to fill those jobs, and that isgoing to stimulate the educationalsystem to make people smart enoughto fill them.I was a sophomore in college whenSputnik was first put up, and that wascertainly when we got a lot of furorabout what the educational systemwas doing in this country—could itproduce the same level of scientistsand technical capabilities as the Sovietswere doing? As far as I'm concerned,we can easily do that withouteven trying, but we can do muchbetter. I believe that any time we'vegot scientific programs such as goinginto space that are viable, we've gotto create jobs and we've got to createeducation. It's a natural by-product.Question: We are taking up the fightas a scientific foundation to push foran upgraded NASA space program,and we're mobilizing for a very publicfight on the issue. I know that ourreaders and foundation membershave an overall commitment to scientificdevelopment and technologicalprogress. Is there something you'dlike to say to them?Science is very fundamental to ourCarlos de Hoyosnation, and so is technology. It isimportant that we continue to havepeople that stress those areas at alllevels, from the man on the street allthe way up to the people who runthe country. As long as we have peopleand organizations like yours thatfocus on those particular areas, I thinkthat we can keep that drive that weneed. I appreciate the kinds of folkswho do that.Question: I know everyone wouldlike to know why you joined NASAand became an astronaut, and whenyou first thought about getting intothe space program. It's an importantquestion, especially for children.That's also a very difficult one toanswer. Since I was a very young man,I had been interested in flying, and Iwas also interested in space. It wasobvious to me as I was going upthrough high school that technologywas reaching the point where very20 FUSION August 1981 Special Report

soon people would be going intospace. I was somewhat disappointedwhen the Soviets ended putting upSputnik—I was only a sophomore incollege—because I knew I wouldn'tget the opportunity to fill all thesquares that I needed to, to be ableto fly very soon!However, I also realized that in gettinga chance to fly in space, therewere not going to be a lot of folksdoing it initially, and I would havebeen happy just to work at helpingput people up there. I more or lessstressed my education in that particulararea when I joined the Navy toget an aviation background. I wasreally planning on just spending onetour with the Navy and coming backand getting some advanced degreesto get to work in the space program.I had the opportunity after my firsttour to go to test pilot school, so Ipursued it, and I was lucky enough tobe standing in the right place at theright time to end up getting selectedfor astronaut training.I have spent some long, dry yearson the program getting reoriented [forthe Shuttle], but I've had lots of fun inthe work that I've been able to do.As to why I wanted to do it, I guessI enjoy working on engineering kindsof problems. I enjoy operational kindsof problems and always have—and tome, space lets you do all those kindsof things. It's very interesting work,and I like things that keep me busy.The actual flying in space is kind oflike the icing on the cake. It's themain work that's all the fun.Question: We're especially concernedin terms of the future aboutthe situation facing our children—peer pressure for the use of drugs,rock music, and so on. We are trying,through The Young Scientist magazineand our other work, to reeducatea generation of American youth, tostimulate an excitement about science.Is there something special you'dlike to say to American young people?I'm not sure that I share some ofthe pessimism that you expressed. Ireally think very positively about theyouth in our country today. They canand do prove that they can produceas well as all the people in the past. Ithink perhaps that certain negativethings tend to get stressed sometimes.I recall that when I was growing upthey were saying some of these thingsabout my generation as well.The main thing that I always try totell young people is that they reallyought to try to find themselves somekind of a goal—I think goal-orientedpeople are what make our countrygreat—and that goal ought to involvesomething that they enjoy. For somepeople it's science, for some peopleit's art, for other people it's socialwork, and for some people it's reportingor doing news work. But alllevels of endeavor are important tous.You should have something thatyou want to cling on to and work on,and if you don't have that, you'regoing to find yourself drifting aroundwith very little personal satisfaction inyour life.The main thing that I've always triedto orient young people to is to latchon to something that they enjoy. Itmay not be necessarily what your parentswant you to enjoy, but if it'ssomething you really enjoy, and ifyou work hard at it, you'll be successful.I think that's the main thing thatI've always tried to convey to kids.I think that the Shuttle did give asense of pride to the country and afeeling that we can accomplish somethingthat we set out to do.Houston FEF Meeting Celebrates LaunchA Rockwell International supervisor of management systems for theSpace Shuttle support crew at the Johnson Space Center shared thehappiest day of his life April 12 with a gathering in Houston, Texas ofmembers of the Fusion Energy Foundation."You'll have to excuse me," Jim Hudson explained to the FEF meeting,"but I didn't get much sleep last night, and I haven't quite come downto earth yet. The vision of that liftoff and orbital insertion this morningis engraved in my brain, and I will never forget it."Hudson added, "The last seven-and-a-half years of my life have beendevoted to this event, and the last fifteen years of my life overall havebeen spent with NASA. I've seen some Apollo launches. I've seen someSkylab launches. I've seen the ASTT launch. But never have I seenanything so lovely as the Shuttle launch this morning."Hudson, who presented an in-depth slide show on the Shuttle to thecaptivated audience—many of whom had been involved for years inorganizing and lobbying efforts on behalf of a renewed Americancommitment to scientific and technological advance—was thanked byFEF regional coordinator Harley Schlanger and FEF national educationdirector Carol White for taking time out so close to the momentousliftoff to address the meeting.Hudson replied, "I want to express my admiration and the admirationof thousands of people like me for the kind of work you are doing intrying to overcome the neolithic, Neanderthal Naders and Fondas, andothers of their ilk."'Space Week'The meeting endorsed the proposal by supporters of NASA to celebrate"Space Week" from July 13 to 20. Activities around the countryduring that week will promote an expansion of NASA and the U.S. spaceprogram. The week will culminate in a campaign to make July 20, theanniversary of the first Moon landing by astronauts Neil Armstrong andEdwin Aldrin, a national holiday. This holiday would provide the timefor national gratitude to dedicated individuals such as Jim Hudson, andto encourage the youth of this country to follow in their footsteps.—Nick BentonSpecial ReportAugust 1981FUSION 21

"RTR Your g^^With the potential to import $150 billion in capital goods alone over the nextten years, Mexico is one country American decision-makers have got to know.EIR knows Mexico like no one else.A dozen full-time EIR researchers in Mexico City work with EIR's New Yorkstaff to compile each week in-depth reports on critical political and economicdevelopments. Especially important is the weekly Dateline Mexico column, an"insiders report" read by leaders on both sides of the border.Join the economic boom taking place south of America's border. EIR will beyour guide.For weekly intelligence on Mexico, and othernational and internationalmatters, subscribe to EIR.We sellintelligence.ViewpointContinued from page 10proval of both the executive andlegislative branches of governmentbefore being implemented, but theagency must have a certain amountof independence in developingpolicies and programs. The reviewfunction of the organization shouldbe limited to the implementationof the program approved by theexecutive and legislative branches.I do not mean to endorse theWater Resources Council as theagency that should carry out thesefunctions. The council has not beena success for several reasons, themost important of which is that ithas been under the exclusive directionof the executive branch. Infairness to the council, however, itshould be noted that Congress delegatedall authority for water resourcesdevelopment to the executivebranch when it enacted the1965 Planning Act, leaving Congressonly the authorization process.Thus, friction developed betweenthe two branches.Also, the council became too involvedin minor details and ignoredthe broad policy aspects of a waterprogram.For these reasons, the proposedwater agency should definitely havea different name from that of theWater Resources Council if it is toenjoy any credibility. Such namesas Water Resources Policy Board orWater Resources Board might beappropriate.These are the steps that weshould adopt if we are to rejuvenateour nation's water resource development.First, develop a programfor each river basin of the country.Then provide a mechanism to implementand direct the program tomeet our water requirements.B. Joseph Tofani, president of theWater Resources Congress, is a registeredprofessional engineer whohas spent 45 years in all phases ofwater resources development, includingin the planning, designing,constructing, and administrating offederal water programs. He servedwith the Army Corps of Engineersfor 33 years.22 FUSION August 1981

JapanNumber 1 in Fusion?The secret of Japan'ssuccess as an industrial nation is revealedfor the first time in this exclusive report. Japan is the only non-Westernnation to become fully industrialized.And, as shown here, it did so using themethods of the American System—investingin the most advanced technologyto power the nation's economic growth.Since 1975, the Japanese have viewed fusionas the leading edge of a strategy fordevelopment through the 21st century.The fusion program proposed in March1981 by Japan's topscientists is the mostaggressive in the world fordeveloping fusion energy: Itwill put a demonstration power reactoron line by 1993. For 25 years, Japan'sinvolvement in fusion has depended oninternational scientific cooperation, especiallywith the United States. Today, theJapanese are convinced that fusion is thekey to their nation's survival—regardlessof the fate of the U.S. fusion budget. Asone Japanese fusion scientist put it: "Ifthe United States won't do it, we will."Copyright < 1981 Fusion Energy Foundation,888 Seventh Ave., New York, N.Y. 10019 August 1981 FUSION 23

If the U.S. Won't Do It, We WilJapan s Ambitious24 FUSION August 1981

Fusion Programby Marsha FIN MAY 1978, JAPAN'S Prime Minister Takeo Fukudasurprised President Carter—and his nation's Finance Ministry—withthe announcement at a New York City foreignpolicy forum that Japan was prepared to spend $1 billionin a joint program for fusion research. Three years later,in March 1981, Japan's scientific experts have recommendedto the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission thatJapan build and operate a 400- to 800-megawatt fusionreactor by 1993. If approved by the present Prime Minister,Zenko Suzuki (and according to Japanese sources, this isnearly certain), the Japanese fusion program would mergeplans for an Engineering Test Reactor with those for amulti-billion-dollar Experimental Power Reactor in orderto achieve the 1993 goal.This accelerated program would catapult Japan aheadof other nations, including the United States, in developingcontrolled thermonuclear fusion, an energy sourcethat uses seawater as fuel and is clean, safe, and virtuallyunlimited. Unless the 1980 U.S. fusion legislation is implemented,the United States will be left years behind theJapanese.Fukuda made the proposal based on his personal commitmentto ensure the development of fusion energy, acommitment made in 1975 when Japan's leading scientistsand cabinet ministers evaluated international fusion researchand decided that fusion was "the energy resourceof the 21st century."The United States, largely because of former secretaryof energy James Schlesinger's maneuvering, has not yettaken full advantage of the Fukuda fusion proposal. Now,many Japanese feel that Japan is going to achieve its fusiongoal with or without the collaboration of the United Statesgovernment."We have a two-track system," explained Tokyo UniversityProfessor Taichiro Uchida, one of the five plasmaphysicists on Japan's long-term planning subcommittee ofthe Nuclear Fusion Council. "We are cooperating internationallywith the [International Atomic Energy Agency's]•* japan's Nagoya Bumpy Torus, which combines features ofthe magnetic mirror configuration in a tokamaklike machine,is the only fusion device of its kind besides theElmo Bumpy Torus at the Oak Ridge National Lab inTennessee.Intor tokamak program. And we are developing fusionreactors on our own."Although the Japanese involvement in the fusion effortgoes back to the late 1950s, the aggressive goal-orientationdates from 1975. Since that time, and especially since 1979,the fusion program has been under intense discussion. Ofparticular importance were the Intor meetings during 1979and 1980 with scientists from the United States, the SovietUnion, and the European Community. It was throughevaluation of the fusion research results worldwide thatthe long-term planning subcommittee of Japan's NuclearFusion Council, led by Shigeru Mori, decided that theJapanese program could successfully skip some of thesteps in fusion development that were earlier thought tobe necessary.How soon do the Japanese expect to achieve commercialfusion? In an interview with Fusion, Uchida estimatedthat fusion would be commercialized by 2010, with thecurrent international tokamak program. But he quicklyadded:You [pointing to a copy of Fusion magazine] have toignite the hearts of mankind to be excited aboutfusion. And if you do that, then we can have fusionby the year 2000. Man can do anything if he'll put theresources to it. By resources I don't mean money.Money is just how you value labor; it's not a realresource. How many plasma physicists are there workingon this [fusion]? Only about 1,000 in Japan. Andhow many are there in the United States? Only severalthousand. So if the nations decide that this is a priorityand devote the human resources to this project ratherthan other projects, and multiply the number ofscientists in the field 10 times to work on fusion, thenwe could have commercial fusion by the year 2000.But if it moves forward at the current momentum,then we'll achieve that goal by 2010.The Japanese decision to accelerate their fusion timetableis not surprising. Japan's economic philosophy hasbeen to invest in the frontier technologies and industriesin order to move the whole economy forward. In scientificterms, similar Department of Energy and congressionalreviews of the U.S. fusion program over the past year havealso recommended an aggressive entry into the engineeringphase of fusion development. As several leading sci-August 1981 FUSION 25

Vertical coilJoule windingVertical coil (main)Toroidal coilVacuum chamberPlasmaFigure 1HELIOTRON E SCHEMATICThe Heiiotron E is a toroidal plasma experiment using a spiral-shaped conductor to create the magnetic forcefield that contains the fusion fuel or plasma. Although these laboratory devices use a normal hydrogen plasma,the fusion reactor itself will burn a mixture of the two heavy forms of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), availablefrom seawater. The fuel mixture must be heated to a temperature of millions of degrees in order to ignite thefusion reaction. At this temperature, hotter than the Sun, the fuel must be insulated and confined, a functionperformed by the magnetic field. The other magnetic field coils on this device provide heating and stabilitycontrol for the hot, ionized fuel.entists have put it, the remaining problems with fusionare not scentific but political.Japanese involvement in fusion-related research beganin the 1950s, growing out of discussions at internationalscientific conferences.The Early YearsUchida credits a 1956 speech by I.V. Kurchatov, theSoviet physicist, with influencing the shape of the earlyJapanese fusion work. Kurchatov said that if you wantfusion, you have to begin with basic theoretical work inplasma physics. The American scientists, Uchida said,agreed with Kurchatov and gave the Japanese the sameadvice.In 1959, Japan's Science Council debated whether towork on an energy-producing fusion device or develop aresearch-oriented fusion program and decided on thelatter. The first Japanese toroidal research device, theHeiiotron A, was under construction at Kyoto Universitythat same year.Two years later, the Institute for Plasma Physics wasestablished at Nagoya University. The IPP continues to bethe lead university laboratory for the exploration of alternativeconcepts for fusion to the tokamak, with 20 researchunits involving about 140 scientists and engineers. In 1966,the Laboratory for Plasma Physics was created at KyotoUniversity to upgrade and continue the Heiiotron work.Another major influence on the Japanese program wasthe 1958 Geneva conference on the Peaceful Uses ofAtomic Energy, where the United States, the Soviet Union,and Great Britain declassified their early thermonuclearfusion research. Throughout the 1960s, international cooperationwith the world fusion community continued tobe of prime importance, as Japanese scientists visited U.S.and other fusion laboratories and participated in variousinternational symposia.At the third IAEA conference on fusion, held in Novosibirsk,Siberia in 1968, the Soviets announced their startlingprogress with a toroidal-shaped magnetic fusioncontainer, or tokamak. This and subsequent results withthe tokamak convinced the Japanese to pursue a comprehensiveprogram geared not only to research but toenergy production. Professor Uchida recalls that at thetime Japanese scientists were still not absolutely sure thatfusion was practical, but they thought it was worth anaggressive try to find out. In 1969, Japan's Atomic EnergyCommission launched a five year plan for fusion as partof a national energy program.Three years later the JFT-2 (Japan Fusion Tokamak)began operation to test basic plasma physics theory.The evaluation of the research on the JFT led to adecision in 1973 to launch an even more aggressive toka-26 FUSION August 1981

mak experimental program under the direction of theJapan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) in Tokaimura.At the same time, the Laser Institute at OsakaUniversity was established to begin large-scale laser andparticle beam inertial fusion research.One of the most exciting developments in the Japaneseenergy program was the organization in 1973 of TsukubaCity, a new academic city similar to the Siberian scientificcity of Academgorodok. Tsukuba City now has 43 researchinstitutes and 8,000 students, with a goal of 10,000 studentsin the near future. Tsukuba University is the lead facilityin Japan's ambitious fusion mirror program. Magneticmirrors—open systems compared to the closed, donutshapedtokamaks and stellarators—are the leading competitorto the mainline tokamak in the United States.The year 1975 marked a turning point for the Japanesefusion program. Fusion became a national project, theAtomic Energy Commission created the prestigious NuclearFusion Council to oversee the burgeoning fusioneffort, and plans were made to build a big tokamakmachine—the JT-60.There were two deciding factors in the new push forfusion. First, there was the energy crisis precipitated bythe 1973 oil embargo. Second, there was the conviction ofJapan's scientists, who had previously been skeptical aboutthe practicality of fusion, that fusion would work. As onescientist put it, "We knew then that fusion was the energyresource of the 21st century."The oil embargo hit Japan very differently from the wayit hit the United States. No Japanese government officialcould credibly propose that Japan's high-technology, energy-intensiveindustry conserve its way to "energy independence"!Because virtually all Japan's energy is imported,simply cutting back on energy use would shutdown the economy.The government proposed a twofold approach to thefuture of dwindling world fossil fuel resources. The firstwas a high-technology-vectored energy efficiency improvementprogram (more or less the opposite of "conservation"as defined by the Carter administration).This involved R&D programs to commercialize advancednuclear technologies. The high-temperature nuclear reactor,for example, is being developed for process heatand industrial applications, so as to lessen the burden onliquid fuels. The government also initiated a program todevelop magnetohydrodynamics to convert thermal energyfrom any source into electricity at potentially doublethe efficiency of the conventional steam turbine cycle.Japan also began a serious program for using nuclearpower to produce hydrogen as the liquid fuel that willreplace petroleum in the next century.On the fusion side, the scientists talked to the politiciansand convinced several key people that fusion was thelong-term solution and must be developed both for japan'seconomic security and for world stability. As a result,fusion was designated as a national project, with thebudget for the JT-60 being made by the prime minister'soffice (and therefore less subject to budget cutting). TakeoMiki, then prime minister, and Toshio Komoto, the headof the Ministry for International Trade and Industry (MIT!),both fully supported the program.The Atomic Energy Commission gave the Japanese scientificcommunity the go-ahead to begin implementingthe next step in the leading fusion concept, the tokamak.As the fusion funding profile in Table 1 suggests, after1975, Japan's scientists were ready to take the next bigstep. The funding for JAERI more than doubled between1978 and 1979, representing in concrete terms the nationalcommitment Japan made to develop commercial fusionenergy.Equally important in establishing the fusion program,the Nuclear Fusion Council was set up, with full governmentbacking from the top. The council is a group of 20representatives drawn from the Education Ministry, theScience and Technology Agency, the Atomic Energy SafetyCommission, the Ministry for International Trade andIndustry, and the universities. It is responsible for recommendingplans for Japan's fusion program and forseeing that there is no overlap of efforts or unproductivecompetition.It was at this time that Takeo Fukuda, then a member ofparliament and a contender for prime minister, becamecommitted to support the fusion effort. Other politicalfigures involved at the time were Ichiro Nakagawa, nowthe head of the Science and Technology Agency, andRokusuke Tanaka, the current head of MITI.Year197319741975197619771978197919801981Table 1FUSION FUNDING IN JAPAN(in m llion yen)Total9291,9064,3748,24712,17317,37631,52437,00044,000JapanAtomicEnergyResearchInstitute4608082,5904,0707,71511,50824,64129,22935,787Ministry ofEducation3059141,5533,9204,2655,3776,2688,23910,126The funding for Japan's fusion program significantly increasesafter 1978. The more than doubled budget forJAERI in 7979 reflects the beginning of construction onthe JT-60 tokamak. Funding for the Ministry of Educationfusion projects has increased steadily, although not sodramatically as for the tokamak program.To translate the figures into dollars, the exchange rateis approximately 200 yen per dollar. However, these figuresdemonstrate the internal growth of the Japanese programand cannot be compared with the U.S. budget becausethe Japanese figures do not include salaries and administration.August 1981 FUSION 27

Will Japan be number 1 in fusion? Part of the answerlies in the nation's experience in building fusion devicesand their research record, briefly reviewed here.Japan's Fusion ExperimentsThe JFT series. The Japanese tokamak program is centeredat JAERI. The first JAERI tokamak, the JFT-2, beganoperation in 1972 as a small-scale basic plasma physicsexperiment. Its radius is less than 1 meter, and it wassuperseded by the JFT-2a in 1974.To gain experience with a larger, 1.25 meter machine,the JFT-2M is under construction and will be operationalby 1983. All these devices are small scale, multi-milliondollarmachines, which are considerably smaller than thepace-setting Princeton Large Torus in the United States.The PLT made international headlines in 1978 when itreached groundbreaking plasma temperatures well beyondthe 44 million degrees needed to ignite the plasmaand demonstrated that a fusion plasma would follow theBringing the energy of the Sun to Earth was the theme ofJapanese Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda's $1 billion proposalto President Carter in May 1978 for a joint fusiondevelopment program. If the 1980 U.S. fusion legislationis not implemented the United States will be left yearsbehind the Japanese in fusion.theoretical scaling laws for containing a fusion plasma.As early as 1970, Japanese fusion scientists were planningto scale up their research to approach the machine sizeneeded to reach energy breakeven—producing more energyfrom the fusion reaction than the energy inputneeded to heat the fuel. In 1978, Japanese scientists beganinformal collaborative work on the U.S. Doublet III experimentat General Atomic Company in San Diego togain hands-on experience with a medium-size tokamak.The Doublet III has a radius of nearly 1.5 meters, andthe Doublet experience encouraged Japanese scientists torecommend going ahead with a large-scale Japanese device.The JT-60. The Japanese decided in the 1970s to godirectly from the small-scale JFT series tokamaks to thehuge JT-60, without a PLT-size machine in between. TheJT-60 is about the size of the reactor-scale Tokamak FusionTest Reactor at Princeton to be completed next year, thelargest U.S. tokamak.Design work on the JT-60, under construction by JAERIsince 1978, began in 1970 and was upgraded and acceleratedas the success from the U.S. PLT in 1978, as well asfrom other tokamak experiments worldwide, increasedthe confidence of the scientist community that the tokamakwould indeed produce fusion power.Until recently, the Japanese fusion program has laggedabout five years behind the U.S. program. But based onthe results for the medium-size U.S. tokamaks—the PLT,Doublet, and the Alcator at the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology—the JT-60 will "skip a step" and jump ahead.The JT-60 is designed to achieve a breakeven plasmacondition using hydrogen (all deuterium) fuel and notradioactive tritium. This makes it a more flexible experimentalmachine than the TFTR, which will use deuteriumtritiumas fuel and, therefore, require remote handlingequipment. In the JT-60, the technicians will be able tomake adjustments with hands on the equipment. However,the JT-60 will not produce a sustained fusion reactionbecause with all-deuterium fuel, this would require ignitiontemperatures of 400 million degrees.The mission of JT-60 is not only to extend the scientificbasis for continuing the tokamak development program,but also to develop fusion engineering and technologieslike plasma heating and impurity control. In this way, itwill lay the physics basis for the next tokamak device inthe Japanese program, as well as guide the work withcontinuing experiments on existing machines—the JFT-2M and a new ignition experiment to be built at NagoyaUniversity. JT-60 is designed to extend the pulse length ofthe plasma current and external heating power from lessthan 1 second, which is now common, to up to 10 seconds.The JT-60 will test experimental magnetic limiters as amethod of controlling impurities in the fusion plasmawithout the need for physical diverters. Also, neutral beaminjection, radio frequency, and ion cyclotron heating willall be used in the JT-60 to evaluate the most effective waysto heat the fusion fuel.The current time schedule for JT-60 is initial operationin October 1984, with the start of supplementary heatingexperiments in August 1985.If the jump from operating the JFT-2 to the design of28 FUSION August 1981

the JT-60 was a big step, the now-proposed step from JT-60 to an Experimental Power Reactor (EPR) is a giant leap.The projected cost of the JT-60 is about one-quarter of abillion dollars; the EPR will be at least double that.The Giant StepThe proposed EPR will combine two steps in the previousfusion program plan, which included an EngineeringTest Facility before the operation of a power reactor. Thisgiant leap was the substance of the Japanese fusion reviewin March that recommended that the nation accelerate itsfusion timetable and put an EPR on line by 1993.The EPR will be considerably larger and have a higherperformance capability than the next step in the U.S.fusion program, the Fusion Engineering Device, or FED.The FED was mandated by the 1980 fusion legislation as anapproximately $1 billion device, on line by 1990 producingbetween 100 and 200 megawatts of power. Japan's EPR isestimated to produce from 400 to 800 megawatts ofpower—indeed, an experimental reactor.In their program review work for the EPR, which began ayear ago, the Japanese are considering a unique engineeringdesign, based on their experience with conventionalnuclear power plants. Instead of surrounding the fusionreactor with solid shielding material, they have designed aSwimming Pool Tokamak Reactor, or SPTR, where waterwould make the repair and maintenance easier and lesscostly. The SPTR could potentially cutjthe cost of the fusionreactor by 40 percent and cut the cost of the entire powerplant by 10 percent—a significant savings.Using water as a shielding material eliminates the 6,000to 9,000 tons of heavy shielding structure projected inother tokamak designs as protection for the superconductingmagnets. Since water does not crack, fatigue, orpermit leakage, maintenance would be simplified. Thereduced need for maintenance and repair is a significantadvantage, since the EPR will require remote handling,like the TFTR, to handle the D-T fuel.A phased machine, the EPR will be upgraded andmodified throughout its operation. It is also planned as atest bed for various blanket designs for breeding tritiumneeded for fusion fuel. In its first stage, it would operatewithout a blanket, but with many diagnostic ports for theinvestigation of the burning plasma.The preliminary swimming pool design, shown in Figure3, is a first draft conception. As work continues on thedesign, it will undoubtedly be modified, but the processof initiating this EPR stage for the Japanese tokamakprogram is expected by next winter.According to Japanese officials, the Nuclear FusionCouncil has requested that representatives of industry andother experts from the scientific community comment onthe proposal by the review committee to go ahead withthe EPR.By August 1981 the AEC will decide whether to supportthe recommendations and then forward its report to theprime minister and the other cabinet ministers. FromSeptember to December the Ministry of Finance, theScience and Technology Agency, and other cabinet agencieswill deliberate on a strategy for the fusion program.By next February the government's budgetary and programpolicies will be sent to the Diet (parliament) and willgo into effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year,April 1. By this time next year, therefore, the Japanesefusion program will be officially on its way to designingand building an Experimental Power Reactor by 1993—atimetable considerably ahead of the United States.A Broad-Based ProgramLike the United States,' Japan has chosen the tokamakfusion program for its first power-producing reactor at thesame time that it is pursuing a broad-based program inalternative fusion concepts and supporting engineeringand technology development. And like Japan's tokamakresearch, all of this is being done in close collaborationwith the United States.The alternative concepts for fusion that Japan is pursuingare a generation behind the U.S. devices, but they areachieving experimental results in step with the U.S. fusionprogram.The Heliotron series. One fusion design unique to theJapanese program is the Heliotron series of experiments.The Heliotron is a variation of the U.S.-developed stellarator,the first U.S. experimental fusion device. A stellaratoris a nonpulsed, steady state machine in the toroidal categorythat has all of its confining magnetic fields generatedby external magnets. By comparison, in a tokamak theAugust 1981 FUSION 29

poloidal fields are produced internally by an electricalcurrent induced in the fusion plasma itself. In the stellarator,the plasma is not a smooth shape, as it is in thedonut-shaped tokamak, but it can be a variety of rippledshapes that reflect the helical windings of its magnets.The Heliotron E, which began operation at Kyoto Universitylast year, is a $34 million machine built by Hitachi.It is a PLT-size machine that is a proof-of-principle device.If it performs according to expectations, the Japanesehope to take the Heliotron configuration to the next-stepenergy breakeven Heliotron-F experiment, which wouldbe a D-T ignition experiment.Mirrors. Tsukuba University is the leading facility for theJapanese magnetic mirror program. The Gamma-6, operationalsince 1978, has a tandem mirror plasma profilesimilar to U.S. mirror experiments and is supported bytheoretical work at Nagoya, Kyoto, and Tsukuba universities.Fusion scientists are now building the Gamma-10, aboutthe same size as the Tandem Mirror Experiment at LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory in California, whichwill be ready in 1983.Bumpy torus. Among the diversity of experimental devicesin its 20-year fusion history, Nagoya University hasprovided the only other bumpy torus machine in theworld besides the Elmo Bumpy Torus at the Oak RidgeNational Laboratory in Tennessee—the Nagoya BumpyTorus. The bumpy torus design, which combines featuresof the magnetic mirror configuration within a toroidalsystem, is providing some important experimental insightinto both the tokamak and mirror programs.Also at Nagoya is the JIPP-T-2 stellarator/tokamak hybriddevice, a unique facility because it can be used either ina tokamak or a stellarator mode. Therefore, it is a versatiletest bed for plasma heating and other experiments, which,if successful, can be used on other machines. If the currentJIPP-T-2 program is extended, a JIPP-T-3 device thatburned D-T could be built by the late 1980s.Inertial confinement. Like the magnetic fusion effort,Japan's inertial fusion program is a few years behind theUnited States. Osaka's Laser Institute, established in 1972,is involved in the operation and construction of a fullseries of inertial fusion experiments, which include glassand carbon dioxide lasers, relativistic electron beams, andlight ion beams. Osaka's Dr. Yamanaka announced in 1980that the Institute has plans to build a 40-terawatt glasslaser—GEKKO XII—later in the 1980s. GEKKO XII wouldbe larger than the 30-terawatt laser at Lawrence Livermore,now the world's largest laser system.For the decade of the 1980s, the Japanese inertial fusioneffort will carry out what is known as the KONGO program,which includes next-step devices in all the inertialfusion driver systems—gas lasers, ion beams, and electronbeams. This decade-long effort will cost approximately 63billion yen ($315 million) for equipment alone.Supportive technology. The Japanese are also pursuingthe full array of required supportive technology developmentsfor fusion. In some areas, like superconductingmagnet development, Japanese industry is already buildingsimilar components for other energy (or related)technologies.Table 2MAJOR PARAMETERS FOR THE SPTRPlasma burn modeBurn time (sec)Fusion power (MW)Neutron wall loading (MW/m 2 )Major radius (m)Plasma radius (m)ElongationToroidal field at centerline (T)Plasma current (MA)Safety factor (edge)Average a, (%) (without impurities)Average ion density (m~ 3 )Average Ion temperature (keV)Impurity control and ash exhaustHeating, NBI/RF(MW)Tritium breeding ratioIgnition>1004201. X 10 2010-12Pololdal divertor30/301.0 (target)The Swimming Pool Tokamak Reactor (SPTR), shown atright, is a unique Japanese design for an engineeringfusion reactor of commercial size that would produce 420megawatts of thermal energy. According to the Japaneseplans, the device will be the first machine to producelarge quantities of electrical energy from fusion. The SPTRwould produce about 150 megawatts of electrical energy,the equivalent of a small to medium-size fossil fuel plant.The significant advantage of the swimming pool watershield is its flexibility in maintenance.In other areas, like fusion materials development, theJapanese effort requires collaborative research and developmentwith the United States. These areas are on the topof the list of both nations for extending the cooperationthat is already underway.Industry involvement. The involvement of Japanese industryin frontier technology development is direct: Thegovernment agency responsible for construction and operationdoes not have to go through a competitive biddingprocedure to grant a contract, as is the practice in theUnited States.Because the largest electrical and heavy machinery supplycompanies in Japan are involved in building fusiondevices, it's likely that the transfer of this technology,once commercial fusion power plants are ready for themarketplace, will be a painless procedure from the R&Ddepartments to the commercial operations within thesame companies.International CooperationOverall, the Japanese fusion effort has benefited greatlyfrom international collaboration, especially from the U.S.fusion programs. If the Japanese fusion effort jumps aheadof the United States, this will be because Japan has madea national commitment to push forward and reach its30 FUSION August 1981

Figure 3SWIMMING POOL TOKAMAK REACTOR SCHEMATIC. Maintenancemachine100 ton crane. Neutral beaminjectorgoals. The fusion cooperation program between theUnited States and Japan, it is hoped, will encompass newareas of joint work, including Japanese participation inU.S. materials facilities such as the Fusion Materials IrradiationTest facility at Hanford, Wash, and the RotatingTarget Neutron Source facility at Lawrence Livermore.The collaborative fusion agreement, proposed by Fukudain 1978 and signed by DOE fusion director EdwinKintner and Japanese AEC director Hiroshi Fukunaga inAugust 1979, has fulfilled three of the four initial areas ofcollaboration outlined: the exchange of personnel forwork visits to U.S. and Japanese fusion facilities, a $60million upgrade program and joint work on the DoubletIII experiment, and the setting up of joint fusion theorycenters in the two countries.The fourth area, joint planning, is now under discussionand could become the most interesting aspect of theagreement. If the Japanese decide, as is likely, to take thatgiant step for an Experimental Power Reactor by 1993, theUnited States will have much to contribute to making thisgoal a reality. And if the U.S. fusion program is not fullysupported by the Reagan administration, Americans mayhave their first opportunity to participate in a fusionproject that is more ambitious than our own.In 1978, Takeo Fukuda proposed that the United Statesand Japan cooperate in a fusion development program"to bring the energy of the Sun to Earth." This would take"colossal investments in human and material resources,"he said, but the resulting energy security and economicbenefits would be worth it.Fukuda made that proposal because he knew that withJapan's determination and American know-how, the jobcould get done.Today, the task remains essentially the same, but theU.S. fusion program is in jeopardy.As one Japanese scientist commented on the U.S. planto cut the Fusion Materials Irradiation Test facility out ofthe 1982 budget: "The FMIT is necessary for fusion, notimmediately in the research experiments but in the actualreactor-building phase. We need it, and if the UnitedStates is not going to build it, we will. There are certainthings that have to be done, and if you're not going to dothem, we will."Will the United States be importing Japanese tokamaksin the 21st century? The answer is up to the United Statesand how much budgetary support it gives the U.S. fusionprogram.Marsha Freeman is the industrial research director forthe Fusion Energy Foundation.August 1981 FUSION 31

An Unbeatable Plan for Economic Growth:Japan's Frontier Industry StrategyIt is April 1993. Joseph P. Kennedy III, theyoung senator who made his name in the1980s as an antinuclear crusader, has justintroduced a bill to restrict shipments tothe United States of Japanese tokamak fusionreactors. "It will bankrupt the U.S.windmill industry," he complains.* * *WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR the apparent invincibility of theJapanese economic machine? Only 10 years ago, textileswere Japan's main economic challenge to the UnitedStates. Five years ago, it was steel. But today the Japaneseare threatening to overtake the United States in areasonce considered its special preserve. In 1980, Japan surpassedthe United States as the world's leading automobilemanufacturer. And industry sources are now beginning tosound dire warnings about a Japanese invasion in thefields of integrated circuits and computers.In fact, one of the fastest growing industries in Americais the publishing of articles on Japan's successes, typifiedby Iron Age magazine's "What Can American ManufacturersLearn from the Japanese?" last year. Another biggrowth area is consulting companies that specialize inteaching American businessmen the managerial gimmicksthat are supposed to account for the Japanese miracle.The American Management Association offers a seminarseries on "Using Japanese Quality Control and ProductivityTechniques in U.S._ Industry"; AMA advertises: "Learnthe Japanese methods that are producing amazing resultsin U.S. firms."Like the proverbial blind men and the elephant, differentgroups have focused on various, isolated aspects ofthe picture hoping to discover the secret of the Japaneseeconomic miracle. Some Japan imitators rather mysticallyattribute Japan's economic successes to unique featuresof Japanese culture. One southwestern electronics firmwent so far as to dress its employees in kimonos, putJapanese slogans on the wall, and teach Japanese-stylecompany songs. Other U.S. companies have seized onJapanese model labor-management relations and attemptedto reproduce Japanese industry's quality circles.Still others are mesmerized by the external structure of32 FUSION August 1981

y Richard KatzJapanese business. Thus, Senator Adlai Stevenson, Jr. ofIllinois introduced a bill in Congress in 1980 that wouldpermit the creation of an American imitation of Japanesetypetrading companies, the multi-billion-dollar commercialconglomerates that do the buying and selling of mostproducts within Japan's domestic economy and in itsforeign trade.The secret behind Japan's achievement is neither intangiblycultural, nor is it a collection of managerial andstructural gimmicks, which can be easily copied. Thesecret is, in fact, as American as Abraham Lincoln, for itwas from President Lincoln's economic advisers that thefounders of modern Japan learned the ideas that turnedthe country into an industrial giant overnight.However, in Japan the American System ideas still guideday-to-day governmental and business practices, while inthe United States these ideas have been largely abandoned.Faced with a depressed market and serious competition,the U.S. Steel Corporation, for example, hasscrapped its steel investment and diversified into realestate and other quick profit areas.By contrast, Japanese steel firms, which were operatingat 67 percent capacity because of the orders collapse,launched a multi-biilion-dollar modernization drive thatemphasized investment in high-technology forms of energysaving such as continuous casting, and they aremaking profits again. Japan's top five steel firms plan toinvest $3 billion more in 1981, a 27 percent increase over-< A succession vf planned frontier industries has been thekey to japan's economic miracle. Yesterday's frontier industriesare arrayed counterclockwise on the field of theJapanese flag: a giant ladle crane manufactured by Hitachifor Nippon Steel; Mitsubishi Heavy Industry's new highspeed container ship; electric power plant equipmentproduced by Hitachi for Kansai Electric; and the electricbullet train operated by Japanese National Railways, whichtravels up to 210 kilometers per hour. The next phase offrontier industries is shown in the emblem: an experimental,magnetically levitated train designed to travel 500kilometers per hour; precise welding technology used inthe manufacture of fusion vacuum vessels; and an integrated,"intelligent robot" with grasping, pushing, andpinching functions.August 1981 FUSION 33

LIVING STANDARDS, INVESTMENT, ANDPRODUCTIVITY: U.S. AND JAPAN COMPAREDJapanU.S.JapanU.S.JapanU.S.JapanU.S.Growth in Hourly Compensation per Worker(adjusted for inflation)1960=100 Average annualgrowth1967 1976 1960-67 1967-76140 300 4.9% 8.8%113 122 1.7 0.8Gross Private Fixed InvestmentAs a Percentage of GNP: 1955-19801955 1960 1965 1970 1973 1975 198011 18 19 27 27 24 2514 14 14 14 15 12 14Growth in Labor ProductivityAverage annual1960=100 growth1960 1978 1960-78100 450 8.7%100 164 2.7Growth in Industrial ProductionAverage annual1960=100 growth1960 1974 1960-74100 426 10.9%100 197 5.0Sources: United Nations, U.S. Department of Commerce, JapanMinistry of International Trade and IndustryOne often neglected spinoff of japan's frontier industryinvestment strategy has been rising living standards. In theUnited States from 1960 on, the real growth of hourlycompensation of manufacturing workers was negligiblebecause of the stagnation of surplus-generating capitalinvestment and productivity, japan, on the other hand,enjoyed a positive cycle of mutually reinforcing investmentrates and productivity and wage increases. Hourlycompensation tripled between 1960 and. 1976, at the sametime that productivity soared. The key was the risingportion of CNP invested in frontier industries.1980, to install energy-saving continuous casting and toupgrade their operations from basic steel production tospecialty steel.Permeating the daily decision-making process at Japan'scorporations and government ministries is an unshakablecommitment to technological advance and a "can do"spirit, a spirit rekindled in the American population by thesuccessful flight of the Space Shuttle.Japan's Frontier IndustriesFor Japan's economic planners, technology does notsimply mean better, and growth is not merely more.Rather, business and government cooperate in settingnational goals of economic growth through planning asuccession of frontier industries."We think about our economy in the following way,"explained a Japanese banker. "Imagine an individualstanding with an iron ball in his hand with a long ropeattached. If he could throw the iron ball hard and farenough ahead of himself while holding on to the rope,the ball he throws would carry him forward a certaindistance."So, every five or seven years, we Japanese throw outsome industries more advanced than the general economy.In the post-World War II recovery it was textiles.They were followed by steel, then autos, and now computers.The next industry is fusion power. The rest of theeconomy, by participating in the success of that frontierindustry, grabs on to the rope of that industry and iscarried forward."Each technological advance makes possible the next.Therefore, Japanese businessmen and government plannersconsider where they want Japan to be 10, 20, andeven 30 years into the future and then what technologicalphases Japan must pass through to achieve that 30-yeargoal. Thus, as early as 1953, the government and businessleaders jointly initiated Japan's shift from coal to oil andlaunched a research and public education program topromote atomic energy. As early as 1970, an official of theMinistry of International Trade and Industry declared, "Bythe year 2000 Japan will supply up to half the world'senergy through mass production of fusion power machines."The current, massive fusion research budget, therefore,is no exceptional effort but an outgrowth of the normalfunctioning of the Japanese economy.This approach of deliberately planning new frontierindustries made it possible for Japan to achieve 12 to 15percent increases in productivity growth year after year,while the United States plodded along with 3 to 6 percentper annum productivity growth rates; in the last couple ofyears, U.S. productivity has actually fallen.Japan's acclaimed high growth—regular 10 to 15 percentannual rises in production up until the 1973 oil priceshock—was not planned as an end in itself but as a meansof achieving the upward spiral of technological advance.After all, with those growth rates, within only 4 to 7 years,the vast majority of the national product consists of entirelynew products produced with new capital. Thus,rapid restructuring of the economy is the normal tendency.34 FUSION August 1981

The locus of economic planning in Japan is the Ministryof International Trade and Industry (MITI) and the majorbusiness federation, Keidanren. MITI is the current nameof the industry ministry set up in the late 1860s by thefounders of modern Japan to implement their Americanindustrialization strategy. Keidanren, known as the headquartersof business (with its chairman as the prime ministerof business), was set up in 1946 during the postwarU.S. occupation to foster economic recovery. In additionto the physical damage to Japanese industry from theravages of World War II, Japan's economy had been setback by the initial occupation policy aimed at deindustrializingJapan, the counterpart for Japan of the proposedMorgenthau plan for Germany. Japan's large, concentratedindustries were dissolved and broken down intosmaller enterprises. More than 200,000 businessmen, politicians,and bureaucrats were purged from all activepolitical, civil, or business activities. Middle and juniorexecutives, mostly under 45 years of age, suddenly foundthemselves in charge of virtually every corporation inJapan—with the responsibility of resurrecting their nationand economy from the ashes. These men ran Japan andits industrial corporations for the next 30 years.As part of this endeavor, Japan's new leaders set up theKeidanren federation, whose role is far more powerfulthan anything the U.S. National Association of Manufacturersever imagined. Keidanren's membership includesthe heads of the 750 largest corporations in Japan andmore than 100 associations representing the major industries.Today, the Industrial Structure Council of MITI,which consists of both MITI officials and Keidanren leaders,makes policy and guides Japan's economic miracle.The MITI-Keidanren team initially helped to promotethe recovery of the textile industry as a quick way to earnforeign exchange for the resource-poor Japanese islands.But at the same time, to establish the foundation for longtermindustrial growth, MITI and Keidanren stressed thedevelopment of the steel, oil, petrochemical, and shipbuildingindustries.In line with making steel a national priority, MITI encouragedbanks to lend to steelmakers; granted specialtax incentives and other concessions for investment insteel capacity; subsidized research; provided protectionfrom imports; worked with the Bank of Japan, the country'scentral bank, to allocate then scarce foreign exchangefor the import of coking coal and iron ore; directed theexport-import bank to promote exports; and, for a while,provided low-interest government loans through the JapanDevelopment Bank, although these were not as significantas the directed private credit.Similar mechanisms were used to build up the petrochemicalindustry and to enable Japanese industry as awhole to switch from coal to oil.MITI, the Finance Ministry, and other arms of thegovernment used their control over national tax and creditpolicies to ensure adequate incentives for the developmentof heavy industry, growing capital investment ratios,and continuous investment in new technology. Interestrates for industry were kept low even in times of scarcecredit, and today Japan still enjoys the industrial world'slowest interest rate of 8 percent. At its highest, the Japa-J.P. Laffont/Sygm*What makes Japan, Inc. run? It isn't the managementgimmicks and other secondary features of the economicsystem, as some Americans think. Here, workers take afive-minute calisthenics break at a Nikon factory in Tokyo.nese prime rate did not reach 10 percent—U.S. FederalReserve Chairman Paul Volcker would not be able to geta job in Japan.By the early 1960s, initial economic recovery had beenachieved. Under the famous Income Doubling Plan, industrialgrowth was topping 10 percent per annum. MITIand Keidanren took action at that point to ensure thateven in times of economic recession or slowdown, inducedby periodic shortages of foreign exchange, Japan'scapital investment would not suffer. The Bank of Japanwould ensure that sufficient, low-interest credit would beavailable to keep investment going, even in periods of lowcorporate revenues.In addition, MITI promoted several corporate mergersand rationalizations, which were designed to strengthenthe economy. In 1964, for example, under the newlyenacted Temporary Law for the Reorganization of theShipping Industry, MITI aided the merger of many linesinto six major shipping lines and arranged for governmentfinancial assistance to the merged lines.A similar operation was carried out in the steel industry,culminating in the merger of the Yawata and Fuji SteelCompanies to form Nippon Steel, the world's largest steelcompany. As a result of the mergers and rationalizations,the majority of the firms were able to increase their overallAugust 1981 FUSION 35

ate of capital investment, application of new technologies,and hiring of advanced technicians.The special government support was terminated onceits job was done; by the mid-1970s Japan was the world'sleading shipbuilder and by 1979, the largest steelmaker inthe noncommunist world.After steel, oil refining, shipbuilding, and other basicindustries were on their feet, MITI and Keidanren directedtheir attention to the next set of frontier industries—nuclear energy, materials development, and electronics.Here, research and development and their financing wereguided by cross-company and joint government-privatesector development corporations such as the Nuclear FuelDevelopment Corporation, the Fine Ceramics Council,and the Industrial Robot Association.Japan's success in the computer field illustrates theJapanese method in action. MITI first targeted the computerindustry as a key frontier industry in the mid-1960s.Besides the usual support mechanisms, MITI and thecomputer firms jointly established the Japan ElectronicComputer Company to enable medium-size as well aslarge firms throughout the economy to lease computers.As a result, companies that would not have otherwisebeen able to afford computers were able to use them, atthe same time that the guaranteed expanding marketenabled the computer industry to invest increasing revenuesin further development.Japan is now the only foreign country in the noncommunistworld in which domestic rather than U.S.-madecomputers have the majority market share. What's more,Japanese computer firms such as Fujitsu and Hitachi arenow preparing to compete with IBM for markets in thedeveloping sector, Europe, and eventually in the UnitedStates itself. The Japanese firms are beginning to developmainframe computer technology in the same class asIBM's.In the same period as the computer development, MITIand Keidanren also made the manufacture and export ofmachinery and machine tools a top priority. From producinga negligible amount of machine tools in 1970,Japan achieved a $3 billion production level in 1980,compared to about $5 billion in the United States. Japanhas placed particular stress on advanced numerically controlled(computerized) machine tools and is now a worldcompetitor in that field.In each case, as the rest of industry geared up to providethe inputs to the frontier sectors and then upgradedthemselves to utilize the fruits of those new sectors, thefrontier industries propelled the entire structure of theeconomy forward technologically—as in the iron ball andrope principle described by the Japanese banker. Thisprocess worked even though the frontier industries themselvesusually represented only a small proportion of totaloutput.The Captains of IndustryThe Japanese system works because of the character ofthe men who run Japan's industrial combines. Just as manyof America's corporations used to be dominated by menlike Henry Ford or George Westinghouse—productionmen, not accountants or lawyers—so Japan's giants arestill dominated by engineers. Let's look at the three largestproducers of nuclear reactors, Hitachi, Mitsubishi HeavyIndustries (MHI), and Toshiba Electric, which have grosssales of $10 to $12 billion a year and a wide range ofproducts from televisions and refrigerators to heavyequipment for industry and scientific instruments:MHI's current president, who has the authority of thechairman in American corporations, is Masao Kanamori.Kanamori is a metallurgical engineer who spent years asa researcher in Mitsubishi's technical labs before becomingan executive. He is now moving on to become chairmanand will be replaced by Soichiro Suenaga, anotherengineer. The outgoing chairman of the company is alsoan engineer, in keeping with a long tradition at thecompany. MHI is part of the giant Mitsubishi businessgroup that was created de novo in the 1870s by thefounders of modern Japan as a chief vehicle for theirpolicy of rapid industrialization.Hitachi was founded in 1910 by an engineer to producemotors and other products that would use Japanese ratherthan imported technology. Like its founder, outgoingpresident Hirokichi Yoshiyama is an engineering graduateof Tokyo University, and his replacement, Katsushige Mita,is an electronics engineer. Hitachi has 500 PhDs in its R&Ddepartment, more than in any other Japanese firm. Thecompany's executive and R&D engineering talent helpsexplain Hitachi's current leadership in computers, consumerelectronics, and scientific work, and its role as theprime contractor for Japan's tokamak program.Former Toshiba chief Toshio Doko has a particularlystriking record. Doko is a shipbuilding engineer whograduated from the Massachussetts Institute of Technologyand later become head of the Keidanren federation.Doko is renowned as the man who repeatedly built largerand larger supertankers at a time when most U.S. industrialistsinsisted they could not be built.More than that, these are engineers who came toadulthood during the 1930s and 1940s and were faced withthe responsibility of rescuing Japan from the consequencesof that period. Former prime minister TakeoFukuda speaks for most of them when he constantly pointsout, as he did to President Reagan last March, that theeconomics of the 1930s led to the wars of the 1940s andthat today's depressed world economy could easily leadto another debacle unless government leaders take preventativeaction. Fukuda gave this reasoning as the motivationfor his repeated, emphatic calls for U.S.-Japanesejoint research in fusion energy.Having taken a feudalist, backward nation with no naturalresources and turned it in a single century into anindustrial powerhouse through technology and sheer initiative,Japanese corporate executives have a respect forscience and information no longer seen so frequently inAmerican corporate boardrooms. The idea of buying upa patent on a new technology in order to prevent itsbeing manufactured by others, an increasingly commonpractice among U.S. corporate giants, strikes Japaneseexecutives as a violation of the laws of the universe.In Japan, a scientific or technological advance achievedby one firm is not regarded as that firm's property. Theadvance belongs to society, to be used to advance the36 FUSION August 1981

entire nation. Guided by this attitude, special corporationsfor joint research have been set up by competing firms ina single industry, and the prolific licensing of patents toother companies by the inventor is common. Both practiceshave enhanced the rate of technological developmentthroughout the Japanese economy.In a rapidly advancing and expanding economy likeJapan's, profits are made only by steady investment incapacity expansion and in productivity-increasing innovationsthat enable a company to maintain or increase itsmarket share over a number of years.A comparison of the investment programs of Americanand Japanese steel firms illustrates the difference in managementstrategy. Most U.S. steelmakers have pursued apolicy of at best simply patching up and improving oldermills, based on the accountant's mentality that this routeis cheaper. By contrast, Japanese firms have repeatedlyscrapped relatively new steel plants in order to build newgreenfield plants, entirely new plants that make use ofeconomies of scale, integrated processes, and the mostadvanced technologies available. The oldest plant of Japan'snumber two steelmaker, Nippon Kokkan, was builtin 1962.As a result, every dollar invested in steel by Japan'sengineer-executives has yielded up to twice as much inincreased steel output as the investment in "roundingout" old steel capacity advised by their American counterparts.Moreover, Japanese steel mills now produce steelwith approximately one-third less energy, coking coal,and iron ore than the average U.S. mill. This is becausethe Japanese managers think about profits in terms ofyears and decades rather than quarters.japan's largest producers of nuclear reactors are run byengineers. Top to bottom: Masao Kanamori, president ofMitsubishi Heavy Industries; Katsushige Mita, new presidentof Hitachi; Shoichi Saba, current president of ToshibaElectric; and former Toshiba chief Toshio Doko, a shipbuildingengineer by profession and former head of Keidanren.Above, engineering students at Waseda Universityin Tokyo.August 1981 FUSION 37

The 10-year plan of the Industrial Structure Council ofMITI in 1970 outlined the next step in Japan's development:knowledge-intensification. For the first time, theexport of capital-intensive industries to the developingcountries was regarded as integral to Japan's own development.Japan would no longer simply be a supplier ofcommodities like steel, ships, and autos to the advancedand developing countries. Instead, Japan would movefrom these capital-intensive industries to the higher valueadded,more knowledge-intensive industries such as machinetools, nuclear reactors, and computers.Knowledge-intensity took on a new meaning as fusionpower came to be viewed by the Japanese as increasinglyrealistic; and by 1975, fusion became officially known as"the energy of the 21st century." The transfer of technologywas then seen by many MITI officials as necessary toJapan and the world's transition to the fusion age. A fusioneconomy, they understood, requires a world division oflabor so extensive as to necessitate the industrialization ofthe developing countries.Japan's role during the early 1970s in aiding SouthKorea's development of domestic steel, machinery, andauto industries is the most successful example of thisstrategy of creating "new japans," in preparation forentering the fusion age.Since the 1973 oil crisis, the U.S. government's adherenceto the "limits of growth" perspective has involvedpressuring Japan to abandon the strategy of creating newJapans with the threat of trade protectionism, a threatmade explicit in the 1979 Trade Report of the U.S. Houseof Representatives Trade Subcommittee.A political battle has since erupted inside Japan onwhether to try to continue the internal aspects of theknowledge-instensification strategy without the internationaltransfer of technology, or whether the latter isessential to internal development. The debate is continuing,but there is no debate over whether to continueJapan's domestic advancement.1980s: The Decade of TechnologyThe 1980s has been declared "the decade of technology"by Japan's economic planners. "The Japanese economyhas attained the national goal of the past hundredyears, reaching the level of Western industrial nations,"declared the Industrial Structure Council's "Long-termVision of MITI Policies in the 1980s." "It is time for Japanto establish new national long-term goals and to envisagethe course to reach them."Partly because the United States can no longer be reliedon as a source of new technologies, the heart of thatnational goal is to turn Japan into an international leaderin initiating new science and technology in the 1980s.Rejecting "the now prevalent apprehension that technologicalprogress is about to stagnate," the Industrial StructureCouncil's report insisted, "Great expectations aretherefore placed on technological innovation providingthe key to the solution of various problems in the1980s.... In the past, Japanese industry achieved brilliantresults in improving and applying imported technologies.In the 1980s, however, it will be essential for Japan todevelop technologies of its own."A key task of the 1980s, the report continued, is the"preparation for the next generation's epoch-makingtechnological innovations expected in the years after 1990Industrial robots perform repetitive assembly-line work at Nissan Motor plant, freeing human laborknowledge-intensive work.38 FUSION August 1981

. . . in the field of life sciences: treatment of cancer,genetic manipulation, investigation into photosynthesisand its application for food production; in the field ofenergy: nuclear fusion and MHD power generation."Gone are the days when Japan's patents were limited toimprovements or adaptations of other nations' inventions.In 1970, Hitachi paid out 12 times as much in royalties onuse of other companies' patents, often imported, than itearned on licensing its own; by 1980, the multiple hadbeen reduced to 2.Japan will soon be a world technological leader in twoareas that will revolutionize basic industry: computers andindustrial robots. Japan is already dominant in robot technologyand is increasingly challenging the United Statesin the computer field.Japan's ability to leapfrog America technologically inelectronics points up a crucial aspect of the relationshipbetween old and new industries and between science andindustrial progress. In stark contrast to the "sunrisesunset"perspective that sees electronic gimmickry replacingheavy industry, Japanese industrialists regard advancedelectronics as a means of advancing heavy industry. Whilein the United States computer applications have beenmainly limited to administrative functions and informationprocessing, in Japan the chief applications are computerizedmachine tools, computer-assisted design and production,and robotization. In the course of applying electronicsto such industrial tasks, problems are posedrequiring fundamental breakthroughs in science and technology.This is why, for example, Hitachi stressed in itslatest annual report, "Nearly 30 percent of Hitachi's R&Dis concerned with basic research, and with this beingconsidered as having a bearing on future profits, ourpolicy is to build up the fundamentals, especially withregard to materials."If electronics is not applied in such a task-orientedmanner, then no fundamental problems are posed, andtechnological progress tends to take on a plodding, stepby-stepcharacter as opposed to the leapfrogging progressenjoyed by Japan.Such breakthroughs are putting Japan's semiconductorindustry ahead of that of the United States, with Japanhaving just matched the United States in producing a64,000-byte chip and expected to be first in producing achip with 256,000 bytes.Even more interesting, Matsushita Electronics (Panasonicin the United States) reported earlier this year that it willproduce the first gallium-arsenide integrated circuit forgeneral product use rather than special instruments. Gallium-arsenidehas electron motion six times faster thanthe silicon-based'chips currently in use. And Fujitsu andHitachi are beginning to challenge IBM's technical supremacyin the manufacture of mainframe computers.Seeking high-technology ways of saving energy, MITIrecently made a priority the development of ceramics asa basic all-purpose industrial material. Nine companiesformed last November a Fine Ceramics Council, whichwill work with the government to finance the research.Toshiba already reports progress toward developing withinfive to ten years the ability to use fine heat and shockresistantceramics for making automobile engines.The 1980s has been declared the "decade of technology"in japan. Shown here, the transmission electron microscopewith the world's highest resolution. Among itsapplications is advanced biological research.Industrial robotization is perhaps the most dramatic ofthe technological leaps made by Japan. Of the 10,000industrial robots now in use in the world, about 4,000 arein Japanese factories, far more than in any other country.In Nissan Motor's famous Zama plant, robots assembleand weld together sheet metal parts comprising the bodysides, floor pans, front and rear fenders, and roofs intothe basic body of its Datsun cars. A central control roomcan instruct the robots to shift programs to accommodatedifferent models.The Japan Industrial Robot Association and its 14 membercompanies are now gearing up to develop so-calledintelligent robots with sight and touch; and it is estimatedthat by 1985, 15 percent of the robots in use will be suchintelligent robots. One third of the research money forthis work comes from the government.The basic approach that Japan is using is one learnedfrom the United States at the dawn of Japan's entranceinto modernity during the 1860s and 1870s. Along withsteel, autos, and tokamaks, the United States should prepareto begin reimporting the American System fromJapan as well.Richard Katz is on the Asia desk of the ExecutiveIntelligence Review.August 1981 FUSION 39

Japan s Fight forOCTOBER 26 is Atomic Energy Day in Japan. Each yearon that day the Science and Technology Agency (STA) andthe Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)award prizes to high school students for the best essayson the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Throughout theyear, high school teachers, labor union leaders, businessmen,and others are invited to courses on nuclear energygiven by the Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization,an organization set up in 1969 by MITI and STA to educatethe population about nuclear power.The development of atomic energy is a national projectin Japan, the nation's own long-standing "Project Independence."With no oil or other natural resources tospeak of, Japan's business and government leaders beganas early as 1953 to chart the development of nuclearenergy—even as the country was only beginning thetransition from coal to oil.As a result of this campaign, by the beginning of 1980japan had become the world's second largest user ofnuclear power after the United States, a country withtwice its population. Japan obtained its first commercialnuclear plant in only 1966, but by 1980 its nuclear capacityhad grown to more than 15 gigawatts, accounting for 10percent of electricity consumption. MITI projects thatnuclear output will double by 1985 and quintuple by 1995(see table page 42).As in many areas of the Japanese economy, the developmentof nuclear power took off at an accelerating paceafter a long-term planning phase. Yet, compared to whatJapan could be doing or what a country like France isdoing, this rate of progress is by no means adequate. Infact, by the end of the 1970s, Japan's initial momentumhad turned sluggish. And by the end of 1980, France,whose big nuclear push began in 1974, surpassed Japan asthe second largest producer of nuclear energy. The SovietUnion will put Japan into the number four spot by theend of 1981.-< The development of atomic energy is Japan's long-standing"Project Independence." Here, the mock-up of theprimary cooling pump for the prototype fast. breederreactor, Manju, being placed on a test loop at Japan'sPower Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation.Nuclear Engineering International

Nuclear PowerIn an article in the December 1979 issue of NuclearEngineering International, MITI official Katsuomi Kodamareported that Japanese industry was capable of adding 6to 10 gigawatts of nuclear power annually. MITI, however,is currently projecting no more than an additional 4gigawatts a year for the next 15 years.What has kept Japan from living up to its nuclearpotential? The reasons are political. The Carter administrationthreatened Japan with an embargo on uraniumshipments if the country went ahead with the developmentof its own uranium reprocessing facilities—a move,in the view of many Japanese government and businessleaders, to keep Japan eternally dependent on the SevenSisters oil majors. Inside Japan, the opposition JapaneseSocialist Party was at the same time organizing popularresistance to the siting of nuclear plants, further undercuttingthe country's ability to attain energy independencethrough nuclear power.In Japan, as elsewhere, the fight for nuclear power hasalways been a political one. The current fight is a continuationof one begun in the 1950s, the big differencebetween then and now being that In the 1950s and 1960s,the United States was a staunch ally in Japan's fight fornuclear energy.Japan's Atoms for Peace ProgramAfter a visit to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission'sresearch facility in California in January 1954, the presidentof Keidanren, Japan's powerful business federation, wasconvinced that Japan had no choice but to launch an"Atoms for Peace" program on the U.S. model. Twomonths later, the Japanese Diet, or parliament, approvedthe first appropriations request for building an experimentalnuclear reactor in Japan. Within a year, Japan hadestablished its own Atomic Energy Commission, headedby Matsutaro Shoriki, the publisher of Yomiuri, one ofJapan's largest newspapers.Shoriki was aware of the special need for a publiceducation campaign on nuclear energy in Japan becauseof still-intense memories of Hiroshima, and he organizeda joint government-business group called the Council forthe Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. In the council'sinaugural statement, Shoriki stated:It has now become clear that nuclear energy, whichwas once used against us as a terrible weapon ofdestruction, can be used as a mighty power to banishwars from the earth and liberate humanity from povertyand disease ... to eliminate the causes of coldwars and achieve constructive peace. . ..Our country lacks coal and petroleum resourcesamong other things. . . . Atomic energy is thereforenecessary. . . .The time has come for the whole nation to forgeahead without any hesitation whatever.Joining newspaper publisher Shoriki on the councilwere the heads of Keidanren and other business federations,seven "elder statesmen" of the business world, thepresident of the state-owned Japan Development Bank,the presidents of the two other largest newspapers, andthe top leaders from the utility, steel, shipbuilding, machinery,paper, metal, and mining industries. In all, therewere nearly 100 businessmen, scientists, and political leaderson the council.One of the council's first activities was to invite GeneralDynamics chairman John J. Hopkins and Dr. LawrenceHolstadt of Chase National Bank's atomic energy departmentto give public lectures in Japan on atomic power.The Eisenhower administration actively aided the researchefforts in Japan, including supplying uranium for Japan'stest reactors.At the end of 1955, Shoriki's Yomiuri and the U.S.Information Service jointly sponsored a six-week Atomsfor Peace Exhibition in a park in the center of Tokyo.Close to 400,000 students, businessmen, workers, farmers,housewives, and cabinet ministers attended, and the pollsshowed that 92 percent of them walked away convincedof the need for nuclear power.Then in March 1956, the United States and Japan signeda technology agreement to facilitate cooperation in Japan'sindustrial development. The agreement covered thelicensing of patents, which was critical for advancingJapan's atomic research. A few days later Japan set up aspecial Science and Technology Agency to promoteatomic power and general industrial progress.In 1963 Japan became the fifth nation in the world togenerate electricity using nuclear power, at an experimentalreactor run by the Science and TechnologyAgency. Commercial production of nuclear power beganin 1966.For MITI and Keidanren, nuclear energy was neverAugust 1981 FUSION 41

NUCLEAR PROJECTIONS:JAPAN, FRANCE, AND THE U.S.Gigawatts of Nuclear Power andPercentage of Electricity Generated by Nuclearsimply a cheap energy source but a classic frontier industry,whose development would propel the entire economyforward. As MITI official Kodama wrote in Nuclear EngineeringInternational in 1979:Because the nuclear manufacturing industry is a typicaladvanced technology-intensive system engineeringindustry, great expectations are placed on itsdevelopment as a stimulus to further the sophisticationof the whole Japanese industrial infrastructure.Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute president HiroshiMurata stressed in an accompanying article that thehigh temperatures and energy density of atomic poweropened the way for revolutionary new processes notpossible with conventional energy sources. Only 30 to 40percent of energy used in industrial societies is in theform of electricity, he pointed out; the rest is consumedas fuel or else as heat energy in industrial processes. Theadvent of Very High Temperature Reactors (VHTRs), hepredicted, would revolutionize the latter."Hydrogen, reducing gas, and synthetic gas, as fuel andfeedstocks for the chemical industries, can be producedutilizing nuclear heat from high temperature reactors,"Murata wrote. Thus, "the steelmaking and chemical industries,which are energy intensive industries, can avoiddependence on coal and oil as energy sources."The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, or JAERI,which is a unit of the Science and Technology Agency,expects to produce a 50-megawatt VHTR by 1987. Inparallel with JAERI's work, since 1973 MITI has beenresearching direct-reduction steelmaking technology, usinga VHTR to produce the high-temperature reducinggas. Commercial application of this process is expected bythe 1990s.For Japan, in short, nuclear energy has been a means ofrevolutionizing all of basic industry within a matter ofyears.Nuclear Energy: Political IndependenceNuclear energy also means political independence forJapan. Traditionally, Japan imported most of its oil throughthe multinational oil companies, since it lacked a state oilimporting company like those in some European countries.This dependence made it difficult for Japan to pursuean independent foreign policy especially vis-a-vis thedeveloping sector, and it made Japan vulnerable to thesharp, politically engineered fluctuations in the world oilmarket in recent years—a vulnerability that the Carteradministration did not hesitate to use. During the Iranianrevolution in early 1979, the majors declared force majeureand disproportionately cut oil shipments to Japan.MITI and Keidanren have therefore stressed nuclearpower development as a means of achieving an independent,domestic energy industry. Once Japan develops adomestic nuclear plant manufacturing capacity and a completefuel cycle, it will ffave achieved energy independence,advancing its political independence.At present Japan's nuclear manufacturing firms, includingMitsubishi Heavy Industries, Hitachi, and Toshiba, thethree largest, still operate predominantly under licensesfrom General Electric, Westinghouse, and other foreignfirms. The United States is also Japan's major supplier ofenriched uranium, giving the U.S. government veto powerover the use of spent fuel. Most of the spent fuel iscurrently reprocessed in the United States, though someis shipped to France, which has its own independentfacilities for both enrichment and reprocessing.MITI has made it a national goal to develop independencein both reactor production and fuel by approximately1990. Since 1976, MITI has arranged for the ninemajor utilities to get special low-interest loans from theJapan Development Bank to help them purchase nuclearpower equipment made in Japan, utilizing an increasingproportion of Japanese R&D. The joint private-governmentPower Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation(PNC) was established to provide Japan with anindependent source of fuel after 1990. JAERI is conductingreprocessing work at the Tokaimura research facility, whileMITI is taking the necessary steps to enable private companiesto acquire the funding, technical know-how, andsites to set up commercial reprocessing. MITI and JAERIare also conducting and funding R&D work on the enrichmentprocess and expect to complete a pilot plant in1979. Finally, as part of the advanced work of JAERI,research is being done on fast breeder reactors, which donot need enriched fuel and which can make nuclearpower economical for decades and ensure political independence.These ambitious plans and timetable have not proceededunopposed. In 1977, the Carter administrationrefused to allow Japan to operate a 0.7 ton per day pilotreprocessing plant at Tokaimura, under the threat of ashutoff of uranium shipments, unless Japan met certainconditions—conditions that in fact would make reprocessingeconomically unfeasible.Japan eventually agreed to operate the research facilityunder a compromise arrangement, in which it virtuallybound itself to the guidelines set forth by the InternationalNuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) initiated in 1977 byformer secretary of state Cyrus Vance. These guidelinesrequired Japan to undertake costly research on coprocessing,a fuel reprocessing technique in which plutoniumalways occurs together with uranium. The research hassince shown that this process is economically impossiblefor Japan.Despite the publicity about nuclear weapons prolifera-42 FUSION August 1981

tion, Vance's primary motivation in calling for INFCE wasto prevent the acquisition of peaceful nuclear energy bynonnuclear countries. The Carter administration's subsequentheavy pressure on West Germany to abrogate itsnuclear reactor deal with Brazil had a major impact onJapan as well. Japanese firms postponed indefinitely theirplans to export nuclear reactors to developing countries,even though such exports had been an integral part ofthe knowledge-intensification strategy developed in the1970 long-term plan of MITI's Industrial Structure Council.JAERI President Imai charged at the time:INFCE has provided two years of virtual moratoriumon the rising momentum of the world's nuclear energy.It has forced people to realize that this industryis full of factors that are beyond its commercial orindustrial control so that the rules of the game maybe changed overnight on political, rather than economicor technical grounds; from encouragement ofLight Water Reactor plutonium recycling to its prohibition,for example.Under these circumstances, MITI complained, it hadbecome increasingly difficult to convince the private firmsto make years of investment that could go up in smokebecause of a single move from Washington. JAERI presidentImai added, "It is doubtful under the circumstanceswhether even a renewed promotional drive by powerfulcountries could re-create the necessary self-confidence ofthis industry." Thus, MITI is projecting only a 4-gigawattincrease in nuclear capacity per year until 1995, despitethe potential for adding 6 to 10 gigawatts a year.MITI Versus the EnvironmentalistsInternal sabotage of nuclear power development inJapan has proceeded lockstep with the external. Japan'senvironmentalists launched a crusade against nuclearpower in the late 1960s, soon after the first commercialreactor appeared. The main political support for the antinuclearmovement comes from the Japan Socialist Party(JSP), the opposition to the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP),which has ruled Japan for the last 30 years. The JSP's 1980election platform officially called for zero economicgrowth, which explains why the party has never won anational election. Yet, like the environmentalists in theUnited States, the JSP has made it difficult for nuclearutilities to find plant sites, dragging out construction timeand costs.To counter the problem, MITI and the Science andTechnology Agency have launched popular educationdrives about nuclear energy and created the Japan AtomicEnergy Relations Organization. But the educational workand the pronuclear political leadership behind it have notalways kept up with the opposition. After the Three MileIsland incident in the United States, former prime ministerand Carter ally Masayoshi Ohira announced an indefinitesuspension of new nuclear plant licensing until safetyinvestigations were completed. It was not until March1981, almost two years later, that Ohira's successor permittedthe licensing of the first new nuclear plants inJapan.Antinuclear demonstrators outside Japan's Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry in June 1979.However, the Japanese enviromentalists have gainedground in the interim. On March 8, for example, antinuclearcrusaders persuaded the residents of the small,18,000-person town of Kubokawa to vote out of office thelocal mayor who had agreed to locate a nuclear plant inthe town. The chairman of the Japan Atomic IndustrialForum, Kansai Electric's Hiromi Arisawa, commented thatthe recall vote meant, "We have not made adequateefforts to persuade people opposed to atomic power."The Future: A New Atoms for Peace?President Ronald Reagan pledged to his first foreignvisitor, South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan, that theUnited States would henceforth be a "reliable supplier"of nuclear technology and fuel. Thus, when former primeminister Takeo Fukuda met with Reagan in March, herenewed the invitation for U.S.-Japanese cooperation infusion research, an-offer snubbed by President Carter in1978. Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ito subsequently askedSecretary of State Alexander Haig to lift the restrictions onJapan's nuclear development imposed by the previousadministration. However, at a joint press conference withIto, Haig said only that the United States would be more"flexible" on the issue—a stalling gesture.Whether President Reagan responds to Fukuda's proposalfor a new era of Atoms for Peace cooperationaround fusion development, or accepts Secretary Haig'stacit continuation of the Carter adminstration's policy,may well determine, as Shoriki prophesied in 1954, ifnuclear power will be used to "banish wars, liberatehumanity from poverty, and end the causes of cold wars."—Richard KatzAugust 1981 FUSION 43

The American Roots of Japan, Inc.by Daniel SneiderNOTHING IN THE current media outpouring on Japan'seconomic and technological success has revealed toAmericans the secret behind the so-called Japanese miracle:Thesimple truth is that behind that economic powerhousethere is a method labeled "Made in USA." Thegreatest irony of the attempt to Japanize America is thatthe enduring, essential features of Japan's successful economicsystem are largely imported from the United States.The roots of this transfer of American know-how arenot, as might be thought, in the more recent postwarperiod, when Japan spurred its recovery with U.S. technology.Japan's American experience begins more than100 years ago: When the founding fathers of modernJapan threw off an oppressive feudal system in the greatMeiji revolution of 1868, they looked to America as the"mother" of a new Japan.For Japanese leaders today, the great dividing line intheir history is not 1945 but 1868, when a decisive civil waroverthrew the old order of the feudal Tokugawa Shogunate.A central government was established that restoredthe Emperor as sovereign and brought Western ideas,science, technology, and industry to Japan. Determinedto avoid the fate of neighboring China, where the decayingManchu regime had left that nation the prey of theEuropean imperialists, a group of relatively young Japaneseleaders acted to discard the backward practices ofthe past—and of Chinese influence—and introduce moderncivilization to Japan.The Meiji revolution of 1868 defeated the feudal Tokugawa Shogunate and brought Western ideas, science, technology,and industry to Japan. Surrender, a painting by a 19th century artist, depicts the defeated samurai as uncivilized beasts;the Meiji soldiers look like their contemporaries in the United States.44 FUSION August 1981

It was fortunate for the founding fathers of new Japanthat in the first 10 years of their new state they found anally in America, particularly among those who carried onthe tradition of Lincoln republicanism. The reestablishmentunder Lincoln of the American System—meaningthe U.S. founding fathers' commitment to the fostering ofscience and industry, especially through Alexander Hamilton'snational banking system—supplied the model forJapan's rapid development into an industrial nation.In the first years after the Meiji revolution, the youngleaders opened their doors to new ideas. They sent outstudents and emissaries around the world to study theeconomic, educational, social, and political systems of themost advanced nations to find models for their newsystem. Here in the United States they found the prototypefor their banking system, one which provided credit toencourage the establishment of new industry with themost advanced technology available; for their educationalsystem, which provided universal education and advancedtraining in sciences and the arts—the foundation of Japan'sincredible growth; for their agricultural system, whichtried to implant America's modern agricultural technology;and for their system of "protectionism," which builtup and sheltered the tender beginnings of modern industrialand merchant activity.In all these realms, still recognizable today as the foundationsof "Japan, Inc.," the model was the AmericanSystem forged by Hamilton and developed by the Lincolneraeconomists who gave it its name. Preeminent amongthese was Henry C. Carey. Carey and his most importantcothinker, the German economist Friedrich List, wereamong the first economists whose works were translatedinto Japanese, and to this day Japanese economists andbusinessmen are schooled in their writings. Unfortunately,Carey today is far better known in Japan than in his nativecountry.Not only the ideas, however, were imported to createthe new Japan. Scores of Americans, including manyprominent citizens, came to Japan to act as advisers,technicians, educators, and political allies. The modernizationof Japan in the 19th century can be called America'sfirst, and perhaps only, successful Third World developmentproject.The most influential of the Americans in Japan, althoughthe least known today, was Carey's collaborator ErasmusPeshine Smith. Smith worked from 1871 to 1877 as theofficial adviser to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, a positionheld by Americans for 40 years.Smith was instrumental in two regards: spreading theinfluence of the American System economics and helpingthe Japanese to revise the coercive foreign treaties imposedon the previous regime, which restricted Japan'ssovereignty as well as the development of its mercantileactivity. In a letter from Japan Smith wrote, "The Japanesestatesmen appear to have sound notions upon the policyof encouraging the protection of native industry and Ithink the revised treaties will be most unacceptable to theChristian powers in this particular. We mean to utterlyreject commercial trammels unless we get some distinctconsideration for submitting to them."By the time Smith left Japan, one Japanese historiannoted that "the American System of protectionist economictheory had become generally common thinkingamong [Japanese] statesmen, government officials, and philosophers."The Americans were well aware of their Influence onJapan. When the first Japanese mission abroad after theMeiji revolution arrived in San Francisco in 1872, the firststop in a world tour to open diplomatic ties with the greatpowers on a more equal basis, it was enthusiasticallygreeted. The welcoming editorial of the Da//y EveningBulletin, a San Francisco paper, is typical:Japan is today, all the circumstances of her previouscondition considered, the most progressive nation onthe globe. . . . Among the principal changes, therehas been an entire revolution in the system of government,the Mikado (the Emperor) having becomethe active head of the temporal power. The entiresystem of feudalism has been swept away, and all theforces of the empire, both on land and sea, havebeen consolidated, and are fed and clothed in Europeanstyle and paid by the national treasury. TheGovernment possesses a large fleet of war and transportsteamers. ... It has also constructed a stone drydockthat will admit steamers of the largest size, withways for repairing smaller vessels, and foundries,The roots of Japan, Inc. lie in the ideas of the "AmericanSystem" economists Henry C. Carey (below), adviser toPresident Lincoln, and Carey's leading cothinker, the Germaneconomist Friedrich List.August 1981 FUSION 45

or Dutch Studies Movement. They were dedicated to thestudy of Western science, at the time known only throughthe tiny Dutch trading settlement in the port of Nagasakiin western Japan. The spread of this movement, aimed inpart at what they called the "hidebound ignorance" associatedwith the dominant influence of Chinese classicalthought, produced the 19th-century leaders of the Meijirevolution.Japan's founding fathers Fukuzawa Yukichi (below) andOkubo Toshimichi, leaders of the Meiji revolution.machine shops, and forges, capable of doing thelargest class of work, the machinery being the bestobtainable in France....The Government schools at Yeddo [modern Tokyo]contain about 1,600 pupils studying foreign languages,three-fourths of whom are under American teachers,receiving an English education. The principal of thisschool and some 20 sub-teachers are American, whilemany subjects of other nations are employed in differentcapacities in other departments. An Americanfills the highest office that a foreign can hold underthe Japanese Government—that is, Imperial Councillor,whose duty is to frame codes of general laws forthe empire. Four Americans compose a scientificcommission, to introduce new methods of agriculture,mechanics, mining, roads, etc. while another Americanhas been appointed to revise and organize asystem of internal revenue somewhat similar to ourown. In addition, during the last four years, nearly1,000 young men of intelligence and ability have beensent abroad to study the languages, laws, habit, manufactures,methods of government, and all other mattersappertaining to western civilization, the greaterpart of which is to be introduced into Japan.The leaders who created this burst of creativity in Japanwere the product of 100 years of an intellectual andpolitical movement that began in the 18th century with asmall group of medical scientists known as the Rangaku,Japan's Founding FathersThe brightest stars among them, Japan's George Washingtons,Ben Franklins, and Tom Paines, are names wellknown today in Japan. The intellectual giant of Meiji,Fukuzawa Yukichi, through his teaching and writing popularizedWestern science and philosophy among an entiregeneration of Japanese at the time of the revolution.Fukuzawa, who had visited America twice before therevolution, founded Keio University, Japan's first, as wellas Japan's first newspaper. He also wrote several books onscience, education, economics, and politics which, insome cases, were sold in millions of copies. Keio, whichis still one of the finest universities in Japan today, trainedthe cadre who led government and private industry duringthe post-Meiji revolution period.Fukuzawa's ally Okubo Toshimichi was the man mostresponsible for organizing the revolution itself, and forcreating the institutions of Japan's government and economicsystem. Assassinated by profeudal terrorists in 1878,Okubo had already laid the foundations of Meiji governmentduring the first 10 years of the revolution. He wasthe first minister of finance, creating the national bankingsystem based on the U.S. model. He then created theHome Ministry, which combined a bureau for civil controlwith the Bureau for Industrial Promotion, a governmentagency that set up and fostered new industries during thefirst Meiji years. Today that bureau's activities are carriedout by its successor, the Ministry of International Tradeand Industry, which is the guiding governmental centerof Japan, Inc.The Fukuzawa-Okubo alliance had a third prominentpartner, Iwasaki Yataro, founder of what is today Japan'slargest and most powerful industrial combine, Mitsubishi.Mitsubishi's existence and growth demonstrate the Meijiuse of the American System. Fostered by the governmentdirectly under Okubo, Mitsubishi became Japan's firstmodern shipping company and allowed Japan to takecontrol over its own internal shipping trade from Britishcompanies. Staffed largely by graduates of Fukuzawa'sKeio University, Mitsubishi is the classic example of government-businesspartnership that is the trademark ofJapan's economic system.In the 1880s, Iwasaki published pamphlets arguing thatthe only way Japan could industrialize was by setting upa banking system modeled on that of Alexander Hamilton.Japan succeeded in using this Hamiltonian system toindustrialize 100 years ago. Now perhaps the best lessonthe United States can learn from Japan is an appreciationof American System economics and how to apply them.Daniel Sneider is the Asian editor of the ExecutiveIntelligence Review.46 FUSION August 1981

Inside Energy//The oil reserves of the coun-• try, as the public has beenfrequently warned, appear adequateto supply the demand foronly a limited number of years. . ..For some years we have had toimport oil, and with the growth indemand, our dependence on foreignoil has become steadilygreater. ... It is therefore evidentthat the people of the United Statesshould be informed as fully as possibleas to the reserves now left inthis country. . . ."This 1922 repbrt by the AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists,recommending elimination ofwaste, development of a syntheticshale-oil industry, and increaseduse of coal, estimated crude oil resourcesin the United States at 9billion barrels.John D. Moody, a highly respectedpetroleum geologist, in1977 compared this embarrassinglylow 9-billion figure to his estimateof 50 billion barrels of discoveredreserves and some 150 billion barrelsin as yet undiscovered reservesin the United States, providing apotential just short of a 70-year supply.Since that 1922 misestimate, therehave been a number of attempts toestimate world oil reserves, withequally unreliable results. Why is itso difficult to determine accuratelyhow large our fossil-fuel reservesare worldwide?As Dr. Hollis D. Hedberg, professorof geology emeritus at PrincetonUniversity, has noted, one answerlies in the fact that "In spite ofthe tremendous progress that hasbeen made in petroleum geology,geophysics, and geochemistry, it isstill not possible to determine withassurance the amount of petroleumin an untested region in advance ofsubstantial drilling." To emphasizehis point, Hedberg cites the unanticipatedmagnitude of the recentdiscovery of some 10 billion barrelsof oil on the North Slope of Alaska.In other words, the resource isn'treally there until exploration companiesare encouraged to invest theMisestimatingFossil-Fuel Resourcesby William Engdahltime and money to search out newfields.A deeper problem lies in themethodology of reserve projectiontechniques. A recently publishedstudy by the Rand Corporation,which was commissioned by theCarter administration in 1978 ("TheDiscovery of Significant Oil and GasFields in the United States"), statesbluntly, "We estimate that 80 to 90percent of all crude oil, natural gas,and natural gas liquids that will ultimatelybe produced in this countrybelow $40 a barrel is in fieldsthat already have been discovered."The report's author, Richard Nehring,further states that "the petroleumindustry is gradually runningout of ideas as to where oil and gasmay still be found in the UnitedStates, not because of a lack ofcreativity and imagination, but becauseof the increasing exhaustionof geological possibilities."Using Nehring's analytical methodology,the report then issues apessimistic evaluation that U.S. suppliesof petroleum liquids can continueat 1979 levels of productionfor only 20 to 40 years more, withnatural gas lasting for 17 to 26 years,all at a cost of exploration and productionof $40 per barrel."We've found a lot of oil and gasin this country," Nehring states,"but we've already produced mostof it, and nearly all of it at costs ofless than $10 a barrel."An October 1980 report issued bythe Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA) with thetitle "World Petroleum Availability:1980-2000," similarly concludes thatit is "highly likely that there Will belittle or no increase in world productionof oil from conventionalsources. . . . Oil production in theindustrialized noncommunist worldcould begin to decline by the early1980s."Perhaps even more discouragingis an analysis by the recently retiredhead of the U.S. Geological Survey,H. William Menard, which was popularizedin a January 1981 ScientificAmerican article, "Toward a RationalStrategy for Oil Exploration."Menard argues that, based on historicalanalysis of exploration effortin the lower 48 states (deliberatelyexcluding the Rocky Mountain OverthrustBelt, Alaska, and the OuterContinental Shelf), the number ofoil fields discovered has been decliningexponentially from a discoverypeak of 1.8 billion barrels peryear in the 1930s.GamblingMenard's method is similar tothat of a gambler who has rolledtoo many dice in Las Vegas. Termeda computerized "random-drillingmodel of oil exploration," theMenard method says that the probabilityof finding an oil field bypurely random drilling is aboutequal to the actual results usingbillions of dollars for subsurface geology.Significantly, Menard uses King-Hubbert units (1 King-Hubbert unitequals 100 million feet of explorationdrilling) rather than the moreindicative number of wells drilled—wells are now being drilled deeperto recover larger pay zones. Inother words, according to Menard,drilling five 2,000-foot-deep wells atrandom locations is equivalent todrilling one 10,000-foot-deep wellat a geologically determined site.Two half-wells equal a whole!Not only does Menard arbitrarilyignore the areas of most vigorousnew exploration and production,Continued on page 48Inside Energy August 1981 FUSION 47

Inside EnergyContinued from page 47but he also ignores such relevanthistorical factors as the move ofmajor oil companies into the Mideastover the past 25 years.In short, statistics can be a dangerousweapon in the wrong hands.The Rand, OTA, and Menard Assessmentsall share a commonmethodological blunder that makesthem next to worthless as policyguides. Nehring, who wrote theRand report, also collaborated withthe CIA economist Walt Macdonaldon the infamous 1977 CIA report,"The International Energy Situation:Outlook to 1985," which predictedpeaking world oil output bythe early 1980s followed by internationalcompetition over dwindlingresources.Macdonald admitted that in projectingfuture Soviet hydrocarbonreserves, for example, he merelymade a simple linear extrapolationof past data to predict that the SovietUnion would be forced to competefor Persian Gulf oil by the mid-1980s. When asked why he did nottake into account the nonlinear effectsof enhanced-recovery andother improved technologies, Macdonaldreplied, "Because this is theway I was told to do it."His method points up the flaw inall these reports. The science ofgeology should not be confusedwith statistical regression analysis,random-drilling models, and thelike, none of which takes into accountthe reasons why there hasbeen a relative stagnation of discoveriesof new giant fields.For example, using a statisticalanalysis of the number of giants andlarge (between 50 and 500 millionbarrels) U.S. fields, Nehring concludesthat "the amount of crudeoil discovered peaked in the decadefrom 1926-1935, coinciding withthe peak in the number of giant oilfield discoveries."Yet, as we have seen, the 1922estimate of 9 billion barrels hasbeen "revised" to 50 billion barrelsactual and 150 billion barrels in undiscoveredreserves.World reserves have been similarlyunderestimated. Thirty yearsago, the estimated size for worldreserves more than doubled to 1.6trillion barrels when a Stanford professornamed Levorsen includedthe highly rich offshore basins inthe calculations for the first time.By the late 1960s, a consensus of 1.8to 2 trillion barrels was reached.Michel T. Halbouty, renownedpetroleum geologist and past chairmanof President Reagan's EnergyPolicy Task Force, agrees with JohnMoody's estimate that with 514 billionbarrels of oil equivalent (includingnatural gas) produced todate, there are 1.1 trillion barrels ofoil equivalent worldwide in reservesand a further undiscoveredpotential of 1.7 trillion barrels.Assessing the data of Nehring,Menard, and others, Halboutynotes that one reason for a globaldecline in the rate of new discoveriesfor the years 1965-1976 is simplythat exploratory drilling levelshave remained more or less constantoutside North America, andthat although there have been increasinglevels of exploration in theUnited States and Canada, much ofit has been in marginal fields withlimited potential.Halbouty, a scientist rather thana pure statistician like the Rand analysts,concludes: "About as muchoil and slightly more gas remain tobe found as have been discoveredso far. . . . The undiscovered potentialthroughout the world is sizable."Recent decisions by the Reaganadministration, combined with record-breakinglevels of explorationin new areas of the Rocky MountainOverthrust Belt, the Williston Basin,the Tuscaloosa Trend, the BlackWarrior Basin, and the AppalachianOverthrust, show that with adequateincentives for new exploratoryactivity, reserve additions willbegin to appear—just as they didafter 1922.As Interior Secretary James Watt,Energy Secretary James Edwards,and geologists like Hedberg understand,we need exploration in themost promising new regions combinedwith deeper development ofexisting fields. Hedberg is convincedthat the principal site of developmentof new U.S. oil lies inthe largely unexplored offshoreareas. He notes that of the almost1,700,000 square miles of U.S. offshoreContinental Shelf area thathas great geological promise, wehave leased only a little more, than2 percent for exploratory drilling."The amount of producible petroleumin this U.S. offshore is anunknown," Hedberg says, emphasizingthat "almost all of it has sufficientprospects to be worthy ofdrilling exploration."Aggressive exploration with governmentencouragement, developmentof new technologies to enhanceretrieval, basic research inthe science of hydrocarbon geology,and research into how fossilreserves are formed in the firstplace will enable us to make scientificprojections about our hydrocarbonreserves for the future.Uwe ParpariA Mexican petrochemical complex: kept busy by Mexico's new oil finds.48 FUSION August 1981 Inside Energy

WashingtonLittle ProgressOn Fusion BudgetLittle progress was made in Congressduring April toward an agreementon the fiscal year 1982 budgetfor the magnetic fusion program. Althoughthe House authorizing committeehas marked up the budget,adding $14.7 million to the Departmentof Energy request of $460 million,the Senate has yet to take specificaction on the proposal.The budget required to carry outthe engineering phase of the MagneticFusion Energy Engineering Actof 1980 is $525 million.On April 29, Senator Pete Domenici(R-N.M.), chairman of the R&D subcommitteeof the Senate Committeeon Energy and Natural Resources,held hearings on the programs of theDOE Office of Energy Research,which includes the fusion program.The senator asked the DOE witness,Dr. Doug Pewitt, questions on manyother programs, but nothing aboutthe fusion budget. Pewitt, acting directorof the Office of Energy Research,in previous testimony hadcalled the 1980 fusion act "a permissivepiece of legislation."The committee staff has given nohint about Senator Domenici's thinkingon fusion, although he has beena supporter of fusion development inthe past.As of this writing, the worrisomeHouse Appropriations Committee hastaken no mark-up action on the fusionbudget, but staff members expectthe DOE bill to be considered beforethe summer. The Senate appropriationsprocess is considerably behindthat of the House and may not takeplace until September.MHD FacilityDedicatedU.S. Air ForceGeneral DynamicsJames A. Beggs (right) and Dr. Hans Mark, nominees for NASA administratorand deputy administrator.Reagan Nominates Strong Team to NASAPresident Reagan named James M.Beggs as NASA administrator and Dr.Hans Mark as deputy administrator inApril—a combination of an industryleader and a scientist that should considerablystrengthen NASA's visibilityon Capitol Hill.Beggs, a director of the GeneralDynamics Corporation, has been responsiblefor the Convair, Electronics,Fort Worth, and Pomona divisions ofthe company. The Convair Division isdeveloping superconducting magnetsfor the magnetic fusion program.NASA ExperienceBeggs also served in NASA's Officeof Advanced Research and Technologyin 1968-69 and as undersecretaryof transportation. Before joiningNASA, Beggs was with the WestinghouseCorporation.Mark was the secretary of the AirForce under President Carter and wasformerly head of NASA's Ames ResearchCenter. A physicist and nuclearengineer, Mark has worked with theacademic community and scientists inthe national laboratories.NASA supporters on Capitol Hill,who have tried to keep the spaceagency's funding at a level highenough to keep current projects onschedule as well as initiate new programs,are hopeful that this industrialscientificcombination will give themsome strong backup in the fightagainst the Office of Managementand Budget's budget cutting.A dedication ceremony in Butte,Mont, to mark the completion of theDepartment of Energy's magnetohydrodynamics(MHD) test facility tookplace April 24 in the middle of aWashington budget fight that mayend in the elimination of the MHDprogram.The new MHD Component Developmentand Integration Facility(CDIF) is a 50-megawatt thermal MHDgenerator built to do engineeringscaletesting of components for acoal-burning generator. MHD is aprocess to generate electricity directlyby passing high-temperature gasesfrom coal combustion through a magneticfield. The CDIF was designed tobe the first U.S. machine in which allMHD components are simultaneouslyfully operational.Although the dedication, whichmarks the readiness of the CDIF tobegin operation, is a milestone for theMHD program, it may be the lastone—unless the Reagan budget forMHD, now zero, is amended. CapitolHill sources indicate that Congresswill probably restore between $20 and$30 million to the program. The fundinglevel was more than $60 millionlast year.WashingtonAugust 1981 FUSION 49

WashingtonAn Interview with the OTA'HamiltonianismIs Like Nazism'Fusion reporter Mary Gilbertsonasked a spokesman for the CongressionalOffice of Technology Assessment(OTA) to comment on the factthat the Soviet Union has movedahead of the United States in keyareas that bear on national security—space exploration, scientific and engineeringmanpower, and basic industrialinfrastructure."That's the price we pay for a freemarket economy," she was told.Excerpts from the OTA spokesman'sremarks appear below. For a factualassessment of "How the U.S. and theSoviets Measure Up," see the specialreport on "Science and National Security"in the July Fusion, p. 13.Question: Could you comment onthe growing U.S.-Soviet gap?It's kind of shocking that they areso far ahead, but that's okay. Ourbeing behind the Soviets is proof ofthe fact that we have a free marketeconomy; that's the price we pay fora free market economy. The Sovietsand the Japanese have planned economies,but we don't want that becauseit would be like Nazi Germany.A planned economy would be worsethan being behind the Soviets.Question: Article IV of the U.S. Constitutionstates that it is the duty ofthe government to foster science andtechnology, and when we had a nationalscience commitment—for example,the Kennedy administration'spromotion of NASA—the results werenoticeable. Could you comment?I know what you're getting at.That's Hamiltonianism. I used to thinkthat approach was good, but I've beenconvinced lately that Hamiltonianismis like Nazism—I especially mean therelationship between governmentand industry that Hamilton pushed. Iread his material on manufacturing.. . . It's a good thing Jefferson wasaround or we would never have hada free country. Hamilton was the manbehind the Constitution, and Jeffersonwas behind the Declaration ofIndependence. Jefferson stood forthe free traders.Question: Didn't we fight a revolutionagainst the free traders so thecountry could commit itself to a policyof fostering science and technology?The free traders are the oneswho say sell anything—even dope.That's the price we pay for freedom.Look at the engineering faculty in heUnited States today. We'll never catchup, because no one wants to teachwhen the salaries are so much higherin electronic engineering. . . . Havinggovernment push science and tech-Alexander Hamilton, the first treasurysecretary of the United States. His1792 Report on Manufactures is nowconsidered "Nazi" by some officialsat the OTA.nology is like what the Nazis did, andwe wouldn't want that. The Sovietsand the Japanese are just like that—short hair and all.The OTAFor or AgainstTechnology?The Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA) wasfounded in 1972 to evaluate the feasibilityof new technologies—an importantand influential responsibility.The problem has been that since itsinception, the OTA has been dominatedby policy makers who areagainst technology and for zerogrowth.Founded at the initiative of SenatorEdward Kennedy and his adviser, Clubof Rome member Michael Michaelis,OTA's first director was Russell Peterson,who is now in the forefront ofthe environmentalist attacks on InteriorSecretary James Watt. Peterson isa member of the boards of the U.S.Association of the Club of Rome andthe World Wildlife Fund, president ofthe National Audubon Society, and aleading supporter of the Global 2000Report.The OTA's current director, John H.Gibbons, is a specialist in universityand government energy conservationand environmental quality programs.Working under Gibbons is MichaelWalsh, another Club of Rome member.The OTA has produced reports criticalof the supersonic transport passengeraircraft; pesticides; fertilizeruse; advanced medical technology;international nuclear plant sales; andthe U.S. fusion research program.Currently the OTA rates synfuels asfeasible, nuclear energy as not. Accordingto the OTA, fusion should berejected in favor of biomass and otherlow-technology energy sources, becausefusion requires a more centralizedeconomy.The OTA is financed with U.S. taxpayers'money at a current level of$13 million a year. You can reach theOTA at (202) 226-2090.50 FUSION August 1981 Washington

International'Gray Matter'France's Most Valuable ResourceFrance has "the world's most ambitiousprogram for research," PierreAigrain, France's state secretary incharge of research, told members ofthe French community in New YorkApril 16. In a presentation sponsoredby the Clubs Perspectives et Realites,Aigrain reported that the French government'snewly issued Eighth Plancalls for a 7 to 8 percent per annumincrease in research spending for thenext seven years—the highest growthrate anywhere in the world, including)apan. Moreover, the adopted researchbudget for 1981 is 8 percenthigher than last year's.In his speech and in wide-ranginginterviews, Aigrain emphasized thatFrance has no national resources exceptits R&D and scientific capabilities.However, these, he said, are anunlimited resource."Gray matter has an enormous advantage,"Aigrain commented. "It isthe only raw material that doesn't getused up when you use it. In fact, themore you use it, the more you haveof it."Another major theme of Aigrain'sNew York presentation was that themajority of the French populationshares its government's concern withadvancing France's scientific andtechnological capabilities. "It wouldbe inconceivable," he said, "it wouldnot permit our population to satisfyits aspirations, if we were not engagedin a fundamental research effort placingus among the first in the world.""We have great ambitions," hecontinued, "but they can only be realizedif the population as a wholeconsiders scientific and technologicalresearch to be the future of the nation."This educational goal was in partaccomplished by a white paper onresearch, which was widely distributedlast September, especially to thepress, Aigrain said. "It had the impactwe wanted. For the first time, researchInternationalbecame the main preoccupation ofthe nation."Nuclear energy, which is scheduledto produce 80 percent of France'selectricity by 1990, is now so widelyaccepted in France that vacationingfamilies frequently include tours ofnuclear plants and other high-technologyfacilities in their travel plans.We have a tendency to forget, Aigrainsaid, that France is not just aland famous for its haute couture,wine, and cheese. "France is theworld's third largest exporter in volumeterms, on equal footing withJapan, which has about double thepopulation. In terms of the rate ofexport growth, France is first in theworld, in a tie with West Germanyand far ahead of the United Statesand Japan. The share of exports inFrench economic activity is 2.2 timesgreater than in Japan," he said.The Space ProgramAigrain also ventured into moresensitive ground, warning that thecancellation of the U.S. side of thejoint NASA-European Space AgencySolar Polar Mission puts "ESA's Survivalat stake." The cancellation wasprecipitated by the U.S. budget cuts,and it provoked loud protests fromESA, which has already spent largeamounts of funds on the now defunctproject.The International Solar Polar Missionwas a cooperative venture inwhich two spacecraft, one built byESA and the other by NASA, were tobe launched by the U.S. Space Shuttlewith trajectories taking them on pathsflying over the opposite poles of theSun. This mission was designed to giveman the first three-dimensional viewof the Sun through pictures takensimultaneously from the two vantagepoints.Aigrain said that he hoped Congresswould increase NASA's fundingto enable it to revive the program orstart a similar one. Despite some re-August 1981cent warnings that Spacelab, whichESA is building to fly on the SpaceShuttle, is in jeopardy, Aigrain appearedconfident that whatever fundingproblems may have existed havebeen resolved.The French minister issued an appealfor international cooperation,particularly between the United Statesand Western Europe, in basic scienceprojects. He cited the case of theLarge Electron Positron particle acceleratorcurrently being built by theCenter for Nuclear Studies and Research(CERN) based in Geneva. TheLEP will have a 10-kilometer diameter."If we want to make a larger machinesome day," Aigrain said, "we willneed the surface of an American stateto do it. I'm not even sure RhodeIsland would be big enough!"—Dana SloanAn InterviewWith Pierre AigrainScience forIndustrial GrowthIn an interview with Fusion contributorDana Sloan, French Secretary forResearch Pierre Aigrain expanded onFrance's fusion program, the need forU.S.-European cooperation in basicscience research, and his definition ofpostindustrial society. The interviewtook place April 17, in New York, afterAigrain's public presentations. Hereare excerpts.Question: Has the French governmentaccelerated its fusion programwith additional funding?There has been a slight accelerationthis year because we started puttingmoney in the TOR-Supra. It's a newlevel of spending, but our plans areto keep that level of spending relativelyconstant. We are not expandingfusion expenditures any faster thanother research expenditures. And ofcourse, the biggest amount of moneyactually goes to the Joint EuropeanTorus [JET].FUSION 51

InternationalQuestion: Does this mean that youare banking on the JET for the industrialrealization of fusion, or are youcounting on the French fusion programto achieve this?Assuming we achieve—when I saywe, I mean maybe the JET program,maybe the American large tokamak,or maybe the Japanese—assumingsomebody achieves scientific breakevenby the end of the decade, thenI believe that before a significantamount of energy is produced fromfusion, we will probably have to wait20 to 30 years for industrial realization.There will still be all the engineeringand industrial development side. Andfusion, like all energy, is capital intensive.An interesting point is that thelower the fuel costs—the recurringcosts—of an energy producing system,the higher its capital costs. Whena new source of energy becomes economicallycompetitive, the sum of theamortization of the capital investmentplus the recurring costs are, by definition,equal to those combined costsfor all other sources of energy. So ifan energy source has a lower fuelreplacement cost, it obviously has ahigher investment cost. And thatmeans we are limited by the availabilityof capital. This is true for all newenergy sources, and it will be true forfusion, too.Between the point of scientificbreakeven and a real fusion-basedindustry, probably 20 or 25 years willgo by. The question of industrial developmentof fusion will arise only in1990, and it is at that time that theproblem will become urgent.How we will do it at that time, Idon't know.Question: What can you tell us aboutthe breakthroughs achieved in fusionby the Ecole Polytechnique team?By the way, the Ecole is not uniquein its line of research; there is a teamworking on the same line at the Universityof Rochester. The general ideathey are researching is that if we workat a shorter wavelength for inertialconfinement with laser light compression,the light is absorbed essentiallyin the area of the plasma density suchEDFFrench Embassy Press and Information DivisionAn aerial view of the 750,000-kilowatt nuclear power station at Chinon, France.With the change in government, a question mark now hangs over France'sambitious nuclear and R&D programs. Inset: Pierre Aigrain, state secretary forresearch in the Ciscard government.that the plasma frequency is close tothe wavelength. And if the wavelengthis shorter, then the higher densityregions and the mean free pathof fast electrons are smaller; there isa smaller proportion of fast electronsmoving to the center of target andpreheating the target—something thescientists would like to avoid—so apparentlybetter compression characteristicsare achieved by working withshorter wavelengths.If confirmed by further studies, thiswork could change the order of magnitudeof energy required for inertialconfinement.It also means that the kind of laserneeded would presumably not be thesame. This ultraviolet light can be producedby quadrupling the frequencyof the 1.06 micron neodymium glasslaser. But it's obvious that if what iswanted is the ultraviolet light, lookingat ultraviolet lasers like Eximer lasers,krypton-fluoride lasers, and thingslike that may be a better solution. Sothe Ecole's work may have an influenceon the kind of lasers that wehave to develop.Question: U.S.-European cooperationreceived a major blow with the cancellationof the joint NASA-ESA SolarPolar Mission. Do you see any hopefor reviving this program?I would hope that possibly otherprojects could be started in cooperationwith the United States in this areaof basic science.Question: Perhaps with the success ofthe Columbia Space Shuttle there willbe a new wave of support from theU.S. side?We can hope that Congress willgive more money to NASA and that52 FUSION August 1981 International

ENJOY WIM &7 ITS MSfNASA will be able to start either thesame project or a new project.Question: Some institutions, for examplethe Club of Rome, claim thatwe have entered the postindustrialsociety. Do you think this is true?I think that it's partially true, if whatis meant is that new types of services—whichby the way are stronglytechnology dependent—such as thestoring, processing, and treatment ofinformation are an increasing share ofGNP and are going to go on increasing.And if you call a society in whichthe share of those services has becomelarge and may become a majority,then it's true that we are movingtoward a postindustrial society.The point I would like to make isthat this kind of postindustrial societyis a big user of science and technology.Second, it is obvious that such asociety exists only if the industrialhardware part of the system is there,too. The cost of that hardware, theproportion of that hardware in GNP,may be small and may even be decreasing,but it is essential. If it is notthere, the rest is not there.For the same reason, the number ofpeople involved in primary agriculturein the developed countries hasbeen going down. But that doesn'tmean food production is going down.Fortunately, food production hasbeen going up, and I believe thatindustrial production will be going upin terms of included R&D.So it's true, we have entered thepostindustrial society, but in the postindustrialsociety the role of industryis enormous!Question: Does this mean that thereare two definitions of the postindustrialsociety—the one that you havejust given and the one put forward bythe environmentalist movement, forexample?That's not the postindustrial society.That's the preindustrial and, to someextent, the precivilization society. Ihope this is not the way we are moving.I don't believe we should have asociety that is a combination of stoneage economics plus philosophical discussions.IVew aijd unique wii?e bucketdfills wipe without iceaijd will keep it for 5 Ijours atits iqost eiyoyable tenjperature.This remarkable improvement on the traditional winebucket — called the Glacierware Wine Chiller — not only chillsin 10 minutes without any ice whatsoever but will keep awine chilled and at its most enjoyable temperature for aslong as 5 hours.So why keep your wines in the refrigerator — where theymust be stored vertically? You can chill them right at thetable when you de-cork them to let them "breathe".No more wet, drippy bottles, and the label alwaysremains dry and in place. A welcome addition to your winecellar, the Glacierware Wine Chiller is available in Burgundy,Ebony and Wedgewood Blue at only $24.95.International

Science Update/MilitaryNuclear and ThermonuclearDirected Beam Weaponsby Dr. Friedwardt WinterbergA recent report by Aviation Week& Space Technology (Feb. 23) suggeststhat Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory "invented" the idea ofpumping a short-wavelength (X- ory-ray) laser, with a nuclear explosion.Such ideas, however, most likely haveoccurred to many other scientists.Moreover, the feat accomplished byLivermore, a soft X-ray laser pulse of500 kj, does not measure up to thevastly greater pump energy available,which must have been in the neighborhoodof a kiloton explosion. A500-kJ X-ray pulse is by comparisonnot much larger than the explosiveenergy of a potato!Furthermore, the drawing shown inthe Aviation Week article must havebeen the product of a misunderstanding.The configuration shown couldhardly be used to pump the laser rodswith a nuclear explosion.Nevertheless, the experimental resultachieved can be viewed as thebeginning of a new chapter in lasertechnology. The article stresses theimportance that this kind of conceptmay have as an antiballistic-missile(ABM) weapon. What appears infinitelymore important, however, isthat such soft X-ray lasers should alsobe feasible using thermonuclearmicroexplosions. In this case, the applicationis purely peaceful.For example, it could lead to holographicX-ray microscopy by whichthe cause of cancer could be investigatedby the observation of livingtissue on the molecular level. Buteven X-ray lasers driven by thermonuclearmacroexplosions may have apeaceful application as a means ofinterstellar communication.As I stated at the beginning, theidea of using a nuclear explosion topump an X-ray laser must have occurredto many scientists long ago. I,for one, have considered the possibilitysince 1970. The idea seems obvious,but the problem is how totranslate it into a practical device.It was not until the mid-1970s thatI discovered a working concept; and,on the invitation of the Air Forcesecretary, I presented a lecture on thisidea at the Air Force Weapons Laboratoryin Albuquerque, N.M. on July15, 1977. My lecture was attended bythe senior scientific staff members ofthe Air Force Weapons and Sandialaboratories. I subsequently submittedtwo papers containing detailedcalculations to the Energy Researchand Development Administration andthe U.S. Air Force. To my knowledge,the papers also circulated at Livermore.Neutrons Superior to X-RaysAccording to the Aviation Weekstory, Livermore used pumping of theX-ray laser rod by X-rays from thenuclear explosion. If this was indeedthe case, it would explain the ratherpoor efficiency of not more than approximately10 6 . In my concept, Iproposed to do the pumping by neutronsrather than X-rays.There are two reasons for choosingneutrons. First, the X-rays do not easilypenetrate into the laser rod, whichconsists of some high-atomic-numbermaterial. Second, the pumping efficiency,resembling optical pumping,is inherently poor. If neutrons wereused for the pumping, they couldeasily penetrate into the rod material.Then, if the rod contained some uranium-235,for example, the neutroninducedfission reactions could locallycreate a population inversion.Neutron reactions releasing y-rayscould also be used. In this kindof nuclear-pumped laser, a neutronbomb would be optimal.Oneprincipal problem, resultingfrom the shortness of the X-ray lasertransition, is that the pumping can bedone, in any case, only by a travelingwave excitation along the rod, withthe excitation wave moving with thevelocity of light. I solved this problemwith the concept of a neutroninduced"bleach-out" wave. This canbe done by "poisoning" the laser rodwith a neutron absorber whose concentrationchanges along the rod.Then, if the rod is exposed to theintense neutron flux of an explodingneutron bomb, a nuclear excitationwave will propagate along the rod asthe neutron-absorbing nuclei aretransmuted into nonabsorbing nucleithrough neutron-absorbing reactions.It turns out that by a certain exponentialconcentration profile, one canthereby generate an excitation wavepropagating along the rod with thevelocity of light, as is required for anX-ray laser.The same principle could also beused to pump a y-ray laser. However,because of the much larger nuclearrecoil, this would require using somethinglike the Mbssbauer effect. Sinceat the high temperatures expectedany crystal structure would be destroyed,I suggested using a strongmagnetic field to take up the recoilover the excitation of Alfven waves,rather than sound waves as used inthe ordinary Mossbauer effect. A y-ray laser would have an even greaterpower than an X-ray laser and wouldbe the next most difficult goal toreach.Various DesignsOne way a nuclear X-ray laserweapon could be built is shown inFigure 1. A cylindrical neutron bomb,labeled NB, is positioned in the centerof a cylindrical beryllium-9 neutronreflector. Surrounding this cylindricalneutron bomb are several prisms P,which prevent the laser rods R positionedbehind them from being prematurelyvaporized by the X-ray flashfrom the nuclear explosion.Figure 2 shows a much larger devicewhere a thermonuclear explosive TEpumps one large laser rod LR. If a 10-megaton bomb is used and if thepumping efficiency is only 1 percent,the resulting laser beam will still have54 FUSION August 1981 Science Update

an energy of 10 kilotons, that is, about10" times bigger than the energy ofthe Dauphin X-ray laser. A laser ofsuch an energy output could obviouslybe used as an ABM defenseweapon.Another alternative is to use a sequenceof laser beams rapidly firedfrom space onto the atmosphere todrill a hole through the atmosphereto the ground. The X-rays would passthrough this hole, killing all higherforms of life within a large radiuswhile leaving all structures undamaged.The configuration shown in Figure3 uses the principle of stagedexplosions to do this, where a smallernuclear explosion compresses and ignitesthe nuclear explosive of a subsequentlarger one.Besides using nuclear-pumped lasersas a possible ABM defense, onemay also consider alternatives such asfast plasma beams or beams of macroparticles.The first possibility could berealized by a thermonuclear shapecharge like that shown in Figure 4. Aspherical thermonuclear detonationwave, ignited at the ignition point IP,is transformed into a plane detonationwave by a thermonuclear plane wavelens. In the technology of high explosivesa plane wave lens is realized bytwo explosives possessing differentdetonation velocities. Here this goalis reached by placing solid obstaclesin the path of the wave, forcing thewave to go around these obstacles.The resulting thermonuclear planewave then collapses a metallic liner L,as in the case of an ordinary shapecharge, resulting in a fast plasma jet]. This jet could then be thrownagainst incoming missiles.Finally, Figure 5 shows the conceptof a nuclear-explosive-driven railgun.An exploding atomic bomb F generatingan intense X-ray flash will inducea photoelectric current in one of therails R v The second rail R 2 is shieldedagainst the X-ray flux. As a result, alarge electromotive force and hencea large electric current will be set upin the circuit formed by the rails, theshield, and the projectile. We thushave the conditions for a nucleardrivenrailgun.Its performance can be further im-Science Update(a) Axial cross section(b) Radial viewFigure 1NUCLEAR X-RAY LASER WEAPON USING NEUTRON BOMBThe cylindrical neutron bomb NB is placed within a cylindrical neutronreflector Be made of beryllium-9. The detonator D sets off a highexplosive HE, which in turn explodes the fission trigger F for the neutronbomb. The prisms P surrounding the neutron bomb prevent the laserrods R from being vaporized prematurely. The neutrons from the bombpenetrate the laser rods, which produce laser beams of intense X-rays,to be directed at ballistic missiles, for example.Figure 2NUCLEAR X-RAY LASER WEAPONUSING THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSIVESIn this larger device, a thermonuclear explosive TE pumps one large laserrod LR. The fission explosive A creates a shock wave that is deflected bythe deflection cone C, passing between it and the tamp T in Prandtl-Meyer flow PM. The thermonuclear shock burn wave from the thermonuclearfuse F is then shaped by the thermonuclear plane wave lens PWand the deflection wedge D. A coherent X-ray laser beam XB passes outfrom the laser rod LR, which has been pumped by the thermonuclearexplosive TE. NA is the neutron absorber, which creates the conditionsfor an excitation wave propagating at the speed of light.Figure 3THE PRINCIPLE OF STAGED EXPLOSIONSThe fission explosion A creates a compression shock wave that passesthrough a series of staged laser rods with fissionable material L v L 2 , L yEach smaller nuclear explosion compresses and ignites the next largerAugust 1981 FUSION 55

Science Updateproved, as shown, by pushing the railsagainst each other with the soft X-raysfrom the nuclear explosion, to beconfined and guided along tho gapformed by the outer surface of therails and inner surface of the tamp T.With such a nuclear railgun itshould be possible to propel largemasses, on the order of tons, to velocitiesof several tens of kilometersper second. A potshot of such projectilescould be used as an efficientABM defense.The new kind of nuclear ABM defensedescribed differs from the oldone in that it would direct theenergy released, with a correspondinglylarger kill radius. It depends,however, on the need for a vastlygreater accuracy in aiming.Figure 4FAST PLASMA BEAM WEAPONSA spherical thermonuclear detonation wave is ignited at ignition pointIP and shaped into a plane wave with detonation front DF by the planewave lens consisting of solid obstacles. TE is the thermonuclear explosive,T is the tamp, and L is the metal liner that is collapsed by the detonationfront, resulting in a fast plasma jet j.Figure 5NUCLEAR-EXPLOSIVE-DRIVEN RAILGUNAn exploding atomic bomb F generates an intense X-ray flash, inducinga photoelectric electron current /,. in the rail /?,. P. is shielded from theX-ray flux by a lead shield LS, setting up a large electromotive forcebetween the rails. The rails are pushed together by the soft X-rays alongthe gap between the rails and the tamp T. This nuclear railgun canpropel the projectile P at great velocities.2,4,5-1 HerbicideMore EvidenceTo Drop BanThe American Council on Scienceand Health released a comprehensivestudy in Washington, D.C., April 14concluding that there is no scientificevidence to justify the permanent banon the herbicide 2,4,5-T sought by theEnvironmental Protection Agency."No scientific evidence presentedto date has shown any convincingrelationship between the traditionaldomestic use of 2,4,5-T and any illnessin humans," stated Dr. ElizabethWhelan, executive director of thecouncil.The controversy over 2,4,5-T hascentered not on the herbicide itselfbut on a contaminant, the toxic substanceknown as dioxin, that is formedin its manufacture. Recent researchhas shown that dioxin is probably lessdangerous than previously presumed.Moreover, the amount of dioxin incommercial 2,4,5-T is miniscule—about 1 part in 100 million.Nevertheless, most agricultural usesof the herbicide were banned by theEPA more than a year ago after anEPA investigation in Alsea, Ore., resultedin claims by women that arelationship exists between miscarriagesand the use of the herbicide.The herbicide scare was fueled bythe subsequent flap over "Agent Orange,"one of the defoliants used inVietnam, which contains dioxin andis the subject of a lawsuit filed byVietnam veterans. There is no evidencethat the veterans' multiplesymptoms are caused by Agent Orange.Moreover, the defoliant has amuch higher concentration of dioxinthan 2,4,5-T.This is not the first study to attackthe myths about the effective herbicide.However, in a development thatmay signal the Reagan administration'sintention to drop the ban, administrativehearings were recessed inApril so that EPA and Dow Chemical,the principal manufacturer of 2,4,5-T,could negotiate a settlement to theproceedings.56 FUSION August 1981 Science Update

Science Update/TechnologyAdvance in Mass SpectrometryWill Aid Fusion DevelopmentA recent development in the technologyof the mass spectrometer, aninstrument that measures the atomicmass of particles, will permit far moreaccurate measurements of the isotopiccontent of fusion fuels, as wellas the ingredients of fission reactorfuels throughout the nuclear fuelcycle.A leading company in the developmentand manufacture of massspectrometers has recently announcedthat it is producing a newspectrometer, called the Gazab, thatproduces a resolution of 100,000, ormore than a factor of 10 higher thanthe next best spectrometer in its lineof precision instruments for analyzinggases. The company, VG Micromass,a subsidiary of the VG InstrumentsGroups based in Winsford, England,is planning to market its new productto the nuclear industry in the UnitedStates and other countries.According to its manufacturer, theGazab spectrometer can both differentiateamong isotopes of elementswith only slightly differing masses andmeasure the amount of each isotopein a gas mixture with far greater precisionthan before. Thus, in a fusionfuel mixture that is made up of hydrogen(H), deuterium (D), and tritium(T)—isotopes of the same element,hydrogen, that differ only intheir atomic mass—the Gazab spectrometeris capable of precisely measuringthe amounts of each of thethree isotopes present. The ability toidentify and measure these and theother elements and isotopes presentin the fuel is essential for designing,developing, and operating future fusionreactors.The instrument, operated in combinationwith other specialized massspectrometers, will also permit theisotopic and chemical analysis q>fevery stage of the nuclear fuel cyclein fission reactors, including the oreconversion to uranium hexafluoride,enrichment, conversion to fuel pellets,reprocessing, and reactor operation.Any mass spectrometer is based onthe fact that when a charged particle—ofhydrogen, deuterium, or tritium,for example—travels through auniform magnetic field, its mass, velocity,radius of curvature, and thestrength of the magnetic field are allrelated in a predictable way. If thestrength of the magnetic field, thevelocity of the particle, and its radiusof curvature are known, then the masscan be determined.How the Gazab WorksThe Gazab mass spectrometerworks as follows: The material to beanalyzed is gasified (if it is not alreadya gas) and ionized and then acceleratedby applying a voltage. The beamof charged particles is directedthrough a series of collimators andmagnetic optics, which appropriatelyshape the beam before it enters theuniform magnetic field.The path traveled by the particlebeam is determined by the instrument.The velocity of the particles isalso determined and known. Then thestrength of the magnetic field is varieduntil particles register on the detectorat the end of the path. Once thevelocity, radius of curvature, andmagnetic field strength are known,the mass and hence isotopic identityof the particles that reach the detectorcan be determined.Particles of different atomic masswill have hit the collimators, or walls,therefore not registering on the detector.However, these particles canbe identified by again varying thnmagnetic field strength until their radiusof curvature matches the equipment,and these particles begin toimpinge on the detector.In addition to the magnetic analyzer,the Gazab makes use of anelectrostatic field analyzer, which accountsfor the high resolution of thedevice and its ability to discriminateamong isotopes and compounds ofnearly equal masses. When a chargedparticle travels through a magneticfield, its mass is proportional to 1 overits velocity; while in an electrostaticfield, the mass is proportional to 1over the velocity squared, permittingincreased sensitivity in measuring themass.The new instrument also utilizesadvanced computer and electronicstechniques for recording, detection,and operation.—Ion GilbertsonVG MicromassThe VG Gazab mass spectrometer built for use by the U.S. nuclear industry.The high resolution of this new spectrometer will enable nuclear researchersto differentiate among isotopes of elements with nearly the same mass.Science Update August 1981 FUSION 57

FEF NewsAnatomy of a Slander*FEF 'Bad' Because It's So Effective?The campaign against nuclearpower and industrial growth in theUnited States has taken some strangeturns since the Nov, 4 election.In April, Richard Bornemann, apronuclear publisher in Oregon whois a long-time nuclear activist, broughtto the attention of Fusion energy editorWilliam Engdahl an attempt toderail the fight for nuclear energy bydefaming the Fusion Energy Foundation.The apparent originator of the slanderwas Elihu Bergman, the executivedirector of Americans for Energy Independence(AEI). Bergman was formerlythe assistant director of theHarvard Center for Population Studies.On Feb. 5, H. Jack Young, seniorvice-president of the Edison ElectricInstitute, mailed out to utility executivesand energy activists around thecountry a packet of materials slanderingthe FEF, which included a letterfrom AEI executive director Bergmanto Young.It is apparent from Bergman's Nov.24 letter to Young that Bergman andothers brought pressure on the EdisonElectric Institute (EEI) for threemonths after the election. That pressurefinally succeeded in persuadingthe EEl's Young to pass on to memberfirms slanders printed by the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rithabout the FEF and Lyndon H. La-Rouche, Jr., one of its founders.One of the slanders alleges that theFEF is a "front for the U.S. LaborParty," which they allege supportsterrorism. The Labor Party, foundedby LaRouche in 1973, was disbandedin 1979 when LaRouche entered theDemocratic Party as a conservativeDemocratic candidate campaigningfor the presidency. Ironically, La­Rouche and the U.S. Labor Partyearned the enmity of radical groupssuch as the Socialist Workers Partyand the Communist Party, becauseLaRouche and his party attacked terrorismand exposed its controllers inthe layer of radical lawyers and universityprofessors typified by WilliamKunstler, a public defender of theBaader-Meinhof terrorists in WestGermany.When Richard Bornemann askedBergman to substantiate his allegationsin a phone interview, all Berg-58 FUSION August 1981 FEF News

man could do, Bornemann said, isoffer "some wild and weird conspiracytheories . . . against the very effectiveproenergy work of the FusionEnergy Foundation."The FEF countered the slander withits own mailing to utility executiveson April 12, which included the evidenceturned up by Bornemann anda call to the executives to join withthe FEF in its campaign to revive nuclearpower in the United States. TheFEF's letter noted that the Anti-DefamationLeague's "fact-finding division"produced the report that Bergmanand the EEI have been circulating.That division is headed by IrwinSuall, an avowed socialist, who led anational campaign against PresidentRonald Reagan when Reagan was apublic relations executive promotingadvanced energy technology for GeneralElectric in 1962.The Bornemann LetterRichard Bornemann's letter to Fusioneditor William Engdahl, datedApril 7, appears at left.Pa. Meeting InitiatesFight To Open TMI 1An FEF members' meeting April 29in Harrisburg, Pa. unanimously votedto work on getting a resolution introducedand passed in the state legislaturedemanding that the President,Congress, and the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission restart TMI 1.The customers of the utility thatoperates the plant, Metropolitan Edison/GeneralPublic Utilities, are nowpaying replacement power costs forthe closed nuclear plant of $14 millionper month. TMI 1 was shut down forroutine refueling at the time of theincident at the TMI 2 plant in March1979. The NRC has denied the utilityapproval for a startup, despite compliancewith mandated modificationsover the past 25 months. Seven otherreactors similar to TMI 1 have beenallowed to operate while making thesame modifications.The meeting was chaired by Ira Seybold,FEF coordinator in central Pennsylvaniaand former manager of theDosimetry Department at Three MileIsland, who briefed the audience onthe positive responses so far to theresolution in the state legislature.The main presentation was by JonGilbertson, FEF director of nuclearengineering. Gilbertson summarizedthe cost to the nation of keepingnuclear plants shut down. "Delays inplant licensing and construction havecost U.S. electricity users a whopping$25 billion already," he said, "and ifthe licensing procedures are notchanged, this figure will rise to $50billion by next year." Gilbertson saidthat the FEF would publish a nationalreport on the cost of not going nuclear.The members and guests attendingincluded a state legislator, union leaders,representatives of the PennsylvaniaChamber of Commerce, aMet Edison representative, and severalcommunity leaders.Watt TestimonyContinued from page 15as a spokesman for the very real publicinterest involved in the protectionand preservation of a strong mineralssector.Law of the Sea TreatyThe matter of deep seabed miningand the Law of the Sea Treaty negotiationsprovides a graphic illustrationof the complex, highly interrelatednature of strategic minerals policy, ofthe need for a national minerals policy,and of my personal commitmentto achieve such a policy.The United States is now dependenton foreign sources for effectively 100percent of our manganese—vital tothe production of steel, and 100 percentof our cobalt—a critical hardenerof steel. Many experts believe thatmanganese nodules, located on theocean floor, are an important longtermsource of manganese and cobaltfor the United States and the westernworld. Yet the ability to mine thesenodules is dependent upon the existenceof a secure and stable financialFEF Newsclimate. Given the size of the investmentrequired (about a billion dollarsper project), the most critical elementto the undertaking of deep seabedmining is the security of that investment—asecurity now being determinedby Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations.The decisions made and agreementsreached in these negotiationsintimately concern the broadest aspectsof strategic minerals supplies.For that reason, I have communicatedwith Secretary Haig on the Law of theSea Treaty negotiations. . . .The Secretary of the Interior hasminerals management responsibilitiesfor all federal lands. It is obvious,however, that federal land use decisionshave not been coordinated withnational strategic and economic goals.There have been no official determinationsof how much public land isoff limits or restricted from mineralsexploration and development.Coordination is imperative if we areto make sound land use decisionsessential to the national interest. I amconsidering elements of a new publicAugust 1981lands policy within the Department ofthe Interior, to be undertaken in conjunctionwith other federal land managers,that will ensure the applicationof the multiple-use concept that Congressestablished in its major publiclands legislation. One of the first stepsthat will be taken in the implementationof that policy is the determinationof the status of federal landsrelative to all decisions affecting mineralaccess.In addition, I am considering theadvisability of legislation to statutorily"release" to multiple-use lands determinedunder section 603 of the FederalLand Policy and Management Actof 1976 to be unsuitable for wilderness.I am reviewing, as well, provisionspermitting exploration for anddevelopment of minerals within thewilderness system. As minerals managerof the public's lands, I will opposesingle-use designation of thoselands if there is evidence that theirwithdrawal means a significant loss offuel or nonfuel mineral resources vitalto our economy and the nation's interest.. . .FUSION 59

Science Press ReviewAIF STUDY SHOWSNUCLEAR STILL CHEAPERA recent study issued by the AtomicIndustrial Forum of the relative costsof producing electricity using nuclearand coal-fired power plants makes aconvincing case for the economic advantageof nuclear over coal, especiallyin a period of rapidly rising fuelcosts.Titled "An Economic Comparisonof Nuclear and Coal-Fired Generation,"the study was written by GordonR. Corey, financial consultant andretired vice-chairman of CommonwealthEdison Company of Chicago.It was based on the actual operatingexperience of the two types of powerplants owned by Commonwealth Edison,and the results were unambiguous:Despite all the environmentalistcausedregulatory delays, nuclearpower remains the cheapest way toproduce electricity. The cost of nuclearpower not only has risen moreslowly year to year than coal-generatedelectricity, but it can be expectedto continue to do so into the foreseeablefuture.Oil-fired plants were not even consideredin Corey's study, since theyare not a financially viable way toprovide base load electrical-generatingcapacity.With regulatory changes and uncertainties"continually increasing theconstruction costs, delaying the servicedates and jeopardizing the availabilityof new facilities, both nuclearand coal," the relative advantage ofnuclear is attributable to its far lowerfuel costs, Corey says.Corey notes that construction costsfor both nuclear and coal-fired plantshave risen at an annual rate of about15 percent in recent years. Coal-firedplants cost only one-half to two-thirdsas much to construct as nuclearplants. However, in the annual operatingcosts of coal-fired plants, thelarge fuel bill outweighs amortizeddepreciation and other operatingcosts. The cost of coal has risen nearlyas dramatically as oil in recent years.Uranium, on the other hand, representsonly a small portion of thecost of nuclear electricity production,with amortized capital costs representingthe largest portion.Thus, five years ago the per-kilowattcost of electricity generated in a nuclearplant was only a couple of millscheaper than in a coal-fired plant.Today, that difference has increasedto about 16 mills per kilowatt-hourand is expected to rise to 18 mills inthe near future. The main contributingfactor has been the rise in the costof low-sulfur coal.On the other hand, with improvementsin nuclear technology, it hasbeen possible to more than doublethe energy content of a pound ofuranium used in reactors.* * *MORE NEWS THAT FITS THE TIMES"Nuclear power is sinking in thiscountry—not because of chaotic financialmarkets, public protests, orbureaucratic tangles, but under itsown economic weight," claimed AnthonyParisi in an article titled "HardTimes for the Nuclear Industry" in theNew York Times Magazine April 12."Despite the almost universal assumptionof years past that powerfrom the atom would one day providean endless source of cheap electricity,the nuclear genie has turned out tobe a very demanding, very expensiveservant. Even the help the industryexpects from the Reagan administrationwould not alter that reality."Parisi deliberately ignores the negativeimpact on the cost of nuclearpower of regulatory delays and recordhigh interest rates and the ray of hopeheld out by the Reagan administration'spromise to cut through muchof the regulatory red tape. His argumentis based on a study of the relativeeconomic merits of coaland nuclear power plants by CharlesKopianoff, a long-time antinuclear activist.Komanoff concludes that coalgeneratedelectricity is now cheaperthan nuclear power because of therapidly escalating construction costsof the latter (costs that the Coreystudy reviewed above shows are risingno faster than those for coal-firedplants).Who is the reader to believe? CommonwealthEdison will probably baseits investment decisions on the findingsof the Corey study, so it's hardlylikely that Corey made up his figures.Komanoff, as noted, is an avowedantinuclear activist. Parisi, formerlythe New York Times energy correspondent,is now an editor of PetroleumIntelligence Weekly, a tradepublication of the major oil companies,which are not exactly disinterestedparties.The Times, which ran the article,has a long history of opposing suchdangerous and polluting inventions asthe electric light bulb and the stringingof cables to carry electricitythroughout New York City.—Dr. JohnNuclear power is cheaper, says a recent AIF study. "?"?? ~~Here Connecticut Yankee's plant at Haddam Neck, Conn.Schoonover60 FUSION August 1981 Science Press Review

LettersContinued from page 6juxtaposed with your long-term goal.Please reverse your stand. I cannotsupport your efforts if you continueto seek big government . . . becauseI believe with big government therate of development of nuclear energywill clearly be moderate at best,and probably well behind France andother countries. You cannot haveyour cake and eat it, too. Your purposeis nuclear energy . . . not biggovernment. Bite the bullet. I thinkyour fundamental purpose is perhapsthe most important in the long-termeconomic success of America. Pleaseget on with the big show and quitquibbling about how the shoepinches.Charles C. CookCambridge, Mass.To the Editor:I support all budget cuts proposedby President Reagan. I am not convincedhis advisers are "self deluded."Nor am I convinced that we mustwhine for money from the government!We must look to the privatesector for the financing of energyprojects—of course it will be difficult.Ann C. NolenTulsa, Okla.The Editor RepliesIf the United States is to avert anational disaster over the immediateperiod ahead—an irreversible erosionof our industrial base and scientificedge—the country's proscience constituencymust take responsibility forensuring that there is a "bigger pie"and not accommodate itself to a perspectiveof "sharing the poverty" (4concept, incidentally, borrowed directlyfrom British Fabian socialism).As for the issue of government intervention,there's a big differencebetween government funding of lowskill,make-work employment and theproliferation of the government bureaucracyin general—which Fusionhas criticized as nonproductive—andgovernment funding of leading-edgescientific endeavors and technologies.The latter type of government interventionis the motor that makes thewhole private economy go. Moreover,the U.S. Constitution's Article 4states unequivocally that it is the obligationof the Congress "to promotethe progress of science and usefularts."We're not worried about irritatingOffice of Management and Budgetdirector David Stockman, because weknow that groups like the FEF andother citizens concerned about theeffects of the budget cuts are the onlything standing in the way of his utterlywrecking the nation's economy andscience capability.Keeping Up theGood WorkTo the Editor:I just signed up to receive Fusion.As a construction engineer on nuclearpower plants, I was very interested. . . and have been wondering if theFusion Energy Foundation has any localchapters. . . . The time is here forgrass roots organizations in supportof nuclear power.I was very impressed with Fusion.Don't let the negative letters aboutyour articles on dope and the antinuclearmovement stop you fromprinting the truth. The de-moralization,de-energization, de-industrialization,and de-education is all oneprogram to make the United States asecond-rate country. Keep up thegood work.Melvin G. VinsonMetairie, La.To the Editor:Although unable to have completedhigh school, I am interested inscience. Fusion is much too deep forme to understand, but The YoungScientist isn't.Being "middle aged" I am so tiredof hearing the pessimistic side of science.It is very uplifting to realizepeople are still very optimistic aboutenergy.Please find enclosed $8 for five issuesof The Young Scientist, not formy youngest three teenage daughters,but for myself to give me a littlemore knowledge of our beautifulworld and the people trying to maintainand improve it. Hopefully, in timeI will change to Fusion.Eilleen SimmonsGroton, Mass.August 1981FEF's Seybold RequestsContributions forRestart TMI 1 CampaignEditor's note: Ira Seybold, formermanager of the Dosimetry Departmentat Three Mile Island and FEFcoordinator in central Pennsylvania,is circulating the following letter toFEF members and nuclear power supporters.An article on the Harrisburgmeeting appears on page 59.Dear Friends:On April 29, I chaired a meetingcalled by the Fusion Energy Foundationin Camp Hill, Pa., near Harrisburg.The purpose of the meeting,which had excellent representatonfrom the leadership of labor, business,and farm organizations in the area,was to plan a campaign to put ThreeMile Island Unit 1 back on line.All present agreed that Unit 1 mustbe allowed to return to operation assoon as possible. We developed aplan that involves introducing a resolutionto the Pennsylvania state legislatureand distributing a pamphletto the citizens in that area. The pamphlet,written by Jon Gilbertson of theFusion Energy Foundation, explainsthat the cost of replacing power fromTMI Unit 1 is $14 million per month.I need your help in this effort. Ifyou can make a contribution towardprinting the pamphlet, make yourcheck payable to the Fusion EnergyFoundation. Please write to me [in careof the FEF] at your earliest opportunityin support of the resolution to putTMI 1 back on line. I cannot overemphasizethe value of such letterswhen dealing with legislators. Lettersespecially from outside Pennsylvaniawill help them realize that they havea responsibility to the nation.The resolution has already beenwell received by some of the staterepresentatives, including one whoattended our meeting and whopledged himself to get it introduced.I think you'll agree that starting upTMI 1 will make it much easier toresolve similar but less publicized situationsaround the country.We are on the move, so please actnow. Let your voice be heard.Ira SeyboldMechanicsburg, Pa.FUSION 61

62 FUSION August 1981Contributionsto the FEF aretax deductible!

Bumper Stickers Designed to Let YouHAVE YOUR SAYF. More People Have Died in Ted Kennedy's CaiThan in Nuclear Power PlantsG. Chappaquiddick 1 Three Mile Island 0—GONUCLEARH. H Mary Jo Were In Harrisburg She'd BeAlive TodayI. Don't Let Jane Fonda Pull Down Your PlantsJ. Nuclear Plants are Built Better ThanJane FondaK. Feed Jane Fonda to the WhalesL. What Spreads Faster than Radiation'Jane FondaM,Nuclear Plants No! Marijuana PlantsN. Warning: 1 Don 1 Brake tor LiberalsButtons: Nuclear Power is Safer than SEX(in English or Swedish)ORDER TODAY!$1.00 each Any 25 for $15.00 Any 100 for $35.00Master Charge and VISA accepted.Your company can hand out its own custom designedsticker (our slogan or yours). We can producethem quickly and inexpensively. Inquire.CAMPAIGNER STICKER Dept. f52 N. Arlington Ave., East Orange, New Jersey 07017This book is being used to stop him!Now, Robert Dreyfuss tells the entirehistory:• Why Jimmy Carter let 60 Americans betaken hostage—his secret alliance withKhomeini.• How British intelligence orchestratedthe mullahs' revolution.• Why the April "rescue" raid failed.• The Soviet's role.$4.25Order from your bookstore or from:TheNe\? lg; nBenjamin Franklin House •rfjaT'.^Publishing Co., Inc. «Q.OL-304 W. 58th St. 5th floor. Dept F.NY, NY 10019Add $1.50 per book postage for 1stclass. $.75 per book for 4th class.Mastercharge / Visaholders call toll free800-358-9999August 1981 FUSION 63

Bring thespace agehome.Eight stunning NASA photographs,color enhanced by a special process,are now available from FEF. You'llwant several of these classic spaceagephotographs for yourself and forgifts.These unique photographs areprinted on Kodak paper by MaxtronIndustries, and each photo is ferrotypedto give it a brilliant glossysurface.The photographs can be purchasedunmounted, with bevel-cut matboard,or matted and framed insilver anodized section frame.The Young Scientist is making history!Each issue of The Young Scientist magazinetells readers about the scientists, experiments,and discoveries on the frontiers ofscience today—and yesterday.Why are the Saturn results important?How does genetic engineering work?Why are soap bubbles shaped like spheres?The Young Scientist answers questions likethis in every issue—and has puzzles andexperiments, Interviews, news, and photographictours of the nation's leadingscientific labs, museums, and hightechnologyindustries. Published bimonthlyby the Fusion Energy Foundation, TheYoung Scientist is part of a nationwide campaignto reverse the collapse of Americanscience education.Subscribe now. Give your childrentoday's science... to make them thehistory makers of tomorrow.Fill out the insert card opposite this page.

What would you give to(Try $95.) And what's it vThere's a premium being paid for language-knowledge inAmerica today—and it's not only in the export trade. In multinationalcompanies, in major cities, even on the factory floor,a second language marks you as the potential spokesman,the well-educated leader, the man or the woman to askabout foreign ways.And travel is so much more fun when you can meet peopleand talk their language. Now you can. Easily. Painlessly. Allthanks to this 50-lesson do-it-yourself Berlitz® language course.Available in French, German, Italian or Spanish—it's yoursfor only $95.00.Packaged solidly in leather-type binding, the Berlitz ComprehensiveCassette Course contains:1. Ten introductory lessons in a 90-minute long first cassette tofamiliarize you with the spoken language.2. Forty additional lessons on five convenient 60-minute cassettes,making a total of 6V2 hours of recorded instruction in all.3. 6 illustrated workbooks to use with the tapes, each containing 50pages of easy-to-understand, concise information to help you speakwith the least difficulty. 300 pages, in all, to get you on the way tofluency in a second language.4. A specially prepared, easy-to-use Rotary Verb Finder will helpyou with irregular verb forms—once you're ready for grammar.This course avoids the dry and the dull—mixes voices, soundeffects and useful text in the delightful manner only Berlitz,the world's best known language instructor, can offer. Andcassettes don't scratch, don't warp and don't unwind—last almostindefinitely. Best of all, they are easy to stick in yourpocket, take along on a trip or use in the car.Prepare yourself for a rewarding future. At the same time,enjoy the social advantages only a second language can bring.For $95.00, choose the course you need to start talking like anative. Use the coupon and order today.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines