fusion energy foundation

  • No tags were found...

fusion energy foundation

FUSIONMAGAZINE OF THE FUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONVol. 3, No. 11 ISSN 0148-0537September 1980 USPS 437-370EDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-ChiefDr. Morris LevittAssociate EditorDr. Steven BardwellManaging EditorMarjorie Mazel HechtArt DirectorChristopher SloanFusion Technology EditorCharles B. StevensWashington News EditorMarsha FreemanBiology News EditorDr. Richard PollakInternational News EditorSusan Parmacek JohnsonEnergy News EditorWilliam EngdahlBook Reviews EditorDr. John SchoonoverEditorial AssistantVin BergProduction EditorCatherine CafferyPhoto EditorCarlos de HoyosAssistant Art DirectorDeborah AschGraphic AssistantGary GenazzioBusiness and Advertising ManagerPaul GallagherCirculation and Subscription ManagerMaria SpidaFUSION is published monthly by the Fusion EnergyFoundation, Suite 2404, 888 Seventh Ave., New York, N.Y.10019, Tel. (212) 265-3749. Dedicated to providing accurateand comprehensive information on advanced energytechnologies and policies, FUSION is committed to restoringAmerican scientific and technological leadership.FUSION coverage of the frontiers of science focuses onthe self-developing qualities of the physical universe insuch areas as plasma physics—the basis for fusionpower—as well as biology and mlcrophysics, and Includesgroundbreaking studies of the historical developmentof science and technology.The views of the FEF are stated In the editorials.Opinions expressed in articles ere not necessarily thoseof the FEF directors or advisory board.Subscriptions by mail are $20 for 12 issues or $38 for24 issues in the USA; $25 for 12 issues in Canada.Airmail subscriptions to other countries are $40 for 12issues.Address all correspondence to FUSION. Fusion EnergyFoundation, Suite 2404,888 Seventh Ave., New York,N.Y. 10019.Second class postage is paid at New York, N.Y. and atadditional mailing offices.Advertising RepresentativesFUSION'S national advertising representatives are RichardKatz and Patricia Van Thof, Fusion. 888 Seventh Ave..Suite 2404, N.Y.C. 10019, (212) 265-3749; East Coastadvertising representative is Warren Smith and Associates,38 Hull Rd.. Box 754. Bernardsville, N.J. 07924,(201) 221-0184; European advertising representative isKarl-Helnz Holz, Pf. 3329. 62 Wiesbaden, West Germany,Telephone (06121) 440277.Copyright C July 1960Fusion Energy FoundationPrinted in the USAAll Rights ReservedFeatures25 The NASA Story: The Fight for America's FutureMarsha Freeman41 The NATO Plan to Kill U.S. ScienceMark Burdman48 Exclusive: Behind the Classified Foster Report:Is Krypton Fluoride the 'Brand X' Laser?Charles B. StevensNewsSPECIAL REPORT15 Why Monetarism Destroys High TechnologyNUCLEAR REPORT18 Nuclear Power: The Safest Energy AroundWASHINGTON21 Fusion Budget Stalled in Congressional Fight22 Levitt Testifies Before Buchsbaum CommitteeNATIONAL57 NAS Panel Challenges Dietary-Disease Link58 EPA Releases Spurious Study on Love Canal58 Freedoms Foundation Presents Award to FEF59 Pennsylvania Energy Plan Excludes Nuclear60 Nonscience Agencies Call R&D Tune60 Keep Main Yankee Operating!INTERNATIONAL61 French Gain Reported in Nuclear Weapons Technology62 Soviet Union Pressing Energy Development63 India Achieves Breakthrough in MHD63 Argentina, Brazil United on Atomic EnergyFUSION64 PLT Reaches Record Temperatures65 Winterberg Proposes New Pellet Design66 Rochester Lab Makes Laser Advance66 Multidimension Laser Developed67 Impending Change in Classification Policy?The cover; Astronaut Edward White taking thefirst U.S. walk in space, March 1965, outsideGemini IV. Cover design by Christopher Sloan;photograph courtesy of NASA.Departments2 EDITORIAL3 LIGHTNING ROD6 LETTERS10 NEWS BRIEFS14 VIEWPOINT23 CONGRESSIONAL LINE-UP24 INSIDE DOE63 ENVIRONMENTALIST ROUNDUP67 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY70 SPACE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY71 INAPPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY73 RIEMANNIAN ECONOMICS77 PLATO'S ACADEMY78 THE YOUNG SCIENTIST79 BOOKS RECEIVED

EditorialThe GreatDebateOf 1980Back in the middle-to-late 1960s all sorts of social commentators andphilosophical pundits intoned that spending on the space program wasdiverting resources from needed programs "here on earth," such as education,health care, and jobs. Now the nation's media are filled with an unprecedentedflurry or cover stories on the calamitous situations in the economy, the military,and the schools. Less highlighted is the fact that this has occurred despitecontinued growth in military spending and a huge Health, Education, andWelfare budget at the same time that the space program and U.S. sciencehave been reduced to a hollowed-out shell.Now, after 15 years of tolerating the destruction of the nation's science andindustry at the hands of the Malthusian idiot-savants and the environmentalists,the nation is finally going to undergo a great debate on how to undo thewreckage. The available evidence indicates that there will be two mostprominent features of the debate.The first is that the heyday of the radical environmentalist, antinuclearfaction—the Aquarians—is ending, and none too soon. Merely symptomaticis the recent statement by National Academy of Sciences president PhilipHandler that the political influence of the environmentalists far exceeds thescope of their scientific competence. His remark occurred in the context ofrecent Naderite attacks on the NAS for allegedly representing "special interests"because a special NAS committee reaffirmed the necessity for meat anddairy products in the American diet! Several months ago another committeeFUSION September 1980

of the Academy drew an editorial blast from the New York Times when itpointed out the dubious economics of large-scale solar energy at the sametime that it promoted breeder reactor development.The main factor that has stiffened the positions of the more traditionalleaders of the nation's scientific institutions is easy to identify. The SovietUnion's bold program in scientific education and research—launched at thesame time that the U.S. space effort was scuttled—has provided the Sovietswith a marginal strategic advantage that threatens to turn into qualitativesuperiority. This fact alone has made it clear that the zero growthers and theirpolicies must go.What Kind of Reindustrialization?This sets the stage for the great debate that will be at the center of the 1980presidential campaign. It is now generally agreed that the United States mustrebuild its science and industry. Thus, the renewed interest by the Pentagonand defense-related think tanks in increasing machine tool production andthe use of robotics in military-related production. This has been accompaniedby calls for a buildup of U.S. scientific and engineering capabilities and evena renewed emphasis on nuclear power production. This is a potentially positivedevelopment.The burning issue remains, however: What will be the guiding philosophyand method—the epistemology—of reindustrialization?Even at this early stage of the debate two basic positions are shaping up.Their historical dimensions are partially reflected in this issue's feature on theorigins and decline of the U.S. space program. One tendency is representedby a systems-optimization approach to building up U.S. industrial and militaryforce levels and capabilities so that military action can be carried through inany distant foreign theater. This form of recommended reindustrialization hasas its primary objective the preservation of the very systems and institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund—that have brought us to the brinkof economic collapse and war. Thus, it follows that the policies of theseinstitutions, documented in this issue, include the continuation of "postindustrial"economics (small pockets of manufacturing and technology thatignore overall requirements for economic reproduction and growth in advanced-sectornations like the United States), opposition to global economicdevelopment and the sovereignty of republics, credit and monetary controlby the most backward Anglo-American and supranational banking and economicinstitutions, and opposition to generalized scientific progress, asidefrom what's required for short-term military purposes.Even though war and economic decline may be postponed temporarily bythis package, its prescription for the continuation of basic North-South andEast-West antagonisms (that is, the continuation of Malthusian scarcity economicsfor the Third World and "geopolitical" power politics among theadvanced nations) will lead only to an even more dangerous showdownbetween the two superpowers by the end of the decade.The Alternative: A Three-Phase ProgramIn forthcoming seminars and articles the Fusion Energy Foundation andcollaborators will demonstrate in detail why these policies are not viable—strategically, politically, or economically. We shall do so from the standpointof the policy objectives dictated by the nation's republican-scientific heritageand the needs of present and projected future human populations.This requires a three-phase program for the 1980s: First, it requires thecollaboration of the advanced Western nations and Japan with the OPECsector to launch the massive nuclear-centered economic development of theThird World. This will be paced by leading developing sector nations such asIndia and Mexico under the aegis of a new gold-backed monetary andinvestment system to replace the IMF and United Nations institutions. Second,it requires bringing the Soviet bloc into collaboration with such arrangementsto increase the momentum of developmental and war-avoidance activities.Third, we must secure peace through international cooperation among theContinued on page 5September 1980TheLightninjRodMy dear friends,While thumbing through my favoritenewspaper the other day, Ichanced upon an item so extraordinarythat, though I read it twice, Icould hardly believe what my eyesinsisted to be fact; in truth, I becameconvinced that my spectacles had betrayedme again, and got up to changethem for another pair. Whereupon Iexamined the newsprint for a thirdtime, and was compelled to admitthat, indeed, it appeared that the ancientpractice of Volcano Worshiphad been taken up again in our presumablycivilized nation.The item recorded a proposal bythe Sierra Club, one of the oldest andmost fervent apostles of the peculiarethic known as "conservation," concerningthe results of the recent fieryeruption of the Mount St. Helens volcanoin the state of Washington. TheSierra Club, it seems, has urged thestate government to designate an areaof 10 square miles subjected to thevolcano's fury as a National Park—"tocommemorate the devastation of Nature,"as the Club's spokesman put it.Consoling myself with the thoughtthat at least the Sierra bunch had notdemanded the sacrifice of a dozen orso innocent virgins to the volcano'swrath, I reflected upon where ourspecies might be today if the environmentalists'passion to "commemoratethe destruction of Nature" had heretoforebeen given full sway. It is obviousthat mankind would have experiencedgreat difficulty getting pastthe Flood.Imagine Noah, hard at work on theArk, spurring on his sons with thecertain foreknowledge of catastro-Continued on page 5FUSION

EditorialContinued from page 3participating sovereign nations in a vastly expanded spare and fusion researchprogram aimed at basic scientific breakthroughs and solutions to resourcelimitations. Within this context, the United States can develop the depth ofquality forces and new defense systems (such as particle-beam ABM weapons)required for national security.Ultimately, a 50-year development perspective flowing from these policiesrequires a carefully analyzed mix of different development strategies for thevarious global sectors, the rapid expansion of existing basic industries at thesame time that we "leap-frog" to new, more efficient and automated technologies,and the greatest research and education program in history, centeredon commercialization of fusion power. All these areas—energy, industry,technology, education, and science policy—will be extensively discussed withthe American citizenry in the coming months using the analytical tool uniquelysuited to these problems: the LaRouche-Riemann economic model.This nation produced so mightily to win World War II in the 1940s, marshaledits technological forces to develop commercial nuclear power and to put aman on the moon in the 1950s and 1960s, and achieved the scientificbreakthroughs in the 1970s that have brought us to the brink of the fusion era.Now we have the unique opportunity to win permanent security and peacein the 1980s, finally realizing the centuries-old Grand Design of our republicanforefathers—if we guide American reindustrialization by the same principlesof political economy and morality that built the nation.Lightning RodContinued from page 3phe, suddenly interrupted by an environmentalist.Naturally the environmentalistwould carry a court order inhis back pocket, as they are practicallynever seen without one."You must quit this task immediately,"our Mr. Green informs Noahofficiously. And when the venerablegentleman protests, as he must,"You're crazy, there's a Deluge coming,"the environmentalist whips outhis legal document in reply."Exactly my point," says Mr. Green."Your ark constitutes an unacceptableinterference with the natural progressof the waters, and besides, it is notequipped with an airbag and may beunsafe. It's all here—in triplicate."Noah's appeals to a higher law are,of course, misconstrued by the environmentalist."Yes, yes," he exclaims,"you mean the Permanent WildernessAct, which specifies that alterations inNature are permissible for the commemorationof some UnspeakableCatastrophe. You want to build amonument to the Flood, that's okay,I can't stop you. But it's still gottahave an airbag."It would probably take some assistancefrom Ham and Shem, togetherwith a few pointed gestures withNoah's hammer, to dispatch Mr.Green from the premises and allowthe building of the Ark to proceed.(And you can be sure the momentNoah was finished and had begunloading up the animals "two by two,"Mr. Green would reappear at thehead of a Gay Rights group demandingthat the Noah family cease anddesist from its discriminatory practicesagainst the third sex.)Taking a more contemporary instance,suppose the Sierra Club hadbeen an influential force in midwesternAmerican political life at the timeof the Great Chicago Fire. Would thecitizens of Illinois today, instead ofenjoying the benefits of the vast commercialand industrial metropolis onLake Michigan, be better off with agiant bronze statue of Mrs. O'Leary'scow?Let us commemorate the power ofNature by improving her works.Yr. obt. svt.,September 1980FUSION

LettersRiemann Vs. Darwin:Evolution Not RandomCarol Cleary's article "Evolution: ARiemannian Approach to Biology" inthe March T980 issue of Fusion hasdrawn blood from James Bonner, oneof the nation's leading researchers inmolecular genetics and a staunchDarwinian. Fusion is pleased to printDr. Bonner's letter and the author'sreply and plans future articles on thesubject of evolution.To the Editor:I bought an issue of your magazineat the Los Angeles Airport the otherday and I read it with great enthusiasm,happy to find somebody who,like me, believes that the future ofour civilization depends upon nuclearenergy as the principal source forenergy in the next, perhaps, one ortwo generations. I read with specialinterest "The Fight for Nuclear Energy:Showdown in Sweden" [March1980], which has now come out verywell indeed, and the varied suggestionsabout how to promote fusionresearch which I admit is underfundedand should indeed be verymuch more intensively funded. . . .All in all I found Fusion to be anabsolutely first-class magazine. ...And then I came to the article byCarol Cleary about "Evolution, A RiemannianApproach to Biology." Theopening sentence of this article showsthat the author is uninformed orotherwise incompetent: "The recentpublication of chromosomal studiesof the offspring of two different primatespecies threatens to trigger thefinal collapse of the shaky marriagebetween Darwinian theory and molecularbiology."The hybridization of species of differentchromosome numbers or differentchromosome structure hasbeen known for years and years. ItFUSION September 1980

started, perhaps most clearly, with thehybridization of two different subspeciesof Drosophila pseudo-obscura byTheodosius Dobzhansky in the 1930s.Anyway, the fact that species withdifferent chromosome numbers cancross is understandable; it's a wellknownfact; it's been going on forthousands of years. It generally doesnot produce fertile offspring, ofcourse, and that's what makes thembe different species in the first place.Now we go on to pages 48 and 49:"After the acceptance of Darwin'stheory, the development of molecularbiology and Mendelian genetics ledto the viewpoint that inherited differencesoccur at the gene level, thelevel at which a nucleic acid moleculeapparently 'codes' for one specificprotein molecule. Thus, the marriagebetween molecular biology and Darwiniantheory was consecrated on thebasic tenet that changes on the genelevel brought about by random-pointmutations slowly create variationsthat, under the pressure of naturalselection, cause evolution to occur."No Use to ComplainThis is a true, accurate, and acceptedstatement of the way thingsare in the state of knowledge today.It's no use to complain, as the authordoes on page 49, that prokaryotes aredifferent from eukaryotes and don'thave the "institutionalized internaldifferentiation of more evolved cells,the eukaryotes." Evolution in prokaryotesis exactly the same as it is ineukaryotes. It's selection of the fittestand the differences between individualsare brought about by randommutation as has been shown over andover again by mutagenizing populationsand selecting for particular characteristics.The author's complaint that attemptsto extend comparative biochemistrybeyond the case of bacterialcells to eukaryotes were largelyunsuccessful is absolutely and totallyuntrue. The advances in our knowledgeof eukaryote evolution and thenature of eukaryote selection are totallydependent upon the knowledgethat we have gained from the studyof prokaryotes, but most importantly,due to the knowledge that we havegained from the study of Drosophila,This op-ed in the June 21 NewYork Times is an example of thefuzzy thinking of contemporarybiologists. Author Harold I. Morowitzof Yale University decriesthe recent U.S. Supreme Courtdecision that allowed geneticallyengineered organisms tobe patented (see News Briefs,page 11).which is, of course, a highly differentiatedeukaryote.I totally disagree with the conclusionreached on page 50 that changesin chromosomal number and chromosomalarrangement, rather thanpoint mutation, occur at a sufficientlyrapid rate to account for speciationamong vertebrates. This is not proven.It's not even a viable hypothesis. Andit's particularly clearly not the casewhen we look at Drosophila wheremajor changes in the* chromosomalarrangements occur with minorchanges in Drosophila speciation.Take, for example, the many, manycollections of Drosophila pseudo obscuracollected by Dobzhansky andhis followers, which differ from oneanother by inversions, translocations,etc. and are, nonetheless, one and thesame species.I don't want to go on and on complaining.The whole article is not aprofessional one: The Hapsburg traitsthat occur only under static equilibriumconditions, the rapid evolutionof the horse (God knows how manyreasons there are for the rapid evolutionof the horse, although obviouslythere were many), the case ofwheat, but wheat has been playedwith by humans and that's why it'sevolved so enormously fast during thelast 10,000 years, as everyone knows.The Ultimate InsultAnd finally, on page 52, the ultimateinsult which is stated, "Once it hasbeen established that evolution occurson the chromosomal and not onthe gene level, one or another cleverstudent will inevitably conclude thatthe epistemological features of thisargument are just rhetoric." Well,they are. Evolution occurs on the levelof mutation and I think every geneticistof any maturity and sense ofproportion and sense of sense knowsthis.Even Francis Crick knows it. Whenhe says that in higher organisms thegene has, if anything, more nonsensethan sense in it, he's referring tosomething on the molecular levelwhich the author of the present articlehasn't even thought about andprobably doesn't even know about,namely the introns and the exons.And then the author goes on to ask,"If we smash the mysterious idol ofnatural selection, and throw away itsdice, what kind of causality can wecome up with?" This is just the kindof stupid argument that I can't seewhy anyone would ever bring up.Remind me to read your journal, ifever again, only to be annoyed.Stick to stuff you know about, likefusion and fission, and don't quoteJohn Sedat, my former advisee, andLaura Manuelidis (something aboutthe structure of chromosomes). I amconfident that John and Laura don'tgo for this sort of guff either. Whatthe author is talking about is absolutelynonrelevant to the study of biologytoday. It makes your otherwiseworthy journal suspect. If a personthat knows something about a particulararticle in your journal finds thatit's just a bunch of hogwash, thenwhat is he to think about the rest ofthe journal?. . .James F. BonnerProfessor of BiologyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, Calif.Continued on page 8September 1980 FUSION 7

LettersContinued from page 7The Author RepliesIn his haste to defend Sir CharlesDarwin, Dr. Bonner has neglected theexperimental evidence of Drs. Bush,Wilson, Levin et al. which was themain scientific substance of my article.This oversight conveniently allowsDr. Bonner to ignore the point of myarticle, "Evolution: A Riemannian Approachto Biology." However, I willnot let him dodge the scientific evidenceor its epistemological andmoral implications.In studies involving more than10,000 species, Drs. Bush, Wilson,Levin et al. have demonstrated thatrandom point mutations cannot accountfor the relatively rapid rate ofevolution of placental mammals. Ofall the inherited features studied, onlychromosomal changes correlate withthat evolution, and these changes areassociated with changing global bioenergeticrelationships.The traditional tenets of Darwinianbiology, fully elaborated by moleculargenetics, are thereby disproven. Thearticle's point is to explain why thatshould be so, and to propose an alternative.Dr. Bonner, you have prowledaround the outside of this discussion,sniffing something that, perhaps,frightens you. Hurling epithets in itsdirection ("incompetent," "uninformed,""stupid argument"), youscamper off in the other discrediteddirection. Why not face the evidence,probe to the core of the argument,and rethink your area of expertisefrom the standpoint of a more advancedhypothesis?The evidence establishes thatchanging chromosomal structures occurredat a rate that could uniquelyaccount for the rate of evolution inthe historic record of placental mammals.This, of course, is a matter ofcorrelation. What remains open is thecausal question. If chromosomalchange accompanies speciation, underwhat circumstances, and how?There is really no point in referringto T. Dobzhansky's experiments onpseudo-obscura fruit fliesj Admittedly,he managed to produce all sortsof chromosomal changes that did notresult in ^peciation. But then, evolutioncould not have occurred underthe constrained conditions of Dobzhansky'slaboratory.A Riemannian ApproachI usedj the phrase Riemannian approachfpr this reason: Evolution isnot "ran|dom point mutation" of aChromosomes: The chromosomesfrom a human cancer victim, showingpronounced structural aberrations.particular member of a species, but anexus cf the most rapidly evolvingspecies currently transforming thebiosphere. This internally differentiatingnexus, or singularity, is sociallyorganized such that general increasesin biological energy throughput arenonlinekrly amplified and channeledinto the progeny of those species.Such progeny, born within this geometryof biological energy surplus,then generate still further advances inthe biochemical and technologicalcapacity of the singularity to transformthe biosphere even more rapidly.Thus, evolution is the path of thebiosphere from lower to higher ratesof overall energy throughput via speciation.What evolves is the characteristicmode £>f capture of solar energy bylife forms whose "living" nature is toemployj inorganic "resources" to convertsolar energy into biological material.The mammalian-angiosperm"warm blooded" complete, for example,cqnstituted a new "technology"of the biosphere, altogether redefininginorganic "resources" for life onearth. Compared to reptilian forms,they had significantly greater populationpotentials, greater differentiationpotentials, higher rates of solarenergy conversion by biological processes,and a capacity for sustainedincreases in overall biological energythroughput by further developmentin this way. By the time of the UpperOligocene, the mammalian-angiospermforms were, quite literally,"making deserts bloom."No theory of "natural selection" isrequired or possible. "Survival of thefittest" and "scarce resources" are thedriving force of decay. Abundant andgrowing "free energy" is the drivingforce of evolution. By the Upper Oligocene,for instance, a certain arrayof angiosperms began to speciate intothe forms called grass and spread withrapidly speciating ungulates into thedeserts of continental interiors, transformingnet "reflectors" of solar energyinto concentrations of biomass10 times the density of the deciduousforest. Evolving mammalian-angiospermforms did not adapt to an environment,but evolved to create theirown, ever more energy-dense biosphere.NegentropyEvolution is not random, butcausally negentropic.In light of the evidence presentedin molecular biology by Bush et al.,the substance of my article addressedthe proposal that highly orderedchromosomal geometries mirror increasedrates of biological energythroughput in a species positively interactingwith an increasingly differentiated,energy-dense biosphere. .My hypothesis was that the mostrapidly evolving species of placentalmammals were socially organized,such that general increases in biologicalenergy throughput were concentrated,amplified in a nonlinear fashion;and channeled via chromosomalreordering into the progeny of thespecies. In sum: speciation means relativelyrapid increases in biologicalenergy throughput, sustained and, asit were, "institutionalized" in chromosomalchange.The case of flax is one of inherited8 FUSIONSeptember 1980

change accompanied by an at leasttemporary increase of DNA per cell,implying a significant change in globalchromosome geometry in flax nuclei—achievedby increased biologicalenergy throughput under optimalgrowing conditions. This is contrastedwith cancer—inherited geneticchange by entropic changes in biologicalenergy throughput—and withthe necrotic cell, in which suddencollapse in energy throughputchanges cell geometry dramaticallytoward quasi-crystalline structureslike those found in inorganic chemistry.Biological "space" is a geometrycorresponding to a higher energyflow than that of the inorganic realmat comparable temperatures. Thehighly ordered, highly differentiatedgeometries of eukaryotic nuclei aresusceptible to both entropic and negentropicchange based on biologicalenergy throughput. The flax case, infact, corresponds to the "singularities"through which the biosphereevolved in the Cenozoic: chromosomalchange under conditions of increasingbiological energy throughputand higher states of organizationresulting (uniquely) in speciation.Dobzhansky Vs. CausalityIt is most useful that Dr. Bonnerraises the issue of Theodosius Dobzhansky,his mentor. Dobzhanskytrained under circles at Kiev associatedwith the Societas Jesu; in 1969,he was president of the Teilhard deChardin Association, of which he wasa member of long standing; and he isthe exemplar in molecular biology ofthat apparently contradictory combinationof Jesuit empiricism and mysticismthat logically ensues from thesubstitution of statistical correlationfor causality in science.In contrast, the Neoplatonic traditionlocates the emergence of man inhis unique powers of Reason. Conspiraciesof Reason have generatedthe Renaissances that have repeatedlytransformed the biosphere itself byqualitative leaps in the pace of humanscientific and technological activity.These leaps lift the human speciesfrom the burden of beastlike pursuitof sustenance to its highest creativepotential. This, in turn, becomes theprimary force for continued evolutionof the lower-order inorganic and organicdomains.This is certainly not the worldviewof Malthus, nor the pseudoevolutionistsDarwin and Dobzhansky. As oneof this century's most respected expertson genetics and "evolution," ashe terms it, Dobzhansky conductedexperiments in an "equilibrium" fishbowl,effecting genetic mutations ontotally inbred laboratory Drosophila,without a thought for the actual historicprocesses of evolution and theircauses. With causality stripped out,the evolutionary process is renderedinexplicable and man is relegated tobestialism and the supernatural."To many, Darwin seemed to havedelivered the heaviest blow, makingthe schism in man's soul irreparable:Flax: Fourth-generation flax plantsderived from a single set of parents,showing nonmutational heritablechanges that refute current neo-Darwiniandogma.far from the world having been madefor man, man himself proved to bemerely one of some two million biologicalspecies . . . and a relative ofcreatures as disreputable as monkeysand apes," wrote Dobzhansky in hisoft-quoted Mankind Evolving.There is, however, "a source ofhope in the abyss of despair." Dobzhanskycontinued: "Teilhard deChardin saw that evolution of matter,the evolution of life, and the evolutionof man are integral parts of asingle process of cosmic development.... He chose to designate thedirection in which evolution is goingas 'The Point Omega' ... 'a harmonizedcollectivity of consciousness'... a kind of superconsciousness. . . .The plurality of individual thoughtscombine and mutually reinforce eachother in a single act of unanimousThought. ... In the dimension ofthought, as in that of Time and Space,can the Universe reach consummationin anything but the Measureless?. . . This is nothing less than afundamental vision. And I shall leaveit at that."But Dobzhansky did not leave itquite at that—an "equilibrium" worldwhere all evolution ends and man justmeditates with Teilhard and,the restof the Aquarians. For example, hewrote:"Despite having been temporarilyperverted by racists, the eugenicalidea has a sound core: human welfare,both with individuals and withsocieties, is predicated upon thehealth of the genetic endowment ofhuman populations," Dobzhanskywrote in the same source. "Osborn(1951) has rightly said that 'eugenicsis not in opposition to efforts to improvethe environment, but in manycases a necessary supplement to theirsuccess.'"Quite predictably, the outcome ofDobzhansky's Darwinian method iseugenics, dividing the world into the"fit" and the "unfit." Do not mistakemy meaning. We must pursue allpromising avenues of genetic and recombinantDNA research to achieveall the obvious benefits in medicaland agricultural practice. But we mustalso have the larger theoretical basisfor making the fundamental researchbreakthroughs we need to cure cancer,to develop more productive agriculture—inshort, to make possiblenew leaps forward for future generations.Dobzhansky's Darwinian geneticslead only to the depopulationschemes of the Malthusians.Is this really what you want, Dr.Bonner?Carol ClearySeptember 1980 FUSION 9

News BriefsCarlos de HoyosUwe ParpartFEF RESEARCH DIRECTOR PARPART TOURS INDIAAddresses in New Delhi to the Indian National Science Academy and theNehru Mentiorial Museum and Library concluded a three-week lecture tour ofIndia by Dr. Uwe Parpart, director of research for the Fusion Energy Foundation.The tour, which Parpart described as one of his most refreshing in recentyears, included speeches before hundreds of scientists, planners, industrialists,and technicians in Hyderabad, Bombay, and Bangalore on India's exceptionalpotential fd>r economic "takeoff" and on recent progress in thermonuclearfusion enerjgy development. I"Fusion |s not only an energy source," Parpart told an audience of 45scientists and policymakers at the National Science Academy June 6, "it is arevolution in technology, in disposal of nuclear waste, in chemical recyclingand reprocessing, and reducing materials to plasmas at the high temperaturesin a fusion reactor," as well as cracking water to develop hydrogen as aportable fuel. Challenging all "limits to growth" perspectives, Parpart concluded,"Science is not for the colonies or the colonizers nor for the rich orthe poor. Science is universal. Only if we view it from that standpoint doesmankind Hjave hope for the future." At the Nehru Memorial Museum andLibrary June 7, Parpart's warning that without industrialization India facesuncontrollable chaos was followed by lengthy discussion with the 70-memberaudience. The chairman of the lecture, Dr. Raga Ramanna, a leading scientistwith the Indian Defense Ministry and national nuclear program, commentedon his pleasure at "somebody coming from abroad who makes the case fornuclear eriergy."Parpart's tour received wide coverage in such major Indian daily newspapersas the Times of India, the Statesman, the National Herald, and the Patriot. Thenext issue of Fusion will feature a full report on Parpart's tour.DOE PANEL URGES UPGRADING OF FUSIONThe fusion review panel of the Department of Energy's Energy ResearchAdvisory Board released its preliminary report June 23, urging a vast upgradingof the U.S. fusion program. The panel, led by Bell Lab vice president Dr.Solomon Buchsbaum, has recommended a timetable for fusion developmentsimilar to that proposed by Congressman Mike McCormack (D-Wash.) andsupported by the Fusion Energy Foundation. The Buchsbaum committeerecommends that in the next decade the department's magnetic fusionprogram build a $1 billion facility to demonstrate the engineering feasibility offusion power. Before the end of the century, it states, the United States shoulddemonstrate commercial feasibility under the guidance of a Fusion EngineeringCenter, which would supervise the construction of a demonstration powerplant. At the same time, the panel concludes, the annual magnetic fusionbudget should be increased to $1 billion per year within five years to preparethe progriam for the next-step large fusion devices.The October Fusion will publish the full Buchsbaum report.Courtesy of Bell LabsDr. Solomon BuchsbaumMEXICO FEARS MISUSE OF U.S. WEATHER MODIFICATIONThe Mexican Federal Electricity Commission June 20 ordered electric powercutbacks'of up to one-third for industrial users in many parts of the nationbecause of hydroelectric power shortfalls caused by the worst drought in twodecades. Oil pipe output, aluminum smelting, and automotive engine blockproduction are among the industries affected. On June 15, the federalgovernmjent had asked the Carter administration to halt its meteorologicalreconaissance flights over Mexico, which divert the path of hurricanes. Thechief of the Mexican Agriculture and Water Resources Minister's meterologicaldepartment has stated that the experiments produce "nonbeneficial effects,"citing las|t year's inundation of Cuba by hurricanes while storms never turnedinland to bring rain to Mexican farmlands. Four and a half million head ofcattle ar^ in danger of starvation because of the drought, millions of dollars'10 FUSION September 1980

worth of crops are in jeopardy, and peasant unrest could intensify. Theagricultural devastation may increase pressures by the Carter administration toforce diversion of Mexican oil revenues from industrialization programs intofood imports from the United States, which observers have noted meanssurrender of Mexican sovereignty over export and pricing policy.WESTERN SUMMIT PROMOTES 'COAL AND NUCLEAR' POWERThe June 22-23 economic summit meeting of Western leaders in Veniceresolved to decrease oil consumption from 53 percent of total energy resourcesto 40 percent over the next decade in the leading noncommunist industrializednations. Pledging to "conserve energy but also develop alternative alternatesources," the heads of government proposed to double coal production andincrease nuclear power output. The 1979 summit in Tokyo had mandated anexpansion of each country's nuclear energy program, a mandate ignored overthe past 12 months by the Carter administration. At Venice, the final communiqueregrettably affirmed a polcy of "delinking" energy, in particular oil,consumption from economic growth.COAL STRATEGISTS PUSH FOR CARTELThe U.S. Interagency Coal Export Task Force established this spring by theWhite House issued recommendations in June for an expansion of U.S. coalexports from the present 66 million tons to 266 million tons by the year 2000.The recommendations are based on this year's World Coal Study, producedby the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the direction of Prof.Carroll Wilson, a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome.It proposes that one-half of the increments in world energy use over thecoming decades should derive from coal rather than oil, natural gas, or nuclearpower, supplied by a de facto "coal OPEC" consisting of major exportersAustralia, Canada, the United States, and South Africa.COURT UPHOLDS GENETIC ENGINEERING PATENTSThe Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 June 16 that the products of geneticengineering techniques are covered by U.S. patent laws. The divided votereflected concern over whether Congress intended the patent laws to includenew life forms, and not over the so-called ethical questions that have becomeassociated with the recombinant-DNA issue. Current patent laws basicallycover manufactured or synthesized products, but also include unique seedstocks, reflecting governmental encouragement of agricultural innovations.The ruling should provide a strong impetus to commercial engineering ofbacteria to produce such biomedical products as insulin, interferon, growthhormones and other hormones, and products for the chemical, oil, andfarming industries. The People's Business Commission, which supported thelosing government position as a friend of the court, called the ruling a mandatefor a "Brave New World." The PBC was formerly the proterrorist People'sBicentennial Commission.COLONIES IN SPACE: SOVIETS TO LAUNCH 12-MAN SPACE LABIn a major step toward initiating colonies in space, the Soviet Union plansto launch a 220,000-lb., 12-man permanent space station in earth orbit as earlyas 1983, according to the June 16 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.Awaiting completion of the 14-million-lb. thrust booster and a winged,reusable shuttle for supplies and men, the space lab will facilitate in-orbitassembly of vehicles for the Soviets' planned exploration of Mars and theMoon. Lt. General Vladimir Shatalov, leader of the cosmonaut training program,commented June 5 that the space lab will allow expansion of ongoingscientific and industrial research, since a large number of the crew no longerneed be flight specialists. The Soviet space program employs 100,000 scientistsand engineers and has kept up a 3 to 5 percent real rise in annual funding.Molecular model of DNASeptember 1980

News BriefsU.S. BUDGET CUTS TARGET NATIONAL LABORATORIESThe Housie Appropriations Committee's Water Resources and Energy Subcommitteeapproved in mid-]une a Department of Energy budget that wouldcut $28 million from high-energy scientific research funding. Researchersmeeting June 18 at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinoissaid that mre than 600 highly skilled basic-science researchers might have tobe dismisseid, and might be very difficult to rehire. According to Fermilabdirector Dr. Leon Lederman, the cuts would also mean mammoth waste ofcapital investment and manpower. The physicists said that the cuts willnecessitate klosing major particle accelerators for several months a year forlack of operating funds. "We are equally concerned about all the other areasof basic science that will be affected by these cuts," Lederman added.ANTINUCLEAR CONGRESSMEN MOBILIZE AGAINST URANIUM EXPORTSAfter President Carter reaffirmed his decision June 19 to license the shipmentof 38 tons 1 of enriched uranium for India's Tarapur nuclear power facility,members of the U.S. Congress sought to block the export by securing a twothirdsvote against the authorization within 60 days. Led by Rep. Ed Markey(D-Mass.), 35 congressmen have filed a resolution opposing the fuel shipment,and a joint resolution of the Senate Foreign Relations and Government AffairsCommittees strongly condemned the White House move as jeopardizing theadministration's nonproliferation program. The president's decision wasshaped by State Department insistence that breaching the fuel shipmentaccord would damage relations with India, to whom, as Undersecretary ofState Warrjen Christopher recently told Congress, the Soviet Union would be"delighted" to make up the enriched uranium deficit.12 FUSION September 1980WESTERN WATER SUPPLY STILL JEOPARDIZEDThe U.Sj Supreme Court voted June 16 to exempt California's Imperial Valleyfrom the 1902 Reclamation Act, which denies federally funded water suppliesto irrigate farms over 160 acres. Unanimously overturning an appellate courtdecision, tjhe justices ruled that the valley's farms are entitled to draw ColoradoRiver wat^r through the canal financed by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of1980, which specifically exempted large farms from the 160-acre limit.Less noticed, however, was the Arizona state legislature's passage a weekearlier of strict conservation mandates on groundwater use by all majoragricultural, industrial, and municipal consumers. The law was drafted byprivate and public users under a threat by the Department of the Interior todelay theCentral Arizona water project. One effect of the state law will be torestrict owner-operated farms' use of natural reservoirs.LOUSEWORT LAURELS TO AIF'S CARL GOLDSTEINUnhapp|ily,thismonth'saward isthe first to a member of the nuclear industry.The Lousswort Laurels for September go to Carl Goldstein, public relationsofficer of the Atomic Industrial Forum, for his views on high technology. Ourthanks to a visiting West German industrial representative who submitted theitem to us, quite outraged at the outlook of the ostensibly pronuclear Mr.Goldstein.As relayed to us, Mr. Goldstein commented on the "attractive views" of theFusion Energy Foundation and then offered the following remarks about thealleged effect of a full nuclear gearup: "Nuclear energy, any high technology,and intensive energy development will bring this country to a state ofprosperity and complacency, which only a lot of energy and high technologycan bring you to. And then, once this country is so prosperous, and socomplacent, and so fat, then it can be subverted; the government can betoppled because it will be half asleep."Does this mean that if the United States is poor, unhappy, and austere, thenit will have true national security?

ViewpointThe Logic ofNuclear WasteDisposalby Joseph R. DietrichThe so-called problem of nuclearwaste disposal is a favorite theme ofmembers of the antiprogress cultthat seeks to deprive the world ofthe blessing of peaceful nuclear energy.Their arguments defy logicalreason:• They consider the design of a permanentlysafe means of waste disposalbeyond the power of humaningenuity; yet, they consider the farmore difficult problem of generatingeconomical solar electricity tobe readily solvable.• They stress the immorality of leavingto future generations a store ofradioactivity that they perceivemight enter the biosphere millenniafrom now; yet, they think nothingof burning up our coal, oil, andnatural gas in a few centuries—resourcesthat in the long term are farmore important as raw materialsthan as fuels.• They stress the dangers of nuclearwaste disposal and nuclear powerplants; yet, they discount the dangersof a world energy shortage thatcould lead to nuclear war as nationsseek to gain the energy they needto survive—a war that could depopulatethe earth.This environmentalist cult has misledthe public to the point thatpoliticians are afraid to allow disposalsites within their respectivestates. What an absurd situation!Deep geologic burial, which is onlyone of the barriers to be engineeredinto the waste disposal facility, initself can isolate the waste from thebiosphere for thousands of years.When sijich a delayed risk of alow-level ajddition to the natural radiationbackground is compared tothe far greater risks that the humanrace faces over the next few thousandyears—from hunger, depletionof natural resources, and the warsthat these broblems can engender—it hardly sdems a subject for politicalcontroversy at this time.Overriding the UncertaintiesThus the disposal of nuclear wastehas become a political problemrather than a technical one. Thegovernment has taken responsibilityfor disposal, and it postpones actionbecause there are "uncertainties."Engineers know that there are uncertainties;in many engineeringprojects that can affect humanhealth and safety. The way to makesuch a project safe is to employdesign cdnservatisms that overridethe uncertainties. This can be donein the case of nuclear waste disposaland at a tost that will add little tothe consumer's bill for nuclear electricity.Design jengineers are problem solvers.Those who agonize over nuclearwaste disposal are problemseekers rather than problem solvers.Design engineers can provide safe,permanent, nuclear waste disposalthrough lihe applications of conservativedesign methods. That is not tosay that riesearch and developmenton nuclear waste disposal should bestopped; continuing R&D will reducethe 1 needs for conservatismsand thus reduce costs.separation of high-level waste fromreprocessable spent fuel). Meanwhile,there is much high-level separatedwaste awaiting permanentdisposal—waste from the militaryprograms. We should proceed rapidlywith permanent disposal of thatwaste, and by the time the task iscompleted we will probably havemore perceptive government policies.It is essential that we movequickly, for the perceived "problem"of disposal turns more andmore people, and local and s-tategovernments, away from nuclearenergy—an energy source that cansupply our electrical needs for tensof thousands of years and that hasthe potential for supplying energyneeds other than electrical.An Act of CompassionNuclear power is supported byknowledgeable leaders of disadvantagedminorities in the United Statesand by many developing countries.Their experience with poverty hasconvinced them that abundant energyis necessary for them to achievea comfortable position in the world.They have learned, through bitterexperience, the lesson of history:that energy generation by mechanicalmeans is the alternative to slavery.For these reasons I believe thatanyone who has compassion for thepoor and for the disadvantaged, iflogical, will support nuclear power.Anything that will remove the misconceptionsthat nuclear power is adangerous, immoral route to followis an act of compassion. Therefore,Fusion magazine is to be congratulatedfor providing an article on nuclearwaste disposal [August 1980] thatshould remove some of those misconceptions.Since the beginning of the nuclearera, research on high-level wastedisposal has been concentrated onthe disposal of wastes separatedfrom spent nuclear reactor fuel. Thecurrent jgovernment ban on reprocessingof commercial nuclear tired as chief scientist of the nuclearJoseph Dietrich, who recently re­fuel, if permanent, would require division of Combustion Engineering,further development and further is one of the founders of the U.S.delay (because there would be no nuclear industry.14 FUSION September 1980

Special ReportWhy MonetarismDestroys High Technologyby David GoldmanOne suspects that American conservativeswho try to portray themonetarism of Milton Friedman andothers as a route to high-technologyeconomic growth either have notdone their homework or are less thaningenuous on the subject. It is notmerely that the application of MiltonFriedman's methods to the Americaneconomy—such as Paul Volcker's announcementOct. 7, 1979 that theFederal Reserve would pursue strictmonetary targets no matter what—have thrown us into the most rapidindustrial collapse in American history.Friedman's views, like those ofhis counterparts in the Vienna monetaristschool, are zero-growth incontent and origin.Monetarism Is Not EconomicsMonetarism is not really economicsat all because, as Milton Friedman putit, "real income is determined outsidethe system." Factors that even in theshort run make behavior of themoney stock irrelevant as a yardstickof economic performance are excludedfrom Friedman's consideration;for example, the rate of introductionof technology, the rate ofgrowth of labor productivity, the rateof capital formation, the distributionof investment between goods-producingand service sectors.It is obvious that net credit creationis noninflationary, or even counterinflationary,if that credit puts on linenew technologies that significantly increaselabor productivity. Was it inflationaryto increase credit availabilityto the computer industry, which hasreduced data processing costs by 50percent per year over the past 10years? If similar technologies areavailable in other sectors, will creditextension to these sectors increase ordecrease inflation?Friedman's widely circulated proposalto limit the growth of moneysupply to 3 to 5 percent per yearassumes that this band represents thelong-term growth potential of theUnited States, a wholly arbitrary andindefensible presumption. The longtermgrowth rate is an industrial engineeringconsideration that Friedmanintentionally ignores. DuringWorld War II America achieved 20percent annual growth rates. TheLaRouche-Riemann computer econometricmodel, developed jointly bythe Executive Intelligence Review andthe publishers of Fusion magazine,has also demonstrated that under theright investment mix, the Americaneconomy could achieve a potentialgrowth rate of close to 9 percent bythe end of the 1990s.Technologies StifledThe effect of Friedman's policies isto stifle investment in productivitygenerating,counterinflationary technologies.In fact, monetarist policiesare likely to be inflationary ratherthan deflationary, particularly whenapplied to an already weak economy.Milton Friedman and the monetaristsshould have been laughed out of theprofession on the basis of the pastyear's events in Britain alone. At thetime the Conservative Party governmentof Margaret Thatcher took officein April 1979, British inflation was6 percent annually, measured by theConsumer Price Index. Thatcher appliedFriedman's monetary doctrinerigorously and cut money supplygrowth by half, to about 7 percentper year. During the same period, theBritish inflation rate quadrupled to 22percent per year, while industrial outputfell by 8 percent!No Keynesian free-spender hasever managed to produce such stunningresults in any industrial countryand Friedman deserves a certain typeSeptember 1980 FUSION 15

In March, Campaigner revealed thetruth about Thomas Jefferson, thefounding father of environmentalism:"The Treachery of Thomas Jefferson."In April, Campaigner reported onteaching children geometry using thephysical action approach of Archimedes,Leibniz, and Monge: "GeniusCan Be Taught!"In June, Campaigner posed thequestion of our nation's politicalleadership as originally dissected byfounding fathers Quincy Adams, Lafayette,and Friedrich Schiller: "WillAmerica Survive?"Coming in the July CampaignerThe EcolePolytechniqueand theScience ofRepublicanEducationof congratulations. In fact, somethingsimilar happened in the United States,after Paul Volcker announced lastOctober that the Federal Reservewould restrict money supply growthby a Friecjmanite formula. WhenVolcker introduced his program theinflation ra\e was 13 percent; withinfive months it had risen to 20 percent.The reason that Friedman's recommendations,have produced the 180-degree reverse of the expected is notreally obscure. Weakened by 15 yearsof obsolescence and underinvestment,American industry must reactto increased interest costs by raisingprices. Thpre is no give left in itsfinancial structure. Britain's industryis currently^ running a financial deficitabout equ|il to the government's, at7 billion pounds a year, and the impactof higher interest rates is purelyinflationary.Deliberate Zero-GrowthersThere is! nothing accidental aboutFriedman's antiindustrial bent. Hispredecessors among the "quantity ofmoney theorists" were explicit zerogrowthers.David Ricardo, the formulatoror the "quantity theory," believed—alongwith his close friendParson Malthus—that the exhaustionof arable and would lead to highergrain prices, hence higher wages andlower profits, until industrial growthstopped. The Vienna monetarists—Menger, Mises, Hayek, and others—not only insisted that production wasdoomed to the Ricardian "falling rateof profit," but argued that industrialproduction was "nothing more thanchanging the position in space" ofobjects given by nature. The feudalnotion that wealth is bounded by naturegoes' back to Aristotle's Politics,culminates in the Club of Rome's Limitsto Growth nonsense, and includesthe entire monetarist school along theway.No oni should be surprised thatthe "classical school" of Smith, Ricardo,Malthus, Bentham, and Millwas antigrowth in basic outlook. Everyone of thtm worked for the East IndiaCompany, which plugged the hole inBritain's foreign payments accountwith revenues from the opium trade.Ricardo Was a member of the EastIndia board of directors, Malthus thechief economist of its training school,James Mill its chief of intelligence,and Adam Smith, in an earlier period,the author of a report projecting theexpansion of the opium trade toChina—a theme he also takes up inthe Wealth of Nations.The Chicago Traditionand 'Felicific Calculus'Milton Friedman's own version ofthe Quantity Theory comes not directlyfrom Ricardo, but from OxfordUniversity's attempts to revive the JeremyBentham "felicific calculus."Bentham argued that "nature hasplaced man under two sovereign masters,pleasure and pain," and he triedto work out index-numbers to explainhuman action. After two generationsof Oxford and Cambridge "marginalutility" theorists had failed to comeup with a quantification of the felicificcalculus, Alfred Marshall proposed touse money—the means of makingpleasure effective—as a simplifieduniversal equivalent.That is the so-called subjective, ormarginal utility, theory of value. It notonly assumes that man is a pleasuremachine without a mind, but throwsout any objective consideration of thereal, physical economy. In England,this was the work of raving medievalistslike John Ruskin, the Oxford politicaleconomy and fine arts professorwho demanded that society return tostatus quo ante the industrial revolutionand the Golden Renaissance.The researcher is appalled by thefact that Friedman's (and Keynes's)antecedents were a bunch of ravinglunatics. Bentham went mad trying towork out the felicific calculus anddied a virtual hermit, unable to speakhis own queer sort of Newspeak toanyone but James Mill. Ruskin, whogave both Alfred Marshall and W.S.Jevons their first important jobs at theRoyal Colonial Institute, was a Theosophist,mystic, celibate (after a terrifyingwedding night), and extremeracialist. Jevons died believing thatsunspots cause trade cycles.What Friedman calls the "Chicagotradition" was the American colonyof Oxford and the University of Vienna,as Friedman's sponsor andteacher, Wesley Clair Mitchell, admittedfreely in his own writings. And,16 FUSION September 1980

according to Mitchell, the seminal influencein Chicago economics wasthe ferociously anticapitalist ThorsteinVeblen.Emotion and LiesAll of this is evident from a glancethrough the writings of the monetarists,from Ricardo through Friedman.Friedman sells the sizzle but not thesteak; he makes his pitch on emotionalappeal to Americans who arefed up with bungling and malign governmentinterference in production,without ever talking about the realeconomy.He also lies outrageously aboutsome crucial issues; such as his suggestionin the new book Free toChoose that the island of Hong Kongis the "exemplar" of free enterprise.Possibly so, but the freest thing aboutHong Kong's enterprise is the narcoticstraffic, which has made its capital,in that island since 1837 to the present.Hong Kong's $10 billion annualflow of drug money is double theisland banking system's money supply;and $1 billion of that, accordingto estimates published by the HongKong government, flows into briberyof police!Or, to take another egregious example:Friedman is the man who traveledto Chile in 1975 to inform thefascist Pinochet junta that it was notcutting spending fast enough—whenaverage caloric consumption in theChilean population had already fallento 1,200 calories a day and the infantmortality rate had begun to rise.William F. Buckley, Friedman'sfriend and publisher, was right whenhe wrote on Aug. 16, 1971: "Friedman'stheories suffer from the inherentdisqualification that they cannotget sufficient exercise in democraticsituations, because the population isnot willing to wait long enough forthem to work." Chile best representsthe quality of Friedman's touted freeenterprise libertarianism, and that's along way from the American systemof Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln,and the others who built thisnation as an industrial power.David Goldman is the economicseditor of the weekly Executive IntelligenceReview.Stunning results: After applying the Friedman monetary method, Britain'sinflation tripled while industrial output dropped 8 percent; the United Statesis not far behind. Above, Friedman is shown receiving the 7976 Nobel Prize inEconomics from Sweden's King Carl Gustaf; below: the closed Republic SteelPlant in Cleveland, Ohio.September 1980 FUSION 17

The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plant in Haddam Neck, Conn.Connecticut YankeeAfter Three Mile IslandNuclear: The Safest Energy Aroundby Jon GilbertsonThis is the first in a two-part serieson nuclear safety. Part Two will analyzethe Three Mile Island incident.Although critics have tried to claimthat Three Mile Island was a "neardisaster," the evidence proves just theopposite. In fact, the Fusion EnergyFoundation and many other knowledgeableorganizations have concludedas a result of post-TMl studiesthat nuclear power is even safer thanhad previously been thought.In the words of Edwin Zebroski,head of the Nuclear Safety AnalysisCenter in Palo Alto, California: "Assertionsof a narrowly averted catastropheat TMI have no foundation.Even if the operators at TMI had continuedto misread the condition ofthe core for several more hours andmelting had begun, the addition ofwater at any subsequent point wouldhave stopped the accident."The utility-sponsored safety centeris part of the Electric Power ResearchInstitute and has done the most comprehensivetechnical investigation ofthe TMI incident to date. Zebroskibased his statement on the results ofEPRI's newly released study demonstratingtiat when a plant operatoradds watfer to the reactor core, anymelting sfops or is prevented, as happenedatjTMI.Furthertmore, the EPRI investigationconcluded that taking into accountthe known conditions at TMI and thenormal reliability of the several backupsources of water, no damagewould h^ive occurred to the containmentbuilding—even if the accidenthad gone on unchecked for manyhours beyond the point of melting.Although this conclusion has longbeen accepted as fact, it is onlythrough ian actual incident such asTMI that reactor safety analysts havethe opportunity to prove it to be trueby comparing their smaller-scale experimentsand calculations to fullscaleoperating results. This, in fact, iswhat the group at EPRI has done inits analysis of the TMI incident. Theactual ej/ent and EPRI's analysis simulatingit have proved that in the "realworld" t>f reactors, the result of anaccident is actually much less severethan had been predicted from variouspostulated abnormal operating conditions.The actual design and constructionof reactors, which are allquite rightly based on very conservativeassumptions and calculationsabout such hypothetical, abnormaloperating conditions, therefore,mean that nuclear plants are evensafer than engineers had previouslypresumed.Why is this true, and why can weconfidently state that nuclear poweris the safest energy around?To answer these questions it is necessaryto review the concepts andcriteria behind the design safety ofnuclear reactors and how the applicationof these safety design criteriacompletely protected the public inthe TMI case and will continue toprotect the public in the future, incase of any other abnormal reactorexperience.All U.S. reactors and those in therest of the world are designed arounda concept called the "defense indepth" philosophy. Simply put, thismeans that the design engineers take18 FUSION September 1980

the worst accident that could possiblyoccur in the plant, design the plant soit cannot happen, assume that it doeshappen, and then design the reactorsafety systems to withstand the effectsof the worst-case accident while completelyprotecting the public from anydanger. The reactor design providesmany levels of protection in case ofthe "worst event" (or design basis accident,to use safety terminology) usingback-up systems, back-ups toback-ups, and so forth; hence theterm defense in depth.Specifically, the lines of defense include:(1) the 6est quality assuranceto guarantee that all components andequipment in the plant have beenmanufactured and assembled to requireddesign specifications; (2)highly redundant and diverse protectivesystems designed to protectagainst the occurrence of abnormaloperating conditions; and (3) engineeredsafety systems designed toprotect against the consequences ofhighly unlikely but potentially dangerousaccidents, such as loss of coolant,equipment failure, human error,sabotage, and severe natural disasterssuch as earthquakes, tornadoes, andfloods.This means that nuclear engineersmust do everything possible to preventaccidents from happening byconservative design and protectivesystems. In addition, to cover the possibilitythat some systems will notwork as intended, engineers must addon so-called engineered safety systemsto minimize the consequencesof any accident that might occur.What Dangers Are Involved?Contrary to the false claims of manyantinuclear groups, reactors are notatomic bombs; they cannot explodeunder any conditions. The fuel in areactor is different in a very importantway from the material in an atomicbomb. Its enrichment (that is, theamount of fissionable material available)is far lower than in bombs, andtherefore, the mix cannot produce anuclear explosion.Other explosions, such as hydrogengas or other chemical reactions, arealso not possible within the reactorvessel. This fact was known beforeand during the TMI incident, yet thefraudulent story of an impending hy-(1) Fuel pellets(2) Fuel rods(3) Pressure vessel(4) Concrete wall(5) Steel containment(6) Building shieldMULTILEVEL PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO CONTAIN RADIOACTIVITYThis schematic of a nuclear reactor containment building shows the sixlevels of containment barriers to prevent any fission products fromescaping: (1) the fuel pellet; (2) the fuel rods or tubes; (3) the pressurevessel with 10-inch thick walls; (4) 7-foot to 10-foot concrete shielding;(5) 4-inch thick steel shell; (6) 3-foot concrete shielding.Courtesy of Metropolitan Edison Co.Two containment buildings are in the center of this aerial view of the ThreeMile Island units 1 and 2.September 1980 FUSION 19

drogen explosion in the TMI reactorvessel was scare headlines for days inearly April 1979. As the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission later admitted, itwas known at the time of the TMIincident that no free oxygen was presentand, indeed, that no free oxygencould be present; thus a hydrogenexplosion was impossible.The main concern in reactor safety,in fact, is the large inventory of radioactivematerial (mostly fission products)that builds up in the reactor'sfuel pins during operation. The goalof the reactor safety engineer is tomake sure that this radioactive materialis contained in a controlled mannerunder all conceivable operatingconditions, normal or accidental, andthat only very small quantities are everreleased to the outside environmentat any given time.This is a straightforward procedure,except that the radioactive materialreleases heat along with the radiation;therefore it must be cooled at thesame time that it is contained. Undernormal conditions, the radioactive fissionproducts remain containedwithin the fuel material itself and arepart of every fuel pellet. Over thethree-year lifetime of the fuel, thefission products build up to a littleover 3 percent by weight of the pellets.While the reactor is operating,most of the heat in the fuel is producedfrom the fissioning of the fuelthat results from the neutron reactions(chain reaction). However, afterit is shut dbwn (that is, after the neutronreactions have stopped), heat isstill produfred from the decay of theradioactive fission products. To removethisj heat, the fuel must continueto be cooled while the reactoris in a shutdown condition. The jobof the nuclear safety engineer is tocontain and cool the fission productunder all Conceivable conditions.Prevention of AccidentsQuality!assurance and protectivesystems, trje first two items mentionedin the defense-in-depth philosophy,are combined in the design of a nuclearreactor to do one thing—tomake sur$ the reactor operates correctlyand safely at all times. This, ofcourse, ensures an extremely highprobability that nothing happens inthe reactor that will threaten the safecontainment of all radioactive material.To achieve this goal, everything inthe plant is carefully manufactured,constructed, tested, and inspected toprovide maximum assurance that itoperates exactly as designed. In addition,a very elaborate protective systemis installed in the plant that isdesigned to detect any equipmentfailures or abnormal plant operatingconditions. If certain preset operatingconditions are detected, the protectivesystem will automatically shutdown the plant. The focus of thesetwo design principles, quality assuranceand protective systems, therefore,is to prevent accidents from occurring.The protective system is a specializedelectronic/mechanical systemthat monitors every important operatingparameter in the reactor—temperature,flow, pressure, reactivity,and so forth—and is prepared to takecontrol of the plant in a preprogrammedmanner if the system detectsan abnormality. Most modernmanufacturing processes, transportationsystems (such as airplanes andSeptember 1980

subways), fossil-fueled power plants,and so on, have protective systems;however, a nuclear plant probably hasthe most complete and dependablesystem existing today.For example, actions taken by theprotective system in a reactor are automaticand cannot be overriddenmanually by the operator. Thus, oncean abnormality is sensed by the protectivesystem and a preprogrammedprotective action is initiated, the actionwill go on through completion.Once the protective system makes adecision to shut the plant down or toreduce the power output, for example,it will carry out the decision nomatter what the plant operators mightthink.The protective system consists of alarge system of sensing equipmentthat feeds signals into logical decision-makingunits—computers. Bothanalogue and digital computers areused, depending on the application,and are preprogrammed with variousactions that respond to the type andvalue of the incoming signal. Thecomputer carries out the desired action,sending an outgoing signal tothe appropriate reactor equipment.Most often, signals will be sent to thecontrol rod drives above the reactorvessel, which will automatically dropthe control rods, shutting down thereactor (called a reactor scram) orbegin driving them in at slower rates,which gradually reduces the power.Simultaneously, other signals wouldgo out to the steam turbine, pumps,and so on, to begin shutting downother parts of the plant.An extremely important item tonote here is the inherent safety mechanismsin the reactor that result fromthe nuclear physics that take place inthe core. Anything that might gowrong in the reactor that causes thefuel and the coolant to heat upchanges the internal nuclear physicsof the reactor to cause the reactor toshut down. In a water-cooled reactor,such as pressurized water reactors andboiling water reactors, this is calledthe negative temperature coefficientof reactivity, while in a fast breederreactor it is referred to as the negativeDoppler reactivity effect. Althoughthe actual physics involved in the twoContinued on page 74WashingtonFusion Budget StalledIn Congressional FightFunding for the magnetic fusionprogram in fiscal year 1981 is still unsettledbecause the entire federalbudget has been held up by PresidentCarter's attempts to "balance" thebudget. Carter's budget changes haveforced Congress to revise its overallfiscal year 1981 budget projectionsmore than once, with fusion in limbo.At this point the House has authorizedapproximately $433 million formagnetic fusion for fiscal year 1981,but the Appropriations Subcommitteeon Energy and Water has recommendedonly $373 million. The originalDOE request for $403 million wascut to $396 million under the budgetrevisions. The full AppropriationsCommittee will consider its subcommittee'smark-up of the bill as soonas the House passes the House BudgetCommittee's budget resolution.According to the office of CongressmanMike McCormack (D-Wash.), the president's science advisorDr. Frank Press has written aletter to Appropriations subcommitteechairman Tom Bevili (D-Al.) askingthat the committee restore fundingfor the fusion program to theadministration's $396 million level.Washington sources have noted thatpressure from the scientific community,the 160 cosponsors of CongressmanMcCormack's Apollo-style fusionbill (HR 6308), and the readershipof Fusion have convinced the administrationthat the fusion programshould not suffer a setback under the"antiinflation" gun of Congress or thepresident.The limits on the entire federalspending package are set by theHouse and Senate Budget Committees.When the president resubmittedhis revised budget request in thespring, the Budget Committees wentback to their drawing boards to redrafttheir budget resolutions. Houseand Senate versions differed considerably,and the House refused to acceptthe Senate's lower overall budgetfigures.The House Budget Committee hasnow done a second complete draft ofspending limits for the entire federalbudget, to be voted on by the fullHouse in mid-June. The Senate andHouse committees have now reachedan agreement in conference, andHouse Budget Committee spokesmenare optimistic that both Houses willpass the resolution.At that point, upper spending limitsfor the Department of Energy will beset so that the Senate and House AppropriationsCommittees can finishmarking up the budgets for specificbudget-line items and programs. CapitolHill sources indicate that thecongressional budget ceilings will belower for the total DOE budget thanthe president requested.The Senate Appropriations Committeehas not yet acted on the fiscalyear 1981 DOE budget, and is reportedlywaiting for the House AppropriationsCommittee to finish its businessfirst. The veto-override on the president'sproposed oil import fee andthe speed with which the Oct. 1 deadlinefor the beginning of fiscal year1981 is approaching with no legislationon the books indicate the chaoticnature of this year's congressionalbudget process.September 1980 FUSION 21

Levitt Testifies BeforeBuchsbaum Fusion Cttee.Dr. MorrisLevittIn testimony before the DOE fusionreview committee May 23, Fusion En-.. ergy Foundation executive directorDr. Morris Levitt focused attention on"what policy will best achieve thegoal of the most rapid possible developmentof economical fusionpower."Levitt, editor-in-chief of; Fusion,stressed thiat although fuSionijwil! "extendour nuclear electrical capacitiesby a combination of pure fusion reactorsand the fusion-fission hybridbreeders,' the "ultimate payoff willcome from the fusion-based productionof nej/v resources of all kinds."The committee, headed by Dr. SolBuchsbaum of Bell Laboratories, wascommissioned by the Department ofEnergy Research Advisory Board(ERAB) last fall to review the status ofthe nation's magnetic fusion programand recommend possible changes inthe DOE's present timetable andgoals. The last review of the fusionprogram was headed by Dr. John Fosterof TRW in 1978.A draft report is scheduled to beready for ERAB in June, and a fullreport should be released to the publicin August.The fusion community and the fusionadvisory panel for the HouseCommittee on Science and Technology'sSubcommittee on Energy Researchand Production have bothmade it clear that fusion experimentalresults since the Foster Committeereview have been so impressive thata reexamination of the DOE's "goslow"timetable is in order.'Yes' to the ETFOne major question that the committeeis considering is the timetablefor the next-step Engineering Test Facility(ETF). The Fusion Energy Foundationgives an uncategorical "Yes"to the question of whether the ETF

should be started now, Levitt stated:"It should be stressed that there is noknown scientific barrier to precludea successful tokamak ETF. .. . The alternativeapproach of adding moresmall, intermediate steps is inferiormethodologically as well as economically.""The final argument for the ETF ismore general, but also more fundamental,"Levitt continued. "This nationwill never solve any of its basicproblems without a renewed commitmentto scientific and technologicalprogress in research and education.. . . Fusion is not simply the keyto a sound energy policy; as a nationalpriority it can become the focal pointfor a renewed commitment to progressand a sense of moral purpose inIthe nation. This is an even more preciousgift to our posterity than theboundless energy of fusion power."In response to his statement, committeechairman Buchsbaum askedLevitt to expand on the FEF's conceptionof the process necessary to formulatea new policy for the fusionCongressional Line-upprogram, specifically on the policydecision to go full-steam-ahead on anETF. Levitt replied that this committeehad a vital role to play in this decisionmakingprocess and that PresidentCarter had indicated in a letter toCongressman Mike McCormack thatthe Buchsbaum committee's findingsand recommendations would weighheavily in his administration's decisionto alter the current fusion timetable.(McCormack chairs the HouseSubcommittee on Energy Researchand Production.)The only negative comments camefrom ERAB member Thomas Cochran,attorney for the Natural ResourcesDefense Fund, who questioned Levitton the "military implications" of fusionresearch. Levitt responded thatwithout a national effort to rebuildthe scientific and educational capabilityof this nation there was no possibilityof formulating a national militarypolicy. Fusion scientists in theaudience during the day of publictestimony indicated their agreementwith the FEF statement.Tell Your Congressman About FusionAs we go to press, the Buchsbaum Committee has issued its reportto ERAB calling for the DOE to increase the magnetic fusion budget to$1 billion a year. "Recent progress is impressive" and "the panel ispleased to record its view that the taxpayers are receiving their monies'worth," the panel wrote.Your letters to President Carter, your congressman, and senatorssupporting an increased fusion budget can help ensure that the fusionprogram continues to make progress, putting a fusion plant on line bythe year 2000.Here are some specific congressional targets. All addresses are Washington,D.C. 20515, unless otherwise noted:Rep. Jamie Whitten (D-Miss.), chairman, House Appropriations Committee,2314 Rayburn.Rep. Tom Bevill (D-Ala.), chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water,House Appropriations Committee, 2305 Rayburn.Sen. Henry Jackson (D-Wash.), chairman, Senate Energy Committee, 137Russell, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.Support the Nuclear Waste LegislationWe recommend support for the nuclear waste legislation proposed byRep. Barry Goldwater, Jr. (R-Calif.). Write him at 2240 Rayburn.September 1980The only pronuclearalternative weekly newspaperin AmericaTHENEW MEXICOINDEPENDENTis also the mostentertaining and well-writtenalternative weekly in America."One of the few in the media today whodemonstrates intellectual honesty andeditorial integrity"—Wendell Holmes,health physicist"Your material has the rare combinationof being both correct technically and veryreadable."—Dr. Gerald Yonas, director ofpulsed energy programs, Sandia Laboratories"Your tritium piece was absolutely great.... May we use it?'' —ED. Jewitt, publisher,Arizona Territorial'' I was moved from tears of relief, to galesof laughter, to feelings of frustration andrage."—Polly Davis"Boy, do you write with an acrd pen."—Douglas 0. Lee, chairman, Americansfor Nuclear Energy"Congratulations on an excellent localpaper."—Lyn Dean"We need more New Mexico Independentsand Mark Acuffs."—Grant Home,vice president, Underwood, Jordan &Associates"I always like your paper—even whenyou lambast the anti-nukes—I went so faras to cut that out."—Ernie Blake, TaosSki Valley"I value your opinion.. ."—Rep. MorrisUdall, chairman, House Interior"I love it!"—John Miller, Dow JonesNews Service"A little vagueness goes a long way inthis business."—Jerry BrownYou too can get a weekly charge out of The NewMexico Independent by forking over $15 for ayearly subscription. Read the most interestingpaper from the most interesting state in theUnion.NameAddressCity State ZipMail to NMI, P0 Box 429, Albuquerque NM 87103F9FUSION 23

Fascinating insights into the origins of quantum theoryWolfgang PauBScientific correspondence with Bohr, Einstein,Heisenberg and others Volume 1:1919-1929Edited by A. Hermann and K.v. Meyenn, Universijtat Stuttgart, FederalRepublic of Germany, and V. Weisskopf, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, MassachusettsWolfgang Pauli's scientific correspondence with such noted co-workers asBohr, Einstein, Ehrenfest, Heisenberg, Kramers, and Schrodinger providesan intriguing look at the discovery of quantum theory. Many of theseletters appear here in print for the first time. Of interest to physicistsand historians, they reflect Pauli's intimate involvement with researchwhich led ultimately to an understanding of atomkj structure and to newperceptions of problems posed by chemical reactions and the structureof metals.The majority of these letters are in German; those by Bohr are in Danish.Critical comments by the editors discuss and summarize the scientificsubstance of Pauli's correspondence. An extensive introduction byA. Hermann is included.1979 / 624 pp. / 26 IUus. / Cloth $80.00Sources in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Volume 2to order, writeSpringer-Verlag New\brk Inc.Department S 27744 Hartz WaySecaucus, New Jersey 07094Contributions to theFUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONare tax deductibleDOE ProudlyUnfurls Solar BannerThe Department of Energy proudlyunfurled an orange and white bannerover its Forrestal headquarters on IndependenceAvenue in June to celebratethe first of 843 federal buildingsacross the country that are switchingto solar-powered energy units undera $31 million pilot program. DOE'sexpensive solar showpiece will provide"some" of the hot water andprocess heat for the building's cafeteria,a DOE spokesman said.The spokesman announced, "Whatwe're trying to do is to stimulate thesolar industry across America."Under current DOE tax credits andgrants, a consumer can already haveabout 40 percent of the cost of hissolar unit paid for by tax dollars, asubsidy necessary for an industry thatcannot compete economically on theopen market with existing, more productivetechnology. The question isjust how far the DOE will go to "stimulate"an industry that consumesmore energy than it produces.It is not surprising that the Forrestalbuilding has been selected for thisdemonstration of solar collectiontechniques. Visitors to the DOE headquarterswill undoubtedly noticewhen they enter the lobby that theycannot see anything. The receptionarea of this "energy-saving" buildingis so dark that the title outside,"United States Department of Energy,"seems to be a contradiction interms.24 FUSION September 1980

TheNASAStoryThe Fight forAmerica'sby Marsha. FutureFreeman

The advances during the space age have rivaledthe accomplishments of science and technologyin all previous human history. In fact, the space effortfor a time supplanted the threat of war as the ultimatestimulus in the development and exploitation of newtechnology.Many are suggesting that science and technologybe fixed in place—so that the behavior of humanbeings can catch up. Yet science and technology willcontinue to be advanced, if not by the United States,then by other nations. Indeed, such advancement andits sensible utilization offer the less developed nationstheir only hope for improving the quality of life fortheir people.—NASA, "A Forecast of Space Technology1980-2000," Jan. 1976THE FIGHT OVER THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM duringthe past 25 years was never a fight over whether to go tothe moon, how much money should be spent on space,or whether one project was more important than another.From the very beginning, the fight was defined by threedistinct policy perspectives: the first advocated the use ofspace and space technology strictly for purposes of militaryand psychological warfare; the second advocated theposition that the quality of personal life, "inner space,"was more important than any societal use of outer space;and the third believed that a scientifically vectored programsuch as space exploration was the only driving forcecapable of maintaining U.S. preeminence in science andindustry and of developing the rest of the world.One or another of these policy perspectives has beendominant during this long struggle for a U.S. science andeconomic policy. At no time, however, did the Americanpublic have the slightest idea of what the real issues wereor what was ultimately at stake. Today, an understandingof the political history of the space program is of urgentnecessity, for the same forces, and in many cases the exactsame people who have been the major proponents of thefirst two policies, could finish off the space program, U.S.science, and the nation's military security as well.To the overwhelming majority of the American people—mostscientists and engineers, industry, and the nation'syouth—the NASA effort presented the greatestchallenges and opportunities for scientific understandingand technological revolutions that the United States hasever had. NASA represented the gateway to the future.Frontispiece: Scientist-Astronaut Harrison Schmitt ofApollo 17 is photographed next to the U.S. flagduring the 1972 lunar landing of the lunar module"Challenger." At left: The 363-foot Apollo Saturn Vspace vehicle rushes skyward from the Kennedy SpaceCenter launch complex March 3, 1969.NASA

To one leading military faction at the Rand Corporationand in the Army Air Force, however, the space effortpresented a challenge to their monopoly on science andadvanced technology as well as an opportunity to advancetheir confrontation policy toward the Soviet Union.And to the economic and social planners intent onreducing the industrial United States to the "postindustrialsociety," NASA was the ultimate threat. As long as NASAadvanced, the Brookings Institution, the Institute for SocialResearch, the Tavistock Institute, and later the Club ofRome and its spinoffs could not succeed in forcing theAmerican public to believe that the "age of progress" wasover.Despite the successes of these organizations via theircontrol over the U.S. administration, NASA is still thenation's greatest resource in manpower for basic science,engineering, and the development of new technology. Itsnational laboratories, now being turned into soft technologycenters by subcontracts from the Department ofEnergy, remain the legacy of a nation once committed toscience and development. The United States is at a crossroads:Either the manpower, experimental facilities,knowledge, management skills, and experience of NASAwill be destroyed, or the nation will develop NASA'sresources to meet the challenges of the next century—theexploration and study of the solar system and the universeand the commercial development of fusion energy, bringingthe energy of the stars down to earth.As NASA goes, so goes the nation!The Thrust into SpaceEscape into space—the exploration of the heavenlybodies around us—is a deep-seated aspiration of allmankind. ... At every intellectual level man longs toknow the nature of other bodies around him, soastronomy was among his earliest sciences. Man prizesthis idea of escape from the earth to the universe asthe highest symbol of progress. . . .Our scientific preparation for space must always befar ahead of the availability of vehicles. . . . Here liesthe greatest challenge of our space program. Underlyingthe planning for each flight must be a strong,continuing, and very basic scientific program. . . .—Lloyd Berkner, Peacetime Usesof Outer Space, 1961At the end of World War II, it became clear to themilitary that the next generation of weapons systemswould be airborne; rocket-propelled intercontinental ballisticmissiles guided by the most sophisticated electronicsystems would end the predominance of ground-basedwarfighting. To the confrontation-oriented planners in theArmy Air Force this new horizon also represented thepossibility to use the earth-orbiting satellites, which theyassumed the United States would develop before theSoviets, for maximum psychological warfare impact. The"aura of power" became an obsessive concern of theArmy Air Force and its think tank, the Rand Corporation:The psychological effect of a satellite will in lessdramatic fashion parallel that of the atomic bomb.Combined with our present monopoly of the A-bombsuch a threat in being will give pause to any nationwhich contemplates aggressive war against theU.S. ... As an aid to maintaining the present prestigeand diplomatic bargaining power of the U.S., it wouldbe well to give the world the impression of an everwideninggap between our technology and any otherpossible rivals since other nations are obviously hoping... to overcome the existing lead of this country.... It is therefore recommended that the satellitebe considered not as an academic study but as aproject which merits planning and establishing of apriority in the research program of the Army AirForces.—Rand Corporation, "Time Factorin the Satellite Program," Oct. 1946At the same time, the nation's foremost scientific thinkerslooked toward the heavens and saw the possibility, forthe first time, to gain an observation and measuringcapability to study the earth and the nearby bodies withoutthe interference of the earth's atmosphere. Their concernwas to begin to answer the most far-reaching questionsabout the origin of the universe, as well as phenomenasuch as weather, the aurora borealis, the magnetic fieldsof the earth, and changes in the sun's behavior.From 1946 until the successful launching of man's firstartificial moon, Sputnik, the issue of which path for satelliteand space exploration would be followed was notan overtly political one in the eyes of the nation orleadership in Washington. But the battle lines were beingclearly drawn.Polar YearsThe first attempts by scientists to study the earth on alarge-scale basis were through international programscalled Polar Years. The first such undertaking took placefrom August 1, 1882 through August 31,1883 and includedthe participation of 11 nations. The focus of this First PolarYear was the exploration of the virgin territory of boththe Arctic and Antarctic, to study the earth's magnetism,meteorology, auroras, and geology.During the evaluation of the massive data accumulatedduring the First Polar Year the scientists agreed thatanother international cooperative project should be undertakenin 50 years. In the middle of the 1930s, when the50 years had elapsed, studies of the ionosphere and cosmicrays were comparatively new and had captured increasingattention of geophysicists in the United States and Europe.Like the first polar year, the second, which took placein 1932-1933, concentrated its efforts on the Arctic. Scientistsfrom 44 countries participated in the Second PolarYear; 22 countries sent out field expeditions. One of themost important discoveries of this effort was the verifica-September 1980 FUSION 27

tion that magnetic storms had seriously disturbing effectson the reflection of radio waves by the ionosphere.Twenty-five years after the Second Polar Year, in April1950, a group of distinguished scientists met at the homeof Dr. James Van Allen to discuss the state of science andsome of the important problems requiring investigation.Dr. Lloyd Berkner made the suggestion that since sciencehad made such progress during and immediately afterWorld War II another international scientific year was inorder, without waiting for the 50-year interval to elapse.He suggested that the year 1957 to 1958 would be thebest time since, according to astronomers, sunspot activitywould be at its peak. By 1952, Berkner's suggestion wasbeing studied by the International Council of ScientificUnions, and the world scientific community broadenedthe purview of the project to include the new, excitingfields of rockets and satellites.A series of World Data Centers was established, withcomplete data collection in the United States and theSoviet Union and subcenters in eight other nations. Whenfinally functioning, the International Geophysical Yearincluded 66 nations, 20,000 to 40,000 scientists, and analmost equal number of volunteer observers. When thecommittee for the International Geophysical Year met inMoscow in July 1958, it decided to extend the highlysuccessful international cooperation program past the 18-month planned deadline of December 1958. Numerousresearch projects continued after the year ended, and thescientists stated openly that continued international cooperationwas the key to continued breakthroughs inscience.Berkner drew up the proposal for U.S. participation inthe International Geophysical Year in 1954, and throughAlan Waterman, the director of the National ScienceFoundation, presented it to President Eisenhower. Ikegave his full support to the effort, and in March 1955, hegave the go-ahead for the civilian development of asatellite for the U.S. contribution to the InternationalGeophysical Year.At that time, the U.S. Army was already doing developmentalwork on the Jupiter C (Redstone) Rocket underGeneral John Bruce Medaris and Werner von Braun. ButEisenhower wanted the IGY scientific program kept separateand nonmilitary. The Vanguard Project was given tothe U.S. Navy with executive support but not the toppriority that the military program already had. The NationalSecurity Council went along with the program aslong as it did not interfere with the military missile program.The Role of Lloyd BerknerLloyd Berkner was the least public but the most importantmind behind the U.S. effort in space in these earlyyears. From 1928 to 1930 he had accompanied AdmiralByrd on his exploration of the Antarctic and become anAstronaut Ed White taking the first U.S. spacewalkJune 3, 1965 from Gemini 4.NASANational Academy of SciencesDr. Lloyd Berkner: The least public but most importantmind behind the early U.S. space effort.expert on the ionosphere and plasma activity in the sun.His insistence that scientific inquiry and not publicitystunts be the driving force of man's exploration of spacecame from a deep-seated appreciation of the role ofscience historically. In the tradition of the humanist thinkersfrom Plato through Leibniz and the Gottingen Associationof the preceding century, Berkner understoodscience as the fundamental creative activity of humanity:Science is creative beauty in the highest sense. Itprovides a systematic and reliable criterion of universalapplicability in Plato's search for "the harmonious,the beautiful, and the desirable." . . . The search bythe modern composer for the ultimate harmony ofdissonant chords reflects the excitement of the scientistin his association and reassociation of ideasduring the intuitive hunt for the coherent generalitythat represents a higher order of human thought andcomprehension. . . . Truly, the characteristic of civilizedman that distinguishes him from all other creaturesis his learning, his ability to utilize knowledge tofree himself from the vicissitudes of his environment.. . .To Berkner, science was not an academic exercise forthe personal pleasure of the scientist:Those countries that have encouraged the developmentof abundant energy and the application ofadvanced technology to its control have now abolishedthe traditional economy of scarcity. . . . We haveSeptember 1980 FUSION 29

created since the midcentury, in at least one nation,an economy that comes close to the elimination ofpoverty. . . . Each new technology derived from sciencehas a permanence that continues to benefitsociety indefinitely in the future. Thus capital representedby discovery outlives all other forms. Consequently,the investment in basic research should bewritten off over an indefinitely long time against thepermanent gains acquired by society.In addition to serving as a scientific advisor to variousgovernment agencies, Berkner was the chairman of theSpace Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences,which had important input into the formulation of a U.S.space program. From 1951 to 1960 Berkner was the presidentof Associated Universities, a grouping of scientificfacilities including Argonne, Oak Ridge, and BrookhavenNational Laboratories.The purpose of Associated Universities was tp maketraining and on-site educational facilities from the rationallabs available to institutions that did not have Isuch acapability in order to produce the nation's current generationof nuclear engineers. In addition to being theguiding force and scientific conscience of the space program,Berkner was one of the staunchest supporters ofEisenhower's Atoms for Peace program.The Military PsywarriorsWhile the scientists working with Berkner and Van Allenwere planning the experiments that would open the"space age," the "aura of power" military planners, bestrepresented by the Rand Corporation, were devising waysto substitute psychological warfare for a real strategic warwinningscience and technology program. While the nation'stop physicists worked through scientific advisoryboards to develop the most advanced weapons systems,the Rand Corporation was assessing the best ways to"scare" the enemy.The Rand Corporation, which operated as a division ofDouglas Aircraft from April 1946 to November 1948, wasgiven the mandate by the Army Air Force to "perform aprogram of study and research on the broad subject ofintercontinental warfare, other than surface, with theobject of recommending to the Army Air Force preferredMilestones in theNASA ProgramFeb. 17, 1959: Vanguard 2, NASA'sfirst Earth satellite, launched to demonstratefeasibility of global weatherdata acquisition.Aug. 7, 1959: Explorer 6, placed in anelliptical Earth orbit, returned firstcrude TV photo of the Earth.May 5, 1961: Freedom 7, mannedMercury spacecraft, launched carryingfirst U.S. astronaut Alan Shepardinto space.Feb. 20, 1962: Friendship 7 launchedwith John Glenn in first U.S. mannedorbital space flight.Oct. 25, 1962: Telstar conducted firsttwo-way live radio broadcast.July 14, 1964: Mariner 4 launched onflight to Mars, sending back first closephotos of the planet.June 3, 1965: Gemini 4 spacecraftlaunched to make 62 revolutionsaround the Earth, during which EdwardWhite became the first Americanto wal|< in space.Dec. 4, 1965: Gemini 7 launched,achieving the first rendezvous inspace in orbit with Gemini 6.May 30, 1966: Surveyor 1 launched tobecome the first U.S. spacecraft tosoftland t>n the Moon, where ittouched down on the Ocean ofStorms.Dec. 21, 1968: Apollo 8 launched, thefirst manned mission to orbit theMoon; first manned photos taken ofEarth and Moon.Nov. 3, 1973: Mariner 10 launched toconduct exploratory investigations ofMercury and later fly by Venus.Dec. 2, 1974: Pioneer 11, launched inApril 1973, sends back first picturesfrom Jupiter; NASA announces it willfly by Saturn, sending back pictures in1979.June 15, 1975: Apollo-Soyuz missionbegun, to dock with the Soviet spacecraft.Aug. 12, 1977: Space Shuttle undergoesits first approach and landingtest in free flight.July 16, 1969: Apollo 11 launched on Aug. 20, 1977: HEAO (High Energyfirst lunar! landing mission; four days Astronomy Observatory) launched tolater Neil| Armstrong and Edwin Al- study and map X-rays and gammadren landed in the Sea of Tranquility, rays.Nov. 13, 1971: Mariner 9 launchedinto Mars orbit, the first to circle anotherplanet.Aug. 20, 1977: Voyager 2 launched tostudy Jupiter and Saturn, includingtheir satellites and Saturn's rings.March 2, 1972: Pioneer 10 Jupiter Oct. 22, 1977: ISEE 1 and 2 launchedprobe launched to become first man- (International Sun-Earth Explorer)made ob ect to escape the solar sys- with the European Space Agency totern; also) first NASA spacecraft pow- study the Earth's interaction with itsered entirely by nuclear energy. interplanetary medium.May 14,nation's'973: Skylab 1 launched, thefirst orbiting laboratory.June 26, 1978: SEASAT launched, thefirst ocean-monitoring satellite.30 FUSION September 1980

techniques and instrumentalities for this purpose." Randwas never a competent scientifically oriented organization,but a psychological warfare think tank.In 1946, in its paper "Time Factor in the Satellite Program,"Rand stated, "no promising avenues of progress inrockets can be neglected by the U.S. without great dangerof falling behind in the world race for armaments."Though Rand concluded at that time that rockets carryingexplosives or atomic bombs were unfeasible, it postulatedthat rockets could guide missiles.In January 1949, Rand held a conference on "Methodsfor Studying the Psychological Effects of UnconventionalWeapons." One of the major topics of discussion anddebate was the physical appearance of the first U.S.satellite. Some conference attendees, including Dr. J.E.Lipp, were in favor of painting the artificial moon black,so it could not be seen. Others argued that it should bepainted fluorescent or have surface mirrors to make itvisible to the naked eye. "Would it be possible to contrivea message that would make them think they [the Russians]are listening to Saturn?" one participant asked.The question of national sovereignty arose in the discussions.The answer of consensus was that if pictures arebeing taken of another country from our satellite: "Thereis no legal responsibility. All we do is send it up at onepoint—the earth does the rest by revolving [sic] under thesatellite."For those who could not grasp the potential of thisarsenal of weapons, the attendees gave the example:Think of the impression from our broadcasts in "God blessyou" compared to the effect of "This is God blessingyou."Another key question was the timing and manner inwhich the United States would announce the existence ofits satellite. Lipp suggested that the United States couldannounce the satellite had been created for purely scientificpurposes and then let the Soviets speculate onwhat other purposes it might have. Others suggested thatit could be launched at a time when the United Stateswould want to create a diversion from a political crisis.The conference closed with this consensus:We may make a truthful announcement and addthat the satellite is being used in retaliation for Sovietnoncooperation in connection with atomic energycontrol. [The Baruch Plan for U.S. control of civiliannuclear power worldwide—rejected by the Soviets.]The potentialities are so great that we must notsquander them by making disclosures without fittingthem into a psychological warfare program.While the Air Force and Rand were planning the bestway to "scare" the Soviets, scientists in the United Statesand Soviet Union were trying to launch an earth-orbitingsatellite during the International Geophysical Year to demonstrateman's mastery over an expanding part of theuniverse. All of the best laid plans of the military Utopianswent down the drain October 4, 1957 when Sputnik, the"traveling companion," began circling the earth.Sputnik and the U.S.Space Effort. . . No conventional organization would be adequatefor so exotic an undertaking as a space program.The organization would have to construct and managethe greatest technological project of our time. Itwould have to design and master some of the mostexquisitely refined electronic and computer technologyever devised. ... It must be prepared for politicalpressure and for ambitious personalities who saw anopportunity to ride rockets to a new realm of gloryand power. It must serve the sometimes competitiverequirements of the military and the scientists. . . .This is the organization President Eisenhower askedhis science advisors to design and recommend.—James R. Killian, Jr., Sputnik, Scientists,and Eisenhower, 1977The single event that dramatically propelled mankindinto the space age was the Soviet announcement October4, 1957 that earth now had a "second moon" orbiting it.The reaction to this event, an event that the scientificcommunity, the military, and President Eisenhower knewwas likely to happen as part of the International GeophysicalYear, was an indication of the fight that wouldtake place over upgrading the space program in responseto the Soviet accomplishment.Sputnik was actually no surprise. From the beginning of1953, Soviet scientists had kept the world scientific communityapprised of their progress in rockets and satellitedevelopment. In November 1953, Academician A.N. Nesmoyanov,the president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences,remarked that satellite launchings and moon shotswere feasible.In March 1954, Moscow Radio exhorted Soviet youth toprepare for space exploration, and the next month theMoscow Air Club announced that it was undertakingstudies in interplanetary flight. That summer the Sovietscommitted themselves to participate in the InternationalGeophysical Year satellite program. By January 1955, RadioMoscow announced that a satellite launching might beexpected in the "not distant future." In April the announcementwas made that a permanent high-level interdepartmentalcommission for interplanetary communicationshad been created in the Astronomies Council of theSoviet Union.At that point, the U.S. President's Science AdvisoryCommittee estimated that Russia's top scientists wereworking on the satellite program. On August 2, 1955, theNew York Herald Tribune reported that at a meeting ofthe International Astronautics Federation in Copenhagen,a distinguished Soviet physicist declared that the Sovietsatellite would be launched in 1957 and would be muchlarger than any the United States would attempt. The June21, 1957 issue of Science magazine reported a statementmade by Nesmoyanov in Pravda saying "scientists haveSeptember 1980 FUSION 31

created the rockets and all the instruments and equipmentnecessary to solve the problems of the artificial earthsatellite." At the same time, the New York Times reportedanother Nesmoyanov statement that, "soon, literally,within months, our planet Earth will acquire anothersatellite."Certainly to the scientists, therefore, Sputnik was nosurprise. Four days before the Soviet launch scientistsrepresenting the United States, the Soviet Union, and fiveother nations assembled at the National Academy ofSciences in Washington for a six-day conference on therocket and satellite activities of the International GeophysicalYear.On that Friday evening, while the delegates to theconference were at a reception at the Soviet embassy,Walter Sullivan of the New York Times received a callfrom his Washington editor and then informed the Americandelegation: "It's up." Dr. Berkner clapped his handsto get everyone's attention. "I wish to make an announcement,"he began. "I've just been informed by the NewYork Times that a Russian satellite is in orbit at an elevationof 900 kilometers. I wish to congratulate our Soviet colleagueson their achievement."Members of the U.S. delegation and of the President'sScience Advisory Council, including the soon-to-be firstadministrator of NASA, Dr. Keith Glennan, recommendedthat the president send a telegram of congratulations tothe Soviets.But the thrill of a scientific accomplishment that dramaticallyindicated the future possibilities of space was toturn into a political watergating campaign agaiihst thepresident overnight.The Military Makes Its MoveIn December 1957, two months after Sputnik, thensenatorLyndon B. Johnson held hearings to evaluate theU.S. space effort, as chairman of the Senate Armejd ServicesCommittee. Major General John Bruce Medaris, thecommanding officer of the Army Ballistic Missile Agencyin Huntsville, Alabama, with German rocket scientistWerner von Braun under his wing, blasted PresidentEisenhower for the Sputnik "coup" and demanded thatCongress give the army a free hand for military-controlledrocket development.Since 1954, von Braun had been working on ProjectOrbiter, which produced the Jupiter C rocket. Accordingto James Killian, "even after Vanguard had been selected[for development by the navy] and all the army's pleas toproceed with a satellite had been denied, Medaris andvon Braun bootlegged the development of Jupiter C." ToMedaris and the rest of the confrontationist military factionin the Air Force and Rand Corporation, a civilianspace program was tolerable only as long as it did notinterfere with military aims. Scientific endeavor and thetechnological advancement of the economy, the onlybasis for real military strength, were anathema to the"limited tactical warfare" this group in the military wasproposing.The clamor for military control of the InternationalGeophysical Year satellite program as the foot-in-the-doorfor total takeover increased to a roar when the navy'sVanguard exploded on the launch pad December 6. TheBritish press reveled in the U.S. embarrassment, callingVanguard "Puffnik, Flopnik, Kaputnik, or Stayputnik." Inview of the Vanguard failure, Eisenhower asked his scienceadvisor, James Killian, to evaluate whether the Jupiter Cshould be given a chance.On January 31, 1958, von Braun's Jupiter C rocketlaunched Explorer I into earth orbit, and Major GeneralMedaris increased his loudmouth campaign for the ArmyBallistic Missile Agency to run the U.S. space program.Medaris vehemently proclaimed that the military satellitesshould have greater priority over ballistic missiles, that theDepartment of Defense had rightful claim over the spaceprogram, and that giving the program to a civilian agencywould be a terrible mistake. Aligning himself with thespace fantasy proponents in the U.S. Air Force, whoargued that the next war would be fought in space andthat ICBM development should not be primary, Medarisenraged the White House, and much of the "regular"military.But Medaris lost the fight. Eisenhower signed the SpaceAct in July 1958, and six months later NASA was establishedas an independent civilian agency. When the Huntsvillefacility and von Braun's team of more than 4,000 weretransferred to NASA the next year, the curtain came downon Major General Medaris.It may seem curious to most that Medaris went on tobecome the chairman of the Lionel Corporation. AlthoughLionel is best known for making toy trains, its moreimportant political role was its involvement in the foundingof Permindex. Permindex, incorporated in Canada in1959, is a corporate front for the international politicalfaction that has been intimately involved in the more than$200 billion per year international drug trade. Permindexhas also been implicated in the murders of John Kennedy,Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and in numerousattempts on the life of General de Gaulle. (For this lastoperation, Permindex was forced out of Europe and relocatedin South Africa; its ties to the Kennedy assassinationhave come into the public eye through New OrleansDistrict Attorney James Garrison.)From his new post, Medaris aligned himself with themilitary-strategic view of limited tactical war associatedwith General Maxwell Taylor. In the Kennedy administration,under the guidance of Taylor and DOD SecretaryRobert McNamara, this policy succeeded in propellingthe United States into the Vietnam War, a war that nearlydestroyed the U.S. military. Later, Medaris became anEpiscopal priest, Father Bruce. In an interview with Peoplemagazine July 14, 1975, Father Bruce Medaris noted, "Nohuman being without the guidance of the Lord couldhave been right as much as I was."During the late 1950s, Eisenhower reorganized and centralizedthe increased authority of the secretary of defenseto ameliorate the competition and inept advice he wasgetting from the military, but he came under increasingattack for neglecting the nation's defense. The familiar"missile gap" issue of the 1960 presidential campaign wasmanufactured by General Taylor and made a public issue32 FUSION September 1980

y the Gaither Report, issued November 7, 1957, onemonth after Sputnik.The panel, headed by Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation,included people who later became key in theKennedy administration, particularly those involved in thepsychological warfare game of arms control and confrontationwith the Soviet Union around predetermined "hotspots." These included William C. Foster, Paul Nitze,Spurgeon Keeny (Arms Control and Disarmament associatedirector), and MIT's Jerome Wiesner, as well as inputfrom the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution.The Gaither report portrayed the United States as beingat the edge of annihilation by the Soviet Union. TheSoviets had probably already surpassed the United Statesin ICBM development (the Soviets had tested the firstICBM six weeks before Sputnik), the report stated, and anationwide fallout shelter program was needed. This effortshould be tied to a broad program of "organizing for theemergency and its aftermath"—an early version of thecurrent Federal Emergency Management Agency.The specific findings of the report were later discredited,and after Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, he admittedthat most of the "missile gap" had been sheer propaganda.Perhaps the most blatant example of the selfdefeatingmilitary thinking involved is the fact that thereport's recommendation that intelligence was needed"regardless of the consequences" laid the basis for theDulles brothers' U-2 spy operation that destroyed thepresident's peace initiatives with the Soviet leadership.The Aquarian FightFor Inner Space'It is especially desirable that the space effort beconcerned with the consequences of its own activities,for it will probably be the most costly of the variousexploitations of technology and science that presentsocieties are currently prepared to undertake duringpeacetime. The exploration of space requires vastinvestments of money, men and materials and creativeeffort—investments which could be profitably appliedalso to other areas of human endeavor, and whichmay not be so applied if space activities overly attractthe available resources. . . . Hence, there is a pressingneed to examine carefully the claimed benefits andgoals and the possible consequences and problemsof space activities. . . .—Brookings Institution, "Proposed Studies ofthe Implications of Peaceful Space Activitiesfor Human Affairs," March 1961A view of the Soviet Soyuz spacecraft in Earth orbit,photographed from the U.S. Apollo spacecraft duringthe 1975 joint U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Projectdocking-in-earth-orbit mission.NASA

While the military and the president were in a tug ofwar over the future of the nation's space program, agrouping of social scientists and economists were becomingincreasingly alarmed as the nation's youth set theirsights on studying science and becoming astronaits. Ledby the Tavistock Institute, the premier psychological profilinginstitution that directed Britain's psychologidal warfareoperations in World War II and in the colonies,several U.S. institutes and university centers began todevelop programs to divert the U.S. space effort from itsscientific and technological goals.Before the ink was dry on the July 1958 Space Act, whichcreated NASA with the mandate for the peaceful! explorationof space, the Institute for Social Research at theUniversity of Michigan, the Brookings Institution, andTavistock were presenting studies to Congress and NASAto try to convince them that the "social effect" of thespace program was as important as the scientific andeconomic benefit.These were not simply well-intentioned peop e concernedwith the societal effects of such a lar§;e-scaleprogram. The organizers of this effort to force NASA toevaluate the effects of science on the "inner space" (ormental health) of the population went on to becomemembers of the Club of Rome, the New York Comcil onForeign Relations, and various Malthusian operations ofthe United Nations Organization. In their own words, theyare the "Aquarian Conspiracy."The alarm was sounded in February 1959, when theInstitute for Social Research released results of a study inwhich four out of five respondents said the world is betteroff because of science. Other surveys indicated that Americanbusinessmen had the sense after Sputnik and U.S.space successes that "nothing was impossible." Most disturbingto the Aquarians was the observation that "Thelong range possibilities of the space age apparently havemuch more meaning for those people who are mqst likelyto live to see them" (that is, the youth).In March 1961, the Brookings Institution completed areport on "Proposed Studies on the Implications or PeacefulSpace Activities for Human Affairs." The principalauthor was Donald Michael, who a few years later becamea member of the U.S. committee of the zero-growth Clubof Rome.The major proposal of the 1961 Brookings report wasthat NASA establish a "social sciences research capability"to be "concerned with the consequences of its ownactivities"—a miniature Brookings. This early report outlinedevery guise under which the U.S. space programwould be attacked in the next five years.The most deadly Brookings weapon against NASA waseconomic—limited resources are "economic reality" in anAquarian worldview. "If and as horizons were broadenedas a result of space activities, other aspirations wouldcompete with them for attention and resources, andcontinuous study would be required to evaluate the appropriateposition of space in this competition," Brookingswrote.Another line of attack was the claim that the're weredifferences in the scientific community as to the "appro-priate role" of the space program. Although scientists diddiffer in judgment on the speed and choice of variousspace projects, few scientists ever proposed putting thebrakes on the NASA effort. Nevertheless, Brookings proclaimed:Even among scientists in the space community . . .there is some concern as to whether an "all-out"space effort is in the best interests of science and thenation. While this concern is related in part to theanticipated costs of space activities, there is also afeeling that continued excessive attention to spacemay blind the policymakers to the compelling needsand opportunities in other physical and social sciences.To ensure that any potential for disagreement would bepromoted, Michael proposed as an area of "study" forNASA the "disillusionment and cynicism" among NASAscientists, who feel they are "being used by the politicians."Finally, Brookings laid out the now well-establishedMalthusian prescriptions against the transfer of advancedtechnology:Acceptance or rejection of technological innovationby a society is seldom exclusively a matter ofrational assessment. A melange of personal and culturallydefined values, as concepts of what is worthwhile,desirable, good and ethically right, plays a largeand often dominating role in generating the attitudesthat in part determine an innovation's fate. . . .The Brookings assessment was completely contrary tothe real excitement of developing nations in sharing inthe satellite communications and education potential ofthe space effort, but this was a situation the Aquariansintended to change. In this endeavor, Brookings authorDonald Michael was joined by Margaret Mead, whodevoted her life to "cultural relativism," promoting theidea that the primitive should be kept primitive. In 1958,Mead and Michael authored a study for the New YorkAcademy of Sciences titled, "Man in Space: A Tool andProgram for the Study of Social Change." The next year,Mead came out with a piece titled, "The Newest Battle ofthe Sexes," which asserted that women were against thespace program because they were afraid of men goinginto space!Despite these early attacks, Eisenhower, the scientists,and the leadership of the House and Senate committeeswith jurisdiction over the space program never waiveredin their commitment to formulate a scientifically vectoredcivilian space program. The basis for NASA in these yearswas not Brookings but studies done by the Space SciencesArtist's depiction of the Solar Polar Mission. Here thetwojspacecraft that will explore the Sun's poles begintheir journey from the space shuttle's upper stage.34 FUSION September 1980

Board of the National Academy under the chairmanshipof Lloyd Berkner, by the National Society of ProfessionalEngineers, and by the scientists that the president andCongress brought into policymaking discussions aW decisions.Just as Eisenhower was the first president to bringscientists into the White House during peacetime, so thechairman of the newly formed House Committee onScience and Astronautics, Overton Brooks, a LouisianaDemocrat, formed an extraordinary panel of scientists andengineers to advise Congress on space science and policy.On March 25, 1960, Brooks announced the formation ofthe Panel on Science and Technology:We shall provide for these men of science a forumin which they can speak out to the world on the problemsthat face it in basic and applied science, in spacetechnology and space exploration. It is unfortunatelytrue that too many times scientists with importantideas that would help advance the interests of theUnited States and mankind in general have beenunable to find anyone to listen to them. Theirs! havebeen, on too many occasions, voices in the wilderness.Now, through this panel, we shall make available tothem a public forum in which they can be heard.Dr. James Van Allen gathered together some! of themost respected physicists, engineers, meteorologists, astronomers,and biological scientists to advise the committee,which was the predecessor of today's House Committeeon Science and Technology.The Great Society Vs. ScienceBecause of NASA's involvement in all critical disciplines,the space program has become a central,organizing and advancing force in the maintenanceof the technological health and overall stability andprosperity of this nation. . . . For the long run it is myhope that the space program will not need to bestimulated by the accomplishments of any one nationor nations. ... I hope that we can be motivated in thefuture by the realization that space exploration increasesour total scientific and technological capabilityand at the same time contributes to a more 'stableworld order. ... I can think of no better way formankind to join hands than in facing together thechallenge of the solar system and the universe.—James E. Webb, Preliminary Historyof NASA, Jari. 1969The criterion for whether a large-scale scientific andtechnological endeavor is progressing or not is hot howwell it is performing at the present, but how it is planningfor the future. With President Kennedy's highly publicizedannouncement May 25,1961 that the United States wouldaim to "land a man on the moon and return him safely toearth before the end of the decade," the space programhad an executively mandated goal, difficult to attack headon.Therefore, as early as 1961, the focus of public debatebecame how much money should be spent by NASAbeyond what it would take to get to the moon, and wherethe space program fit in to the use of the "limited resources"defined by Brookings et al.There is no question that President Kennedy viewed theApollo Project as a politically wise initiative, following thepolitical fiasco of the Bay of Pigs. There is also littlequestion that he saw the U.S. program in space as animportant part of America's world leadership role. In Sept.1962, speaking at Rice University, Kennedy said:Those who came before us made certain that thiscountry rode the first waves of the industrial revolution,the first waves of modern invention, and the firstwaves of nuclear power, and this generation does notintend to founder in the backwash of the coming ageof space. We have vowed that we shall not see spacefilled with weapons of mass destruction, but with theinstruments of knowledge and understanding.Kennedy's single most important step in the accelerationof the lunar landing program and in the overall leapforward in NASA was the appointment of James E. Webbas the administrator of the space agency. A politicaladministrator with no technical background, Webb was apersonal friend of Lloyd Berkner and had been involvedin federal government service for many years as well as inthe development of commercial flight.What kept NASA intact during the crucial period of1961 through 1968 was the quality of NASA's leadership.Webb was committed to keep scientific discovery and thedevelopment of new technologies the focus of the spaceprogram, despite the escalating attacks from the antisciencefaction that took hold of the country in the 1960s.The Postindustrial SocietyThe single area of debate that defined the pro and antipositions in terms of the space program is the same areathat today defines the fight over energy policy, fiscalpolicy, and science policy in general—economics. In theearly 1960s, the Aquarians barraged scientists, congressmen,aerospace executives, and, of course, the Americanpublic with a "new economics," the economics of apostindustrial society.Most readers will be familiar with the litany: Too manyAmericans have too much, two cars in the garage, at leasttwo televisions, and so on. Therefore, the real questionfor the future is not more economic growth but thequality of life, which the antiscience faction was careful todefine as nontangible factors such as individual happinessand sensual gratification. America, the Aquarians stated,no longer had a moral purpose except to cut back itsembarrassingly high standard of living. At home, thisbecame the "War on Poverty." But here and abroad thepolicy was the same: There is no way to solve the problemof limited resources except by cutting back on use andmore equally distributing what is left.36 FUSION September 1980

James E. Webb (right), the NASA administrator who expedited the successful lunar landing program, is shown hereMarch 13, 1967 testifying before Overton Brooks (D-La.) of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics.The psychological warfare tools developed primarily bythe London-based Tavistock Institute, the Stanford ResearchInstitute in California, and other offshoot institutesin American universities and think tanks are familiar toAmericans who lived through the past two decades: theproliferation of drugs, the student revolution, the fragmentationof society into narrow and competing specialinterest groups.Scientists like Berkner and administrators like Webb,however, were unable to counter this flood of propagandawith the reality that economic progress and the standardof living Americans require is based on the investmentthat society makes in science and new technology. By1965, NASA was losing ground.In 1966, a book called Social Indicators was publishedthat stated most precisely how the space program wasbeing destroyed. The idea of the study, part of a seriesNASA had contracted on "Technology, Space, and Society,"came from Bertram Gross, an economist and socialscientist who had been in a position to implement theAquarian policy as a member of the President's Councilof Economic Advisors and as the editor of TavistockInstitute's periodical Human Relations.According to Social indicators:. . . Measures of social performance are all the moreimportant in a "postindustrial" society, one in whichthe satisfaction of human interests and values has atleast as high a priority as the pursuit of economicgoals. The development of social indicators and accountingis a subject of real interest to the Johnsonadministration. . . . The Great Society looks beyondthe prospects of abundance to the problems of abundance.. . . The task of the Great Society is to ensureour people the environment, the capacities, and thesocial structures that will give them a meaningfulchance to pursue their individual happiness. Thus theGreat Society is concerned not with the how much,but the how good—not with the quantity of ourgoods but the quality of our lives. . . .President Johnson was the most vociferous proponentof a strong space program, but by the time he made his"Great Society" State of the Union address in January1965, Gross and others had convinced him of the thesislater laid out in Social Indicators: "In the conduct ofhuman affairs, our actions inevitably have second-orderconsequences. These consequences are, in many instances,more important than our original action." Insteadof standard measurements of economic performance,Gross and others persuaded Johnson that "social indicators"had to be used in order to account for "secondorderconsequences."What are these second-order effects? Again, to quoteSocial Indicators: the fact that pesticides designed to killinsects were secondarily killing birds. Or the fact that newdetergents used for better cleaning were also cloggingpeople's plumbing. Or the secondary effect of workersbeing thrown out of work as a result of increasing automation.As for NASA's secondary effects, Social Indicators identified"the lack of diffusion of technology into the civilianSeptember 1980 FUSION 37

economy, the effects on small communities of the locationof new NASA installations, the allocation of governmentcontracts and their effect on industry, the effects on theeducational system." The solution the study promotedwas for NASA to build a "feedback system into theenvironment" to get the input from the people anectedby this massive government program.The Gross book, meanwhile, had already a precis*? viewof this "postindustrial society" and its characteristics:There will be a concern for the "large-scale conservationof natural resources"; "manufacturing will be belc»w 10-15 percent of the labor force and services will be above60 percent of the labor force"; "values" will chang^ fromnationalism to "transnationalism," and transnational planningsystems will replace sovereign governments.Johnson's State of the Union address January 4,19155 wasthe first such speech since 1958 that did not mentibn thespace program; paraphrasing the Aquarians, Johnson said:"The Great Society asks not only how much, but howgood; not only how to create wealth but how to use it;not only how fast we are going but where we are headed.It proposes as the first test for a nation: the quality of itspeople."It is not surprising, then, that 1965 was also the first yearsince Sputnik that the NASA budget declined in absolutedollars. With many of the procurement expenditures alreadymade for the mandated Apollo lunar landing, thequestion on the agenda was the future of the explorationof space. While von Braun and some NASA people atheadquarters pushed for the absolute supremacy! of themanned space program, Webb and the scientists tried tokeep the question of scientific discovery and excellenceforemost.The Aquarians fanned this debate with a high-levelmedia campaign in the nation's press to push the idea of"limited resources" and thinking "small" for NASA. Hereare some samples:Rev. Dr. Theodore M. Hesburgh, member, Council onForeign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Nov. 18, 1962, inthe New York Times:. . . The preoccupation of scientists with space andmilitary research is prostituting science to somethingfar below its capacity for abolishing disease, hunger,and illiteracy on a worldwide basis. Should we pioneerin space and be timid on earth and leave man inbondage below?Barry Commoner, leading environmentalist, Dec. 16,1962, in The Nation:At this moment, in some other city, a group may bemeeting to consider how to provide air for the firsthuman inhabitants on the moon. Yet we are meetinghere because we have not yet learned how to manageour lives without fouling the air man must continueto breathe on Mother Earth.Dr. Philip Abelson, member, American Association ofthe Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, andeditor of Science, April 19, 1963:NASA has sought examples of technology fallout inits program. To date, those cited have not beenimpressive. The problems of space are different fromthe earthly tax-paying economy.Figure 1NASA BUDGET INCONSTANT 1978 DOLLARSSince 1965, the NASA budget hasbeen declining in constant dollars,although not in absolute dollars.The budget fell off as the Apolloprogram reached completion andnew project areas were not started.In absolute dollars, the Departmentof Health, Education, andWelfare now spends every ninedays the total amount of the annualNASA budget.38 FUSION September 1980

NASAAnatoly Dobrynin (foreground), Soviet Ambassador to the United States, watching the Apollo/Saturn IB as it lifts awayfrom the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center, July 1975. With Dobrynin are NASA administrator Dr. James Fletcher(right) and test conductor Richard Thornburg.Figure 2U.S. VS. SOVIET SUCCESSFULSATELLITE LAUNCHESAs the NASA budget for futurespace exploration was reaching itsall-time peak in 1966, the SovietUnion surpassed the United Statesin successful satellite launches forthe first time since Sputnik. TheSoviet space budget has continuedto increase in real dollars, alongwith an overall science educationeffort—both of which are reflectedin the steady climb of Soviet satelliteslaunched.September 1980 FUSION 39

Abelson, June 10, 1963, in the WashingtonStar:Columbus was seeking economic returns while wealready know there will not be objects of economicvalue brought back from the moon or any ofj theplanets. I believe the program may delay conquestsof cancer and mental illness.Senator William Proxmire, Aug. 20, 1962, in USand World Report:NewsI think there is great waste in this program. Thislatest single increase [to $5.5 billion] in the spacebudget will result in a tax of $70 for every Americanfamily—for all of our 50 million American families—for the nondefense program. 1 wonder if most peopleapprove of spending at that rate for this kind ofprogram. . . .By 1968, Newsweek magazine was able to crow in aneditorial on the occasion of James Webb's resignation asNASA administrator:Now as NASA draws close to the time when it eitherfails or fulfills that commitment [to land on the moon],the U.S. space program is in decline. The Vietnam warand the desperate conditions of the nation's poor andits cities—which make spaceflight seem, in comparison,like an embarrassing national self-indulgence—have combined to drag down a program where thesky was no longer the limit.The irony of this phony battle over limited resourceswas that NASA's technological advances had made possiblevast improvements in man's living standards. Antisciencewriters like Henry Hazlitt could write in Newsweekthat more urgent or useful projects than the moon landingwere "increased food production, new and cheapersources of power, human disease elimination, prolonginghuman life, decontaminating the air, desalinating water,weather control." Yet, through technology developedfrom satellites, remote sensing, advanced energy systemwork with the Atomic Energy Commission, biotelemetry,and others, NASA was the prime contributor to solvingthese problems "on earth" throughout the 1960s—andtoday.An Ineffective DefenseThe defenders of a strong space effort, in Congress,NASA, and the scientific community understood the salientpoints and tried to counter the arguments as theyemerged from the Aquarians and the "aura of; power"military. For example, in hearings before the Committeeon Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the U.S. Senate onJune 10-11, 1963, Lloyd Berkner commented:In response to this assertion that the space budgetcould better be diverted to other ends, we should notforget that we live in a dynamic civilization in whichsome aspects of technology must always lead toothers. Failure to press these technological differentialswill bring technology to a halt, and our spaceprogram is the greatest spur to technology today.Beyond this, in satisfying man's primitive aspirationsto conquer the unconquered, we spur him to greatereffort. Only 1 percent added effort will pay for thewhole space program, and there is no doubt that theprogram exercises a mighty influence in the advancementof both education and industry. The point isthat poverty is far more likely to disappear when menwork vigorously under strong motivation.James Webb, who refused to succumb to the notionthat NASA had been created simply to go to the moon,stated the case eloquently during hearings on the fiscalyear 1965 request:The policy on which this budget is based is themastery of space, and its utilization for the benefit ofmankind. This mastery and the relation of our positionto those of other nations, will not be-determined byany single achievement. Superiority in the space environmentwill be won by that nation which firstfashions into a usable system all of the scientificknowledge, all of the technology, all of the experience,all of the space launches and terminal facilities,and all of the aids to space navigation required forsafe and regular operations. The NASA program isdesigned to expand both science and technology. . . .We have avoided a narrow program, one limited, forexample, to developing only the technology neededto reach the moon with state-of-the-art hardware. Todo so might well be to find, some years hence, thatwe had won the battle and lost the war as far asultimate and enduring superiority in space is concerned.But Webb, Berkner, and others were losing the battleand potentially the war. Perhaps the most crucial determiningfactor in the fight was that they stood virtuallyalone, without the muscle from industry and the scientificcommunity to back them up.At its height in the mid-1960s, NASA directly employed37,000 scientists, engineers, and skilled technicians, whilean additional 403,000 Americans worked directly on NASAcontracts in the aerospace and related electronics industriesto build the hardware for space exploration. Thousandsof scientists and engineers were educated andtrained under NASA's guidance and funding and went onto do excellent work in all areas of science and industry.The United States is still living off the human andtechnological wealth created during the space efforts andbreakthroughs in fundamental science that NASA madein the 1960s. Now we need a new burst in the spaceprogram to pace the scientific, industrial, and energydevelopments required by the end of the century. But weare running out of time.Marsha Freeman is the director of industrial researchfor the Fusion Energy Foundation.40 FUSION September 1980

TheNATOPlan to KillUS. Scienceby Mark BurdmanObservers of U.S.scientific-military trendshave been alarmed bythe overall collapse ofAmerican capabilities inthe wake of the spaceprogram's decline. It isan open secret thatdecisive contributionswere made to thisimpasse by the NATOcommand itself. Here isthe story of how NATOplanners launched the1960-1970s "Limits toGrowth" campaign onthe deluded strategicassumption that the Westcould deindustrialize andinduce the Soviet bloc tocontain its scientificdevelopment as well.IN A 1977 SEMIAUTOBIOGRAPHICAL account, Aurelio Peccei, founder andchairman of the Club of Rome International, had the following to say abouthis sponsorship of the 1971-1972 Limits to Growth report:To have an impact, the Club of Rome's message . . . had to provideshock treatment. . . . Our purpose remained that of mounting a commandooperation with a view to opening a breach in the citadel of selfcomplacencywithin which society had foolishly entrenched itself. . . .Partly as a result of the report's impact, the growth began to disinflate likea punctured balloon. . . .It is no accident that Italian oligarch Peccei defined the Club of Rome'sLimits to Growth project in such military and psychological-warfare terms.Peccei has been a top-level operative of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizationcommand structure for the past 15 years. The Club of Rome is a NATO specialintelligence branch.This fact will only come as a surprise to those who still maintain the illusionthat NATO was established to "defend the Western world against Sovietaggression." NATO headquarters, in the wake of Senator Robert Taft's unsuccessfullate-1940s effort to avert tying the United States to an Anglo-Americanalliance, served as a control point for economic and psychological warfareagainst the populations of the United States and Europe. The British-dominatedNATO command aimed at extending its social engineering and enforcedscarcity of resources to the postcolonial world as well as the member nationsof the Warsaw Pact itself.It was NATO that secured overclassification of U.S. nuclear data—obstructingcivilian applications—while Great Britain has enjoyed access to all U.S. atomicsecrets. In Aurelio Peccei's conception, the "limited war," "flexible response"doctrines of NATO were chiefly a means to the end of stifling new technologiesand advanced energy sources.The consequences of the Club of Rome's "commando operation" are nowapparent in the overall deterioration in American scientific, military, andeconomic capabilities. Ironically, NATO's success in constraining the NationalSeptember 1980 FUSION 41

Aeronautics and Space Administration has been the paramountsingle factor in ensuring the inability of the UnitedStates to mount even an "aura of power" on the frontiersof science and industry. The counterculture and pseudosciencepromoted by the Club of Rome and its affiliateshave neared their goal of deindustrializing the natiorj. Thesupranational planners have outfoxed themselves, at thenation's expense. While the hardcore futurologists plungeahead with their New Dark Ages scenarios, the realistswithin NATO now acknowledge a strategic crisis.The Club of Rome was launched when the BritishcenteredNATO policymakers panicked at the imminenceof new global scientific and technological breakthroughsled jointly by the two great world powers, the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union.In November 1966, the Sovietscientific and industrialplanning elites embarkedthat country on what officialCommunist Party of the SovietUnion documents referredto as a "scientific andtechnological revolution."Tocarry this out, the Sovietleadership committed itselfto the in-depth scientific andmathematical education ofthe entire generation of studentsthen entering Sovieteducational institutions.In the same year, the UnitedStates was in the midst ofexperiencing the scientificshock waves from the late-1950s initiation of the spaceprogram and the creation ofthe National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA). The space program had generatedan avid interest in scientific exploration, and hadattracted to it some of the best minds both from Americanscientific institutions and institutions throughout Europe.Immediately after the Cuba Missile Crisis of October1962, President John Kennedy took the important |tep ofrejecting the counsel of the British think tank, the; TavistockInstitute, its cousin the Rand Corporation, andjothersthat were then prompting him to adopt a NATO defensestrategy based on psychological "flexible response"|gameplansand large-scale psychological manipulations of thedomestic NATO populations by means of "civil dejfense"programs. The president, at that time, opted for cuttingdown the civil defense program and pressing forwafd withthe massive expansion of NASA, the space prograjm, andthe general scientific-technological upgrading of Americanindustry.The leading circles of NATO were very alarmed by allthis.In 1963, the year of Kennedy's assassination, the BritishRoyal Society began issuing distraught reports about a"brain drain" from the United Kingdom to the UnitedStates. Social scientists associated with Tavistock, theBrookings Institution, and the Rand Corporation had beencombing through the raw data on Americans' response tothe space program assembled through surveys by theStanford Research Institute, the University of Michigan'sInstitute for Social Research, and others since the late1950s.By the mid-1960s, Tavistock's journal Human Relationsreported that the space program was producing an extraordinarynumber of "redundant" and "supernumerary"scientists and engineers. "There would soon be two scientistsfor every man, woman, and dog in the society,"one related report wrote. These new scientists and engineershad the nasty propensityof reproducing themselvesat a rate much fasterthan any other segment ofsociety, according to Tavistock.Their very presenceand rate of expansion had aprofound impact on the valuesof the entire Americanpopulation from skilledworkers and office clerksdown to grammar schoolchildren eager to explain toanyone who would listen allthe secrets of rocket propulsionfrom construction tofueling to liftoff, all the wayto reentry and retrieval procedures.Tavistock was shocked!NATO's policymaking directoratebegan an alarmedmobilization to stop this, activatinga twofold scheme: First, to redirect the U.S. thrustaway from the NASA direction and into transforming theUnited States into a 1984-style "information society"premised on elaborate communications grids and sophisticatedtechniques of "mind control." Second, to establishnew global institutions to stem and channel technologyinto only those directions that NATO saw fit to permit.The decision was made to "decouple" the new technologiesassociated with the space program from theprocess of mass involvement with scientific outlook andactivity. Space technologies would be coopted for militaryapplications and global communications grids; but onearth a new ideology would supersede Americans' commitmentto progress and individual responsibility. Thisincompetent approach was to spell disaster for U.S. indepthcapabilities.Nominally a businessman—for 30 years he had servedas a top-level executive and planner for the Fiat conglomerateowned by Italy's Agnelli interests—Aurelio Pecceiwas a specialist in the "information economy" and "worldorder." Peccei had been trained by the leading futurist of42 FUSION September 1980

Europe, Bertrand de Jouvenel, himself a student anddisciple of H.G. Wells. Wells was a ferocious opponent ofthe American industrial republican form of government.He believed that science should be the preserve of achosen elite, and not a subject of concern to the "sheeplikemasses." His writings on "The Open Conspiracy" and"The World Brain" outline his belief that nations shouldbe governed by a supranational dictatorship. Wells envisionedthe era of mass communications as ushering inunparalleled potentialities for social control; the "War ofthe Worlds" radio experiment in 1938 was one publicexample. Wide-scale drug consumption (The Island of Dr.Moreau) and top-down manipulation of social planning("futurism," as sketched in Wells's 1910 The Discovery ofthe Future) are the instrumentalitiesWells identifies.Wells's promulgation of an"open conspiracy" is cited byMarilyn Ferguson in herbook The Aquarian Conspiracy(1980) as the earliest 20thcenturystatement of theaims of the hard-core counterculture.Wells was no isolated futurist.His conceptions, devisedin collaboration withthe British Secret IntelligenceService, guided the psychologicalwarfare conductedduring World War II by theOffice of Strategic Services'Strategic Bombing Surveyand the Committee on NationalMorale.The postwar period sawthe emergence of a complexof institutions assigned to conduct mass psychologicalprofiling and manipulation and confinement of the U.S.technological boom: these included the Rand Corporation,the Palo Alto Center for Advanced Behavioral Sciences,the University of Michigan's Institute for SocialResearch, the National Training Laboratories, and theNational Institute of Mental Health.Such think tanks served as a sort of priesthood for acorporate group that was already in a position to beginshaping the U.S. economy along Wellsian lines—pursuingneither industrial expansion nor financial profits, but actingas NATO's lever in the sphere of American businessstrategy. The directorates of Rank-Xerox, IBM, StandardTelephone and Cables, AT&T, Prudential Insurance, andITT are among the most important executives accountablefor the decoupling of high technology from mass-scalescientific capabilities in the population of the UnitedStates.These were the NATO resources thrown against thespace program's potential in the early 1960s.The most public "information society" salvo of the 1960scame out of California at the same time the drug culturewas created there by think tanks in Palo Alto, Menlo Park,and San Francisco-Berkeley. The Center for the Study ofDemocratic Institutions, drawing on Aspen Institute perspectives,initiated the 1962 Ad Hoc Committee on theTriple Revolution. The report from their Michigan meetingconcluded that human labor was being replaced by "acombination of the computer and the automated selfregulatingmachine," heralding "the postscarcity era" ofcybernation. Man must now find "a new purpose," thereport asserted, since the "traditional link between jobsand income" is about to be broken.The Santa Barbara sponsors of this initiative were formerUniversity of Chicago president Robert Maynard Hutchins,proponent of a supranationalbucolic elite and one of themost vocal post-World WarII opponents of the developmentof nuclear power asan energy resource, and hisprotege W.H. Farey, vicepresident of the Fund for theRepublic.Objectively,theTriple Revolutionoutlook was preposterous:by any measure of theneed to upgrade the worldeconomy and world laborskills, exponential growth inU.S., European, and Japaneseindustrial capacity was urgentlyrequired.Yet the myth of an overfed,supernumerary work forcebecame a media formula andan academic truism, creatingamong other things the "NewLeft." Endorsers of the Triple Revolution perspective includedTom Hayden, a founder of the Students for a DemocraticSociety (SDS). SDS appealed to both jaded suburbanyouth and would-be intellectuals, with the pitch that a"postindustrial America" ought to find "new values."The publicist of the cybernation concept, Donald Michael,had just completed one of the major profilingstudies on the U.S. space program. Michael is currently inSan Francisco collaborating with Stanford Research Institute'sWillis Harman on an array of projects including thepromulgation of a concept of "appropriate science,"which, like its stepmother "appropriate technologies,"puts limits on the realm of scientific investigation and thefreedom allowed researchers.How far these concepts had become hegemonic wasevident in a series of three simultaneous "Year 2000"projects launched in 1966-1967: one by a group in Francecalled the "Futuribles," a second by the Tavistock-linkedScience Policy Research Unit in Sussex, England, titled"Mankind 2000," and the third by the U.S. Academy ofArts and Sciences, titled "The U.S. in the Year 2000."September 1980 FUSION 43

The Paris "futuribles" group was run by Bertrand deJouvenel, the hardcore Wells disciple who is the mostrevered figure among today's "futurist" operatives. Duringthe 1930s and early 1940s, de Jouvenel was one of France'smost ardent supporters of Hitler. Upon seeing Germanyfirst-hand under the Nazis, he wrote: "How can one helpbut think of the Order of the Jesuits, of the admirableunity of its diverse activities? The German intellectualworld constitutes in the same way an Order working forthe greatest glory of the fatherland."De Jouvenel offered advice on how to perfect theworkings of the fascist state: "In our recent admirationfor the totalitarian state, we have not yet understood thatthe absolutism of the State must be corrected |jy theconstitution of small collectivities which solicit and satisfythe human instinct for loyalty, which make bloom thosefeelings which the State takes advantage of but which isitself incapable of arousing."Centralized control and "small community groups": theessence of the Aquarian Conspiracy.De Jouvenel's influence was pervasive throughout theYear 2000 work. One piece of evidence is a documentpublished in 1967 by a participant in the U.S. Commissionfor the Year 2000 who came to the commission from theState Department Policy Planning Staff. The document wastitled "America in the Technetronic Age." The author'sname is Zbigniew Brzezinski.Brzezinski wrote that America was moving into a society"increasingly unlike its industrial predecessor," a "technetronic"society that could easily become a "technocraticdictatorship." The society would be characterized by an"information revolution," "cybernetics," and the replacementof "achievement-orientation" by "amusementfocus"based on "spectator spectacles [mass sports and TV]providing an opiate for increasingly purposeless masses.""In the technetronic society," Brzezinski went on, "industrialemployment yields to services, with automationand cybernetics replacing individual operation of machines."This will occur simultaneously with "the increasingavailability of bio-chemical means of human control."Also, "new forms of social control may be needed to limitthe indiscriminate exercise by individuals of their newpowers. . . . The possibility of extensive chemical mindcontrol . . . will call for a social definition of commoncriteria of restraint as well as of utilization."This transformation, wrote Brzezinski, means thatAmerica, having left the industrial phase, is todayentering a distinct historical era, a different one fromthat of Western Europe and Japan. Subtle and stillindefinable changes in the American psyche providethe psychocultural underpinnings for the more evidentpolitical disagreements between the two sidesof the Atlantic. . . . Europe and America are no longerin the same historical era. What makes Americaunique in our time is that it is the first society toexperience the future ... be it pop art or LSD. . . .Today, America is the creative society; the others,consciously and unconsciously, are emulative.This fact, Brzezinski continued, will have enormousinternational repercussions. "The instantaneous electronicintermeshing of mankind will make for an intense confrontation,straining social and international peace." ThereFour-thousand futurists are scheduled to meet in Toronto in July for "dialogue and sharing of aspirations andnew directions for a 'born again' global society" at the First Global Conference on the Future. This map is partof the publicity kit of the World Future Society, conference sponsor.44 FUSION September 1980

could well be a "three-way split; into rural-backward,urban-industrial and technetronic ways of life" that will"only further divide man."The "implications of a truly new era" will require a"universal intellectual elite" and a "world superculture"produced "inevitably" by "the network of electronic communication."This will also entail "creative interpreters ofthe new age" who will develop a concept of "regionalismwith due deference to the symbolic meaning of nationalsovereignty." This could all be best thrashed out at "aspecial world congress, devoted to the technetronic andphilosophical problems of the coming age."Brzezinski's "America in the Technetronic Age" laid thebasis for the initiating document of the Club of Rome,Aurelio Peccei's 1969 book, The Chasm Ahead. In thatbook, Peccei lavishly praised the then relatively unknownBrzezinski.In 1967, Peccei began his six-year term as head of theEconomic Committee of the Atlantic International Institutein Paris. That institute is the sister-organization to theAtlantic Institute in Washington, which shares its officeswith the Atlantic Council, the top NATO policymakinginstitution in the United States.By 1967, Peccei was just concluding an internationallecture series on "world order and the need for globalplanning." His new position gave him the vehicle to bringNATO into the center of these processes.In May 1967 and May 1968, Peccei coordinated twomajor conferences that pondered how to upgrade NATOas controller of the international flow of technology. Thefirst, a Conference on Transatlantic Technological Imbalanceand Collaboration, in Deauville, France, was cosponsoredby the Scientific-Technological Committee of theNorth Atlantic Assembly and the Pennsylvania-based ForeignPolicy Research Institute (run by U.S. Ambassador toNATO Robert Strausz-Hupe). The second, in Rome, theConference on Strategies for Atlantic Technological Development,was sponsored by the Atlantic Institute andthe Committee for the Atlantic Economic Cooperation,and was attended by 70 chief executives of leading corporationsand banks on both sides of the Atlantic.These conferences were key points at which the decisionswere made to put an end to the startling U.S.technological advances.As described by Peccei in The Chasm Ahead, the conferenceswere organized around the following theme:U.S. corporate leaders, such as David Sarnoff of NBC andJohn Diebold, in league with leading government agencies,had decided to steer the United States in a "postindustrialinformation economy" direction. Because ofthis, America was entering what Peccei called "the IBMage," while Europe was still in the "GM age." This wascreating a "technological gap" between Europe and theUnited States that threatened to rip asunder the AtlanticAlliance and create chaos all over the world, since onlythe Atlantic Alliance was fit to govern world events. Toprevent this "chaos," Europe would have to ditch itsindustrial development plans and follow the "informationeconomy" path demanded by the Anglo-American factioninside NATO. Meanwhile, the United States would gut itsspace program.In totality, this program would mean the Malthusiantriaging of industrial capital on a global scale. This would,of course, mean a collision at some point with the scientific-technological-militaryapparatus of the Soviet Unionand the Warsaw Pact. So, suggested Peccei, again citingBrzezinski as his source, the Warsaw Pact would be offered"convergence" with the Atlantic Alliance as the alternativeto "explosion." This "convergence" would lay the basisfor what Peccei labeled a "one world" government thatwould run global affairs on the twin foundations of "crisismanagement" ("limits to growth" and "shock treatment")and "global planning."Virtually simultaneously with these conferences, NATObegan to create institutional subgroups to undermine theSeptember 1980 FUSION 45

progress of science and encourage the development ofenvironmentalist movements. In 1966-1967, NATO createda Division of Scientific Affairs, with a subgroup called"Human Factors," which housed a special advanced psychologicalwarfare unit under the title, "InternationalCommittee of Social Scientists." In 1968-1969, NATO createdits "Committee on the Challenges of Man and Society/'whose environmental subcommittee initiated a seriesof investigations into the role of solar power and otherinefficient energy sources in Europe's energy future. TheCommittee on Challenges also was set up as a vehicle forresearch on the effects of scientific progress on papulationsand similar profiles.While this new world strategy was being prepared withinNATO, Peccei established the framework of "global planning"and "crisis management"institutions in a seriesof consultations with key officials.One was McGeorgeBundy, former National SecurityCouncil chief duringthe Cuba Missile Crisis. Asecond was NATO advisorAlexander King, then the directorgeneral of scientificaffairs for the Organizationfor European Cooperationand Development. A thirdwas Dr. Homer Perlmutter,editor of Tavistock's magazineHuman Relations. Pecceialso met extensively withWhite House officials andwith the State DepartmentPolicy Planning Staff Council.Finally, Peccei traveled tothe headquarters of the TavistockInstitute of Human Relationsin Sussex, England inmid-1968, where the decisionson how to proceed in transforming NATO policywere finalized. The strategic attempt would be miade toinduce the Soviets into "convergence" by means df "disarmament"and similar efforts and through ideological/psychological manipulations centered around the offer ofcooperation in "systems analysis." Bundy would offer theSoviets an "entry-point" into NATO's "new age" tffiroughthe Vienna-based International Institute of Applied SystemsAnalysis (IIASA, formally founded in 1972)^ whileKing would target the Soviets through "multidisciplinarystudies" in his International Federation of Institutes ofAdvanced Studies (IFIAS, founded with Rockefeller Foundationmoney in 1973).The domestic job of brainwashing the populations ofNATO countries, with special emphasis on the Americanpopulation, would be coordinated by a "Club of Rome"to be founded by Peccei and King, with the TavistockInstitute functioning as the evaluator/controller of theprocess. The marching orders for this Club of Rorrje were46 FUSION September 1980The magazine of jhe World Future Society: Peopleare the problem.given to Peccei at a meeting in the summer of 1968 inBellagio, Italy, with, he writes, "the most respected gurusof long-range forecasting and planning." In a final "BellagioDeclaration," Peccei and the gurus attacked "blindreliance on science" and called for "the modification ofthe very structure of the human systems" as the requiredalternative.Soon after this, in late 1968, the Club of Rome wasfounded at a meeting of those men Peccei assembled tobe the core of what he called a future World Forum tooversee "global planning" and "crisis management." Thiswas to be the "technocratic dictatorship" ruling over the"postindustrial information economies" described byBrzezinski and others. The core group would ensure thatNATO would manage that global transformation.Aside from Peccei andKing, the original motivatorsof the Club of Rome includedHugo Thiemann, advisorto the Swiss Nestle's interestsand head of the Battelle Institutein Geneva, part of theorganizational nexus tied tothe Tavistock-linked BattelleMemorial Institute in Columbus,Ohio; Max Kohnstamm,a Dutch international affairsexpert and right-hand man toJean Monnet; Dennis Gabor,a British physicist and NobelPrize winner; and Jean Saint-Geours, a coworker of theWellsian de Jouvenel, Peccei'smentor.These men provided whatwas to become the executivecommittee group of the Clubof Rome, along with FritzBottcher, a scientific advisorto the Dutch government;Eduard Pestel, formerly of the Technical University ofHannover and more recently Minister of Science andCulture of Lower Saxony in West Germany; and SaburoOkita, former head of the Japanese foreign aid fund andcurrently the Japanese foreign minister who is leadingJapan into closer military alignment with NATO.As this grouping developed its operational stage withthe "Limits to Growth" psychological-warfare assault inthe early 1970s, several U.S. representatives were added tobring the United States into the NATO/Club of Romeumbrella. Aside from the "Limits" report authors, JayForrester and Dennis Meadows, the Club of Rome Internationalwas expanded to include Senator Claiborne Pell(D-R.l.), ambassador to NATO and sponsor of severalpieces of legislation calling for the creation of an "environmentalistworld-order" under NATO control, and SolLinowitz, former chairman of Xerox.As the U.S. involvement in the Club of Rome wasexpanded in the 1972-1975 period with the eventual for-

mation of a U.S. Association for the Club of Rome, thefollowing NATO emissaries were brought in to overseethe process:• Harlan Cleveland, former U.S. ambassador to NATOduring the 1960s, and a vice chairman of the AtlanticCouncil in Washington (NATO arm in the United States).• George McGhee, former U.S. ambassador to NATOand ex-undersecretary of state for political-military affairs,and a director of the Atlantic Council.• William Watts, director of Potomac Associates, theWashington think tank that assumed the mass-circulationrights to the "Limits to Growth" report. Watts is a directorof the Atlantic Council.• Donald Lesh, current executive director for the U.S.Association for the Club of Rome, one of the originalcreators of the Europeandesk staff operations of theU.S. National Security Council,who worked under HenryKissinger's associate HelmutSonnenfeldt and laterworked under Watts at PotomacAssociates.Well before the Club ofRome 1968 Bellagio Declaration'sopen call for "modificationof the very structureof the human systems" to replace"blind reliance on science,"the cluster of futuristthink tanks around the Clubof Rome had accelerated theartificial creation of theAmerican counterculture. In1966, a little-noticed articleappeared in the Journal ofHumanistic Psychology, thepublication of the Associationfor Humanistic Psychology.Written by Dr. WillisHarman, an education/systems analysis specialist at theStanford Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, thearticle lauded the "challenge to science" emerging frominvestigations into extrasensory perception, psychokinesis,mysticism, and "consciousness-expanding drugs." Harmanpronounced the advent of "the new science," replacingmastery of "outer space and the material world" withexploration of "inner space" through "hypnosis, creativity,parapsychology, and psychedelic experiences."Inner space: Transcendental meditation studied withsensors attached to a computer.This "new science" thesis was more significant than theusual content of the journal, which was founded byAldous Huxley, psychologist Abraham Maslow, and otherassociation promoters of the environmentalism, "sensitivitytraining," and drug experimentation that had proliferatedin California in the early 1960s. Harman was aboutto conduct a monumental study for the Johnson administration'sOffice of Education titled "Generating AlternativeFutures." The project elevated the "new science"effort to a plane of respectability, and served as a launchingpoint for "Aquarian" strategists to take over influentialpositions in government, policy planning institutions, andcorporate leadership throughout the nation.The first of its kind anywhere in the United States, theproject itself consumed two years of research and computersimulation analysis, utilizing highly questionableprojections of future global resource availability. The studyconcluded that a horrific future is inevitable unless the"antimaterial value structure" of the emerging counterculturewas imposed on a mass scale during the comingdecades; America's historic commitment to scientific andindustrial progress would have to be ended.This project led to the formation of an early-1970s studygroup to pursue its implementation. Based at StanfordResearch Institute, the special task force included MargaretMead; British economicwarfare specialist SirGeoffrey Vickers; RockefellerFoundation agronomistRene Dubos; and United Nationssystems analyst ErwinLaszlo, a "Limits to Growth"theoretician for the Club ofRome. The results were summarizedin the 1974 volume,Changing Images of Man,which proposed that "thepostindustrial society" requiredaltering the population's"self-image" to replacethe "scientific technological"conception of man.Delivered with increasingintensity by the mass mediaand the U.S. education system,1 this was the "shocktreatment" promised by AurelioPeccei. Its consequenceshave been so destructiveof skills and moralresources as to alarm many of its NATO sponsors. At thispoint, however, it is impossible to return to the 1950sstatus quo ante: nothing less than the thorough-goingeducation of the U.S. citizenry at large in the philosophicalprinciples of scientific method and technological breakthroughwill succeed. Science must relinquish its defensivestance and become a weapon for growth.Mark Burdman, a counterintelligence expert for theExecutive Intelligence Review, has done extensive researchon the Aquarian Conspiracy and its destruction ofU.S. scientific capabilities.Note1. The October issue of Fusion will feature an analysis of the scope andorigins of the acute decline in American scientific and related education.Excerpts from the Changing Images of Man appear in the August issueof Fusion, page 20.September 1980 FUSION 47

Exclusive: Behind tlie Classified Foster ReportIs Krypton FluorideThe Brand X' Laser?by Charles B. StevensLaser experimentation at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Shown is a dye laser.FOR YEARS, CRITICS of inertial confinement fusionhave pointed to the lack of a driver technology that canboth demonstrate inertial fusion in the laboratory andscale-up with the required efficiency for an economicalelectric power reactor. In the particular case of laserdriveninertial confinement fusion, where intense beamsof laser light are used to compress fusion fuel to starlikedensities and temperatures in order to ignite thermonuclearfusion, this problem has been referred to as the"brand X" laser dilemma.Now, just at the point that U.S. scientists seem to haveresolved the brand X laser problem by the developmentof the krypton fluoride gas laser (KrF), Congress hasmoved to cut the budget of the Department of j Energyadvanced laser fusion programs below the minimal levelsneeded to maintain the capability for future KrFj development.Although the amount involved is but a fewmillion dollars, the likely effects of the cut will be to retardthe development of commercial inertial confinement fusionas well as to halt important scientific advances essentialto national defense.Why would Congress decide to cut off the inertialconfinement program just when a major scientific problemhas been resolved? The answer lies in the self-defeatingausterity mentality now prevailing in Congress^ and inthe particular circumstances of inertial confinement researchand its relationship to the U.S. weapons program.First, let's review some facts about inertial confinementfusion and its applications.The hydrogen bomb is based on inertial confinement inwhich a fission atom bomb is used as the "match" toignite fusion. Current research on inertial confinementfusion focuses on using an alternative match (intensebeams of laser light, ions, or electrons) that would igniteonly minute amounts of fusion fuel. Because of the miniaturizationof the process, it is more amenable to usefulenergy applications and, equally important, to the scientificexploration of the fundamental processes involved.Glass lasers are currently the major tools for inertialconfinement fusion laboratory research, but they are inherentlyincapable of providing a practical basis for civilianenergy applications because of the high cost involved inscaling up a glass laser system. The recently discoveredkrypton fluoride gas laser, however, is a system that couldprovide the basis for practical civilian energy applicationsbecause it can be cheaply scaled up to higher totalenergies.Since the laboratory demonstration of laser fusionwould immediately fulfill the goals of weapons applications,Congress has directed that the chief, near-termmission of the inertial confinement fusion program is thatof weapons applications. For this reason and as a result ofgeneral pressures to curtail government spending, themajority of inertial confinement funds are directed toward48 FUSION September 1980

continued development of high-power laser facilitiesbased on the known technology of glass lasers. Developmentof the more advanced lasers, such as the kryptonfluoride gas laser, has been substantially postponed untilgiant glass laser systems achieve the laboratory demonstrationof inertial confinement fusion, which is expectedsometime in the mid- to late-1980s.When Dr. John Foster, vice president for science of theTRW Corporation and chairman of the Department ofEnergy's Ad Hoc Panel to Review Fusion Energy Research,testified before the House Armed Services Committeerecently, he called for doubling the inertial confinementbudget and putting a substantial portion of the addedfunds into realizing large-scale advanced lasers like thekrypton fluoride system. Foster based his case on theargument that development of civilian fusion energy mustbe a national priority. In this context, he noted, inertialconfinement fusion provides a totally independent andessential backup to development of fusion power plantsbased on magnetic confinement fusion by the end of thiscentury.The House Armed Services Committee, which overseesthe inertial confinement work, ignored Foster's recommendations,keeping the budget at last year's level. Andwhen the Carter administration recommended in its fiscalyear 1981 budget the elimination of construction funds forthe flagship glass laser system, the Nova, at LawrenceLivermore Laboratory in California, Congress reacted byrestoring the Nova funds with money from the minimalfunding it had previously allotted to the advanced lasereffort. 1 It was this latest move, in May, that put the kryptonlaser program in jeopardy.The reasoning of these committee members goes somethinglike this: The scientists tell us that the scientific basisfor inertial confinement fusion is well understood sincethey have been successfully detonating H-bombs for morethan 25 years. They told us that we could generate miniatureH-bombs in the laboratory with glass lasers, thereforesaving millions of dollars on underground weaponstests for further development of nuclear warheads andmeasurement of their effects. Now that we have spenttens of millions on building high-power glass lasers, theywant us to go off in a totally new direction with thekrypton fluoride laser. Let's not waste time and money onunknown technologies. Let's get the job done with glasslasers first and then we can see about funding thesealternative systems.The fact is that even within the terms of the HouseArmed Services Committee's defense-minded perspective,the development of the krypton fluoride laser is essentialfor inertial confinement fusion and for the national security.The important point here is that although theH-bomb part of nuclear weapons systems is the mostpredictable and reliable element in the defense arsenal,the fundamental processes involved in preparing andigniting inertial confinement fusion reactions are nowcomprehended only in a pragmatic manner. Cutting theadvanced laser fusion program will obstruct scientificresearch that is key to both the future energy and defenseneeds of the United States.Foster's argument about doubling the inertial confinementbudget was backed up by the study his ad hoc DOEcommittee completed in spring 1979. The exact conclusionsof the so-called Foster Report have remained amystery, for the Carter administration summarily classifiedit as "top secret" and even went so far as to "withdraw"a public presentation given by a DOE official on its chiefconclusions in order to prevent open discussion of itscontents. 2The Foster Committee, formed more than two years agoby the DOE, consists of top-level managers from industryand government scientific-program directors. ChairmanJohn Foster, who formerly directed the Lawrence LivermoreLaboratory and the Department of Defense DevelopmentResearch and Engineering division, is representativeof the type of credentials held by the panel'smembers.The Foster ReportIn its first report, issued in summer 1978, the FosterCommittee concluded that the commercial developmentof both magnetic and inertial fusion was essential formeeting the future energy needs of the United States. Thepanel also stated the need for a more detailed review ofthe inertial confinement program. In particular, the panelnoted the difficult physics problems involved and thatmuch of this research is classified because its fundamentalprocesses are used for designing hydrogen bombs.Based on the presentation on the Foster Committeereport that was later "withdrawn" by the DOE and athorough review of inertial confinement research paperspublished in open scientific journals, it is now possible toreconstruct, at least in outline, the chief arguments of theFoster Committee's suppressed report.The findings go something like this:First, although inertial confinement has not reached thesame advanced scientific level as magnetic confinementresearch—where the demonstration of scientific feasibilityis assured—it is particularly promising as a future commercialenergy source and must be developed in parallelwith magnetic confinement in order to develop powerreactors by the end of this century. Inertial confinementfusion is so promising because it represents an entirelyindependent approach to harnessing fusion reactions thathas been pragmatically demonstrated in the form of hydrogenbombs.Second, significant progress has been achieved sincethe effort began in the early 1970s. As a result, the scientificdemonstration can be confidently expected by the midtolate-1980s—if researchers are given the proper toolsand sufficient funds.Third, what is lacking is the kind of technology developmentprogram needed to ensure that driver systemscapable of meeting the needs of commercial power plantsand overall reactor designs will be available at the pointthat scientific feasibility has been demonstrated.Fourth, development of driver technology could, furthermore,be essential for attaining scientific feasibility.Fifth, the panel concluded with a call for doubling theinertial confinement budget and putting the increasedSeptember 1980 FUSION 49

_funds into specific programs for developing advancedlasers, light ion, heavy ion, and electron beam drivers, aswell as a reactor technology development program.In substance the report focused on the connectionsbetween inertial confinement fusion and hydrogen bombdesign and the progress in design of laser fusion targets(pellets containing fusion fuel). Although there have beenmajor scientific problems in terms of coupling thfe laserenergy to the target and projecting the resulting compressionand heating of the fusion fuel, the panel found thatprogress has been sufficient to ensure success. In particular,laboratory research combined with continuing progressin H-bomb development and testing has advanced tothe point that particular qualities of the inertial confinementfusion driver needed for scientific demonstrationcan be confidently projected.All the evidence was not available at the time that theFoster report was completed, but the panel did djiscoverthat the krypton fluoride laser appeared to be preciselythe tool to achieve scientific demonstration and providethe technology for power reactors. Developments sincethen have fully confirmed this initial evaluation.How Inertial Confinement WorksIn an H-bomb, the confining pressure is indirectlyprovided by the electromagnetic radiation output of anatom bomb. The majority of the initial energy spectrumof an atomic fission bomb consists of "soft" X+rays. Atarget consisting of hydrogen fusion fuel is placed! next tothe A-bomb. The soft X-rays traveling at the speed of lightimpinge on the fusion target before any blast effects arefelt. These X-rays are absorbed by the surface layer of thetarget. As a result, this material is vaporized and rapidlyexpands outward. This is called ablation. In the samefashion as a rocket engine, ablation generates an equaland oppositely directed force (in this case, an inwardlydirected force called an implosion). The great power ofthe atom bomb X-ray burst quickly transforms this inwardlydirected force into an inwardly directed shockwave. The shock wave acts as a giant compression cylinder,driving the interior of the fusion fuel target to higher andhigher densities.The geometry of the target is arranged so that thecompression shock will converge. When the shock wavefinally reaches the center of the target, the hydrogenfusion fuel has been compressed to densities greater thanthat of lead and hundreds to thousands of times greaterthan that of liquid hydrogen. At this point, the shock wavecollapses on itself, and its energy is transformed into heat.As a result, a minute amount of the core of the compressedfusion fuel is heated to the multi-million-degree temperaturesneeded to ignite thermonuclear reactions (about50 million degrees Celsius). The energy from these initialfusion reactions is absorbed by the "cold" outer layers ofthe compressed fuel, in this way igniting the cold fuel.In fact, this heating is so fast that a supersonic thermonuclear6urn wave is generated, which roars through thecompressed fuel so quickly that most of it reacts beforethe entire target blows up. For a typical H-bomb, all ofthis takes but a few millionths of a second, and the onlyforce confining the fuel while it burns is the inertia of itsown mass.Laboratory inertial confinement replaces the necessarilygigantic atom-bomb "match" with a tiny though just as(a) Laser light hitting fusion fuel target (b) Ablating plasma (c) Decoupled ablating plasmaFigure 1ABLATING IMPLOSION IN LASER FUSIONThe basic phases of ablative implosion are shown here schematically. In the first phase, a, an ablating plasma isformed by the laser light hitting the surface of the fusion target. In phase b, the laser light is absorbed within theablating plasma and the plasma then transports the resulting heat energy to the target surface so that ablation ismaintained. If this transport is interrupted, as /> shown in c, then the ablating plasma (also called corona) becomesdecoupled from the target surface.50 FUSION September 1980

intense beam of laser light, ions, or electrons to generatethe implosion and ignition of the fusion fuel.There are three interrelated phenomena involved in theachievement of high fusion target energy gain. (Gain issimply defined as the ratio of the fusion energy generateddivided by the total driver energy—atom bomb, X-rays,laser, electron, or ion beams—incident on the target.) Theefficient absorption of the incident driver energy leads tothe generation of an appropriate compression shock wave,which, in turn, efficiently compresses the fusion fuel tohigh densities and leads to the thermonuclear ignition ofa core of the compressed fuel. At temperatures ofhundreds of millions of degrees, this generates an intensethermonuclear burn wave that ignites the remaining compressedfuel.Failure at any point of these distinct, though coupled,processes will either produce a complete dud or low orfractional target gain.For example, the incident driver energy could simplybe reflected instead of absorbed. Or, the incident energy,while being absorbed, might not generate an ablativeimplosion. In this case, the initially heated material fromthe surface of the target becomes isolated from the solidtarget surface and the incident driver energy is consumedin simply heating this material. (This is termed coronadecoupling, where the corona is the initially heated material.)The result is the same as turning off the rocketexhaust in a spaceship. In order for the ablative processto continue, the incident driver energy must be ableeither to penetrate or be transported through the initialexhaust gases, thereby continuing to heat the actual surfaceof the target and maintaining the flow of exhaustgases (Figure 1).Even if the absorption of the incident driver energy iscompletely successful and an effective ablation processresults, the compression shock or shocks thereby generatedmay not succeed in compressing the interior of thefusion fuel target. The compression shock wave couldbecome unstable and break up so that it no longer constitutedan effective "compression" cylinder. Or, energyfrom the ablative process might penetrate the interior ofthe target before compression is achieved, interfering withcarrying out an efficient implosion of the fuel. For example,if this penetrating energy significantly heats the precompressedfuel, efficient compression would becomevirtually impossible.Finally, even if the ablative process is efficiently set up,producing an effective and stable compression shock, theshock wave could fail to be sufficiently intense when itreaches the core of the target to raise this region tothermonuclear ignition temperatures. Or, even if ignitionis generated, the resulting thermonuclear burn could beso weak that it fails to generate a burn wave of enoughintensity to ignite the remaining compressed fuel.High-Power LasersIn general, at the present time, researchers have onlyan incomplete, pragmatic picture of how inertial confinementworks.- 1 Therefore, it follows that no firm limits canbe placed on the development of major advances ininertial confinement devices. Looking at it from the perspectiveof national defense, the only conclusion is thatdetermination of these limits should have the highestpriority. Given the existing theoretical-experimental impassewith H-bomb devices for research—chiefly becausetheir minimal scale precludes the use of important experimentalmeasurements—the best way to proceed is todevelop a driver that most closely replicates what goes onin an H-bomb on a miniature scale. High-power lasersprovide the most practical means for achieving this.When intense electromagnetic radiation, such as a focusedlaser beam, is directed onto matter, electrons in theatoms that make up the material absorb some of theincident energy. If the incident laser beam is above anintensity of, say, 10 billion to 100 billion watts per squarecentimeter, a substantial portion of the atoms that makeup the surface of the material becomes ionized in theprocess; that is, their electrons absorb enough energy toescape from the atom.This is how an ablating plasma is formed.One well-known property of a plasma is that it has amaximum density through which electromagnetic radiationof a given frequency can penetrate. This electronnumberdensity is called the critical density, n„. Therelationship between the earth's ionosphere (the plasmafound above the earth's atmosphere) and shortwave radiotransmission is a good example of how this works. Shortwaveradio transmissions cannot generally penetrate theionospheric plasma and are reflected so that they can bereceived throughout the world. On the other hand,shorter-wavelength, higher-frequency radio broadcastsusing electromagnetic radiation of the micrometer wavelength(microwaves) can penetrate the ionosphere and,therefore, are used for communication with satellites.In very general terms, what is going on is that theplasma has a "fundamental frequency" at which it interactswith electromagnetic energy. This fundamental frequencyis called the plasma frequency and is a function of theplasma electron-number density:f pc = 8.98 X 10 jwhere /,„, is the electron plasma frequency in cycles persecond and n e is the plasma electron-number density inelectrons per cubic centimeter.The critical density r» c , is that plasma electron density atwhich the plasma frequency equals the frequency of theincident electromagnetic wave. If the incident wave'sfrequency is greater than f pe at all plasma electron densities,it is possible for the wave to pass through the plasma.If it is not greater than /> the wave can be either reflectedor absorbed, depending on the intensity of the incidentwave and the nature of the plasma (that is, what sort ofionized atoms make up the plasma).The theory of intense light-plasma coupling is one ofthe most challenging and complex problems in all ofphysics. While the critical density provides a useful referencepoint, the primary reflection and absorption pro-September 1980 FUSION 51n e

cesses take place at plasma densities below that of n, r , andthese processes are nonlinear and complex.In the case of the soft X-ray radiation, the primary formof the initial energy output from a fission atom bomb, thecorresponding electron density that gives a plasma frequencyin the same range would be 10" to 10 25 per cubiccentimeter. This is very close to the atomic number densitywe find with most solid materials. Therefore, for thte caseof soft X-rays it could be expected that the radiationwould readily penetrate the exhaust plasma to a pointvery close to the solid surface. This produces a veryefficient ablative implosion.On the other hand, if much shorter wavelength, "hard"X-rays were used to drive the implosion, the electromagneticradiation would have a frequency in excess 6f thatpossessed by a solidlike-density plasma, and the X-rayswould readily penetrate toward the interior of the target.This would heat the inner fuel before compression, preventingthe achievement of efficient isentropic compression.This effect is called preheating.Figure 2 is a general schematic giving the various regionsof radiation-plasma interaction that would be encounteredfor radiation incident on a flat slab target. Thesection on the right represents the solid surface of thetarget. The middle section is made up of a high-densityablation plasma ranging from critical density to soliddensity. The radiation incident from the left does notpenetrate this region. On the left is a region mad^ up ofablating plasma with densities less than the critical density.Why Short Wavelengths?The original specification U.S. fusion researchers atLawrence Livermore Laboratory made in 1963 to achievelaser fusion target gains greater than 1 called for 100,000joules of laser light with a wavelength of 0.69 micron andan intensity of 500 trillion watts per square centimeter.This meant that the laser would have to attain a poweroutput of up to several hundred trillion watts with a pulselength of about 1 billionth of a second. 4 This 1963 observationis very close to present-day estimates that areinformed by more than a decade of laser-matter experiments.The crucial question identified at this early point in thedevelopment of the U.S. laser fusion program was whateffect the laser light wavelength would have on both theefficiency and effectiveness of laser-matter interaction fordriving ablative implosions. Pragmatically, one would callfor duplicating the existing, successful inertial system, theH-bomb, by choosing wavelengths that would replicatethose of soft X-rays, about 0.01 micron.From a theoretical standpoint, however, use of shortwavelengthradiation in the driver also makes sense. Asnoted previously, soft X-rays have the ideal wavelengthfor penetrating the ablating plasma and depositing thedriver energy where it is needed at the surface of thetarget. Furthermore, the higher plasma densities at whichthe soft X-rays are absorbed are less conducive to nonlinearinteractions. This is because plasmas at higher densitiesare more "collisional," exhibiting far fewer of the collec-Figure 2LASER IRRADIATION OF SLAB TARGETThis schematic of a slab target being irradiated withlaser light shows three regions: first, an outer layerwith density less than or equal to the critical densitythat is directly heated by the laser light—the underdenseregion; a high-density region that is heatedindirectly by energy conduction; and the solid densityregion.tive interactions that dominate less dense plasmas. As aresult, short-wavelength radiation produces the most efficientand effective ablative-driven implosion.Even if soft X-ray lasers were a technological reality (andthey are not at the present time), handling electromagneticradiation below 0.2 to 0.1 micron is quite difficult,and all of the advantages of coherent laser light, such asease of transport and focusing of the light beam by usingmirrors, lenses, and other optical devices, are lost. Opticaltechnology gives a lower limit between 0.1 and 0.2 micronfor the wavelength of the driver radiation; the kryptonfluoride laser has a wavelength of 0.25 micron; and thatof the existing high-power, neodymium-doped glass lasersis 1.06 microns.As theoretically predicted, recent experiments withshort-wavelength laser light have indicated that absorptionefficiency and quality greatly improve with decreasingwavelength. 5 The original laser fusion experiments withlaser light of only 1.06 microns have shown a tendency52 FUSION September 1980

toward the generation of "hot" electrons (an anomalouslyhigh temperature component in the ablating plasma thatpreheats the inner fusion fuel before compression),corona-core decoupling, and excitation of various plasmainstabilities. 6Experiments with glass lasers at the Ecole Polytechniquein Paris, at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California,and the Rutherford Laboratory in Great Britain in whichthe frequency of the light is doubled by interacting the1.06-micron light with crystals (at a cost of more than 50percent of the original beams' energy) have shown anincrease toward 80 percent absorption and a markeddecline in the hot electron component.Target Design ConsiderationsConsiderations of driver wavelength are but one componentin the design of an optimum laser for carrying outinertial confinement fusion research efforts. Laser efficiencyand firing repetition rate are crucial to the prospectsfor commercial applications because they affect thecost of the system, but they are only of secondary ortertiary significance in terms of scientific research. Ofmore concern from a research standpoint are shaping thelaser beam pulse, laser power output, and total beamenergy.The smallest H-bomb, the neutron bomb, probably usesat least a pulse of soft X-rays on the order of 10" joules.The object of laboratory inertial confinement research isto reduce this driver input pulse by a factor of a million,or to a few million joules at the most. Inertial fusionresearchers are looking into the possibilities of utilizingnonlinear plasma processes (for example, the results ofmore efficient absorption or ablation processes) in orderto achieve the microscale inertial fusion ignition capableof being measured in the laboratory, as well as brute forcemethods. Once the basics are fully understood, it may bepossible, for example, to radically reduce the necessarylaser or particle beam pulse driver input. This could beaccomplished by using extremely high-power densitypulses or by transforming the pulse to soft X-rays (whichthe Soviet electron beam researcher L. Rudakov is alreadyplanning to do).Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the shortestroute to achieving these desirable results is the one thatfirst achieves core ignition and burn by whatever means.From the very beginning of the Soviet inertial confinementeffort, they have based their program on this strategy.When the United States and Soviet Union first madetheir target designs in the early- to mid-1970s, the UnitedStates based its program on exotic high-power, shortpulse-lengthtargets, while the Soviets, who at the timeled the world in laser-pksma research, called for puttingmajor emphasis on the target and not the laser beam. Inparticular, the Soviet laser pioneer Academician N.G.Basov called for using relatively low power densities andlong pulse lengths for the driver beam. The U.S. andSoviet overall parameters differed by several orders ofmagnitude.After several years of very difficult laser-plasma interactionstudies, U.S. target designs have begun to look verymuch like the early Soviet ones. And the laser parameterscalled for are also converging on the Soviet projections.The particular aspects of the early Soviet targets thathave recently come into prominence in the openly discusseddesigns in the U.S. program are the use of highaspect ratios and multishells. The most efficient sphericaltarget consists of a hollow sphere, and the aspect ratio isthe ratio of the sphere's radius to the thickness of theshell that makes it up.The benefit of using high aspect targets (very thinshelled spheres) is that they can be driven with lasers orparticle beams of much lower power level. This is becausehigher aspect ratio targets increase both the surface areato which the driver is applied on the target and theimplosion time. The problem, though, is that very thinspherical targets appear to be susceptible to hydrodynamicinstabilities that cause the implosion to be unsymmetrical.If this is the case, the target fuel is not compressed to highdensities or ignition fails to take place.From a practical standpoint, the instability problem canbe overcome by use of precision-manufactured targetsand by going to shorter-wavelength laser light. Both U.S.and Soviet inertial confinement fusion researchers apparentlybelieve they have overcome this instability problem,for they are now both proposing to use fairly high aspectratio target designs; anywhere from 10 to 100 aspect ratios.The second aspect, that of using several shells in onetarget, is extremely important. This design makes use ofseveral high aspect shells and the benefit is that theimplosion process can be broken up into several independentsteps. For example, Lawrence Livermore researchersachieved implosions of fusion fuel up to severalhundred times liquid density with double shell targets. 7The outer shell protected the inner shell containing thefusion fuel from the effects of preheating caused by hotelectrons in the corona plasma. When the outer shellcollided with the inner shell during the implosion, ittransferred only its hydrodynamic motion and not itstemperature to the inner shell, which achieved the highcompressions.It is apparent that the Foster Committee became awareof these recent developments in U.S. target design. Althoughthe full details are not available in the publicliterature, the basic outlines of what has happened can bedetermined from reviewing the annual reports of theLawrence Livermore Laboratory Laser Fusion Program andreviewing Soviet laser fusion scientific papers. In fact, fromthe latest Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Laser ProgramAnnual Report one can deduce the requisite driver parametersneeded for thermonuclear ignition. 8 In terms ofenergy, this would be a laser pulse of about 1 millionjoules at a power level of about 100 trillion watts. Thisgives a pulse length of about 10 nanoseconds—about 10to 100 times longer than Lawrence Livermore had previouslyprojected.High-power glass lasers have been the chief workhorsesof the laser fusion effort worldwide since the beginningof major national programs in the early 1970s. Glass wasSeptember 1980 FUSION 53

a known technology and the wavelengths involved)werefairly short, about 1.06 microns for neodymium-dopedglass. However, as researchers recognized from the ojutset,going to higher and higher total energy outputs vjvouldbecome increasingly difficult and costly.The basic problem can be readily appreciated from thesimple thermodynamics involved. In general, the only wayto increase the total energy of a glass laser system's butputis to go either to a larger number of independentlygenerated beams or to a beam of larger cross section.Problems of alignment, timing, and optics limit the numberof independently generated beams that can be usedin laser fusion. Going to beams of larger cross section islimited by the fact that the neodymium-doped glais diskamplifiers must be kept relatively cool. If they are permittedto overheat, the glass either distorts or breaks, destroyingthe costly glass disk amplifier.KrF Versus Glass LasersAlthough further developments in glass technology andcooling techniques cannot be precluded, the existinglarge-scale systems are beginning to show signs of approachingfundamental limits. In addition, the basicthermodynamic problem of glass prevents this systemfrom being a practical candidate for commercial laserfusion and means that the cost of going to higher laserenergies will always go up at least linearly. The need tocool the glass disk amplifiers means that significanjtly lessthan 1 percent of the total energy input into the laserends up as useful laser beam output.During the early 1970s, the only practical alternative tohigh-power lasers was the long-wavelength carbon dioxidelaser, being pursued at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.Because the laser medium is a gas, cooling is not asignificant problem; the gas can be jettisoned out anexhaust and replaced. Furthermore, efficiencies on theorder of 10 percent are quite practical with carbon dioxidelaser technology. As major advances in short-wavelengthgas lasers were achieved later in the decade, other alternativesbecame possible. These included the hydrogenfluoride chemical system, the rare gas halogen systems,and the krypton fluoride (KrF) and xenon fluoride lasers.The chief means of energizing these laser systems is withhigh-energy electron beams. The KrF is capable of attainingefficiencies of more than 7 percent, has high repetitionrates, and has an almost perfect wavelength of 0.25 micronfor laser fusion.Although the primary motivation for developing theselasers was their potential applications as laser weapons forantimissile and antiaircraft systems, their potential applicationto inertial confinement fusion was appreciated fromthe beginning. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory developeda program to realize a laser system based on KrF thatwould attain driver parameters near their original targetdesign projections, that is, a very short beam pulse ofabout 0.1 to 1 nanosecond with a beam power of 100trillion watts.The KrF laser by itself could not attain the requisitepower levels and short pulse lengths, because as a lasingmedium the KrF gas does not possess the energy densityor sufficient excitation lifetime to permit a short, highpowerpulse. As a result, researchers proposed a hybridGas VersusGlass LasersA laser is an apparatus for convertingcrude forms of energy—electrical,chemical, nuclear, or incoherentelectromagnetic energy—into beamsof coherent electromagnetic radiationof the same characteristic frequency.This coherent laser light is readily directedand focused to extremely highpower densities by using simple opticalmaterials such as mirrors, lenses,and filters.In a laser, the crude energy is directedonto a lasing medium. Theelectrons contained in the moleculesor atoms of the lasing medium absorba portion of the incident energy andare excited to a higher energy state.The time span that these electronsremain in an excited energy state beforethey will spontaneously reemitthe energy they have absorbed at acharacteristic frequency is known asthe lifetime.If electromagnetic energy of thecharacteristic frequency is directedthrough the lasing medium within themedium's lifetime (anywhere from afew nanoseconds to hundreds ofmicroseconds), it will stimulate therelease) of coherent electromagneticenergyj.High-power laser systems used ininertial confinement work this way. Avery high quality, minute pulse oflaser light is generated in a small laser,called an oscillator. This initial pulseis then directed through a series oflarge, excited lasing mediums calledamplifiers, stimulating the release oflight df the same frequency in theseamplifiers. In the process, the initialpulse grows in intensity.In high-power glass lasers, intenseflashlamps surround large disks ofglass that contain neodymium atoms.When the flashlamps are turned on,the neodymium atoms are excited toa higher energy state. As the initialpulse passes through a long series ofthese glass disks (an amplifier chain),a large, intense pulse is produced.The basic physics of the excitedenergy state limits the energy densitythat can be extracted from the glasslasing medium. In order to increasethe total energy of the laser beam,the volume of the amplifying mediummust be increased, causing basicphysical limits to the scale-up sizepossible for a glass laser. Also, glasslaser systems are inefficient; muchless than 1 percent of the incidentflashlamp energy is actually convertedinto laser light.Since the early 1960s, researchershave understood that lasing mediums54 FUSION September 1980

system that combined the KrF with a nonlinear laser beamplasmainteraction system that compressed the KrF laserbeam into a high-power, short pulse.This hybrid system, called Rapier, is only at the experimentalstage. Its major drawback is that even if it worksperfectly, 50 percent of the laser beam is lost during thenonlinear laser-plasma compression stage, which decreasesthe overall efficiency of the laser by one-half,bringing it down to below 4 percent.New technological advances were made in developingthe KrF, just as the Foster Committee was completing itsreport. Although these new developments do not lead tothe extremely short laser pulse originally projected bylaser fusion scientists (0.1 to 1 nanosecond), they meetthe requirements for the longer-pulse, high-aspect ratio,multishell targets. Furthermore, the new KrF technologyappears to have no significant impediments to beingcheaply scaled up to higher total energies. Thus, the newKrF could readily proceed to higher total energies ontarget, if need be, in a brute force campaign to achievehigh target gains.A year has passed since the Foster Committee heard theoriginal testimony on the KrF and in this time researchershave confirmed the capabilities needed to realize a successfulkrypton fluoride laser as well as initial cost andconstruction time projections. As a result, the KrF not onlyis the best candidate for meeting the needs of inertialconfinement fusion in terms of wavelength and totalenergy, but also could achieve the program's scientificgoals at 10 times less cost than glass lasers.To pursue an aggressive experimental program in inertialconfinement fusion, scientists need the appropriatetools. Although glass lasers and other drivers currently inuse will continue to provide much of the informationneeded, the KrF laser is a new technology that can berealized within the next four to six years and provide thekey parameters of energy and wavelength needed toensure experimental success. The costs of pursuing theKrF at this time are very small, but the eventual costs tothe nation for failing to pursue the KrF could be incalculable.Charles B. Stevens is the fusion technology editor ofFusion magazine.Notes1. "Budget Has Net Cut for Laser Program." Fusion, May 1980, p. 65.2. "New Foster Report Under Wraps," Fusion, Sept. 1979, p. 24.3. Theoretical and technical aspects of inertial confinement fusion havebeen discussed fully in previous articles in Fusion. Specifically, for anoverview of inertial confinement, including the deficiencies of computermodels with respect to compression shock waves and thermonuclearignition, see the articles on fusion in the March-April, February, andNovember issues of Fusion; on target designs that could be ignitedwith ordinary chemical explosives, see "The Secret of Laser Fusion,"March-April 1979. p. 38; on isentropic compression (the technical termfor efficient compression of matter to high densities), see "The TheoreticalImpasse in Inertial Confinement Fusion," Nov. 1979, p. 33; onhow advances in inertial confinement could provide the theoretical keyto the way supernovas and other superenergy cosmological eventstake place, see Aug. 1980, p. 70.4. Ft.E. Kidder, LRL Laser Research Program, COTM-63-7, 1963 (unpublished).5. "LLL Proven Right on Laser Absorption," Fusion, May 1980, p. 67.6. R.E. Kidder and J.W. Zink, Nuclear Fusion 12:325 (1972).7. "LLL Double Shell Target Achieves Compression Advance," Fusion,July 1980, p. 68.8. Fusion, May 1980, p. 25.other than solid state materials couldovercome the heat transport and efficiencyproblems of glass laser systems.This is particularly the case withgas lasers, in which the lasing mediumis excited by an electron beam. Withthe discovery of the lasing propertiesof krypton fluoride gas (KrF) as wellas other halogen compounds, in 1975scientists achieved the possibility ofan efficient gas laser with the appropriatewavelength for inertial confinementfusion.The particular advance that hasmade KrF a promising candidate isangular multiplexing. With a simpleKrF laser driven by an electron beam,the shortest pulse that can be extractedwith the maximum efficiency(about 8 percent) is 300 nanoseconds.In other gas lasers a shorter pulselength can be efficiently obtained bypassing a series of short pulsesthrough the same excited lasing medium(multipassing). Using optical delaylines, the first pulse of laser lightextracted from the excited gas is opticallyreflected along a path that islong enough so that the second, third,and other pulses can catch up, formingone powerful beam.Because krypton fluoride has sucha short lifetime (about 5 nanoseconds),a special form of multipassing,angular multiplexing, is used. A seriesof short pulses is directed through theKrF amplifier, passing through themedium almost simultaneously, witheach of the initial pulses directed ata different angle through the KrF amplifier.For example, since energy must beextracted for 300 nanoseconds in ord^rto reach the highest efficiency, ifresearchers want a pulse of 10 nanosecondsduration, then 30 separateinitial pulses will have to be passedthrough the KrF amplifier within that300 nanoseconds. The overall systemof angular multiplexing is well withinthe existing state of the art, in termsof materials and procedures.The cost for building a 100-kilojouleKrF laser with a 10-nanosecond, 100-trillion-watt laser output is estimatedto be between $20 and $30 million,and will decrease proportionately asthe KrF system scales up. This is buta fraction of the cost projected forthe 100-trillion-watt Nova glass systemunder construction at Lawrence LivermoreLaboratory.A 1-million-joule glass laser, thelargest laser considered technologicallyachievable within the next decade,would cost nearly $1 billion ormore to build and would not be readilycapable of scale-up in energy beyondthe 1 million joules. In comparison,a 1-million-joule KrF laser wouldcost between $200 and $300 millionand could be scaled up.September 1980 FUSION 55

NationalNAS Panel ChallengesDietary-Disease LinkThe Food and Nutrition Board ofthe National Academy of Sciences(NAS) issued a report May 27 debunkingwarnings from food faddists andmedical professionals alike thatAmericans must eat less meat andfewer dairy products or risk coronaryand other disease.The report stated that in light of theavailable evidence, such concern withfat and cholesterol intake is unjustified:"The board considers it scientificallyunsound to make single, all-inclusiverecommendations to thepublic regarding intakes of energy,protein, fat, cholesterol, carbohydrate,fiber, and sodium. . . . Theboard makes no specific recommendationsabout dietary cholesterol forthe healthy person."A 15-member panel including nutritional,biochemical, and medicalscientists, chaired by University ofWisconsin biochemist Dr. Alfred Harper,submitted the report. Harper hasindicated a concern that the broadbaseduse of restrictive low-fat/lowcholesteroldiets could lead to borderlinenutritional deficiencies in individuals.In an interview with Fusion, Harpersaid he has little doubt as to the nutritionalsuperiority of meat and dairyproducts over grains as sources ofproteins, partly because of the inabilityof grains to be an adequate sourceof trace elements necessary to goodhealth.A Question of CausalityA dissatisfaction with the scientificmethodology used to infer the harmfulnessof fats and cholesterol wasapparent in the report. One argumentfor reducing American meat and dairyintake has been that Americans havea greater incidence of heart diseasecompared to populations with a lessrich diet. However, several considerationsdemonstrate the causal inadequacyof conclusions based on suchcorrelations.Although serum (blood) cholesterollevels in fact seem to be good predictorsof heart disease, the board stated,"no significant correlation betweencholesterol intake and serum cholesterolconcentration has been shownin free-living [nonhospitalized] personsin this country."As the Food and Nutrition Boardpointed out, citing seven large-scalestudies of the effects of modified diet,dietary restrictions have at best marginaleffects on heart attacks and "noeffects on overall mortality."Although beef and total fat consumptionhas been rising steadily inthe United States since World War II,the rate of cardiovascular deaths hasactually fallen by 20 percent since theearly 1960s, and is currently falling atthe rate of 2 percent per year. Thedecrease can be partially attributed tofactors such as improved disease detectionand treatment. But the overallbasis of the decline remains a mystery.In fact, one might argue that the decreasereflects the increased healthenjoyed by a population consumingmore beef.NAS Under FireThe NAS report has drawn heavycriticism, none of which attacks thedata or the arguments directly. Onecomplaint is that no epidemiologistswere on the Food and NutritionBoard. It should be noted, however,that the board members were mainlyresearch scientists of proven merit inthe physiologically based disciplineswho were careful to note and utilizeepidemiological data as well as biochemicalfindings.Carlos de HoyosThe American diet, especially the consumption of meat, has been under attackfor more than a decade. Yet, between 1968 and 1976, the death rate forcoronary heart disease fell by 21 percent, while beef consumption rose byover 10 percent per person in that period.September 1980 FUSION 57

Others have charged that scientistson the panel were biased because ofconsulting affiliations with the meatand dairy industries. The critics fail tonote that the same researchers alsoconsult for cereal, grain, fruit, andvegetable companies, and had nothingpecuniary to gain by their conclusions.In interviews, several panelists expresseddisgust at the attacks on theirscientific integrity. They attributed atleast some of the criticism to the report'schallenge to environmentalistpropaganda against meat consumption.The cholesterol report is the secondtime this year that the NAS buckedthe environmentalist tide. Its study onEnergy in Transition: 1985-2010, releasedthis spring, includes papersthat recommend a strong nuclearprogram including the breeder reactorand documents the extreme costlinessof solar energy.EPA ReleasesSpurious StudyOn Love CanalIn a frontajl attack on the chemicalindustry, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) released a reportin May claiming that the residentsof Lovje Canal in Niagara, N.Y.had significant chromosomal aberrationsand that the "chemical exposuresat Love Canal may be responsiblefor much of the apparent increasein the observed [aberrations] and thatthe residents are at an increased riskof neoplastic disease [for example,cancer], of having spontaneous abor-Carlos de HoyosFreedoms Foundation Presents Award to FEFThe Fusion Energy Foundation received the Freedoms Foundation atValley Forge George Washington Honor Medal /or its 1979 series "TheHarrisburg Hoax" in an award ceremony June 25 at New York City'sCopter Club. Jon Cilbertson, the principal author of the series on ThreeMile Island, is shown here accepting the medal from Dr. Robert W.Miller (r.), president of the Freedoms Foundation.In presenting the award, Mrs. Arthur Soberg, president of the BrooklynVolunteer Chapter of the Freedoms Foundationl which sponsored theceremony, noted that the series of articles "te//s| what happened therelast spring, states the case for sabotage, and gives facts to refute thesensation-seeking news reporting that has lessened America's desire forthe advancement of nuclear science."Cilbertson thanked the Freedoms Foundation for its recognition thatthe fight for nuclear energy is essential for the nation's national security.tions, and of having children withbirth defects."There is no doubt that when theEPA released the report, the agencyknew that the report had no scientificvalidity.The report was based on a laboratorystudy by the Biogenics Corporationin Houston, Texas on the chromosomesfrom the white blood cellsof the Love Canal residents. The studypurported to demonstrate that thechromosomes of the individuals involvedwere malformed or broken atrates that far exceeded those for anormal population. From this, the reportsimply extrapolated the conclusionthat the increase was caused bythe exposure of the residents to thechemicals buried in Love Canal by theHooker Chemical Company yearsearlier.The report was invalid for severalreasons: First, individuals tested werenot chosen at random, but were volunteerswho were worried about theirhealth. This has an important effecton the incidence of chromosomal aberrations,since damage occurs becauseof viral infections (includingcolds, flu, and so on), antibiotic treatment,and even sunlight, and thedamage is known to increase withage. To ensure an adequate numberof healthy persons, any valid studywould require an across-the-boardsampling.Second, and quite incredible, thestudy did not include a comparablepopulation from another, noncontaminatedarea to serve as a controlgroup. The comparison published inthe report was based on data from astudy done several years earlier inanother laboratory. This means thatthe populations were not controlledin respect to diet, living standards,age, seasonal variation, and so on, allof which are known to contribute tothe incidence of malformations.Even worse, though, is the fact thatthe laboratory conditions are criticalto the outcome of the study, sincevariations in the cellular growth media,techniques, and even laboratorylighting and temperature, will influencethe results obtained.Third, the lack of controls influencedanother variable even moredifficult to control, the subjective act58 FUSION September 1980

of reading the slides upon which thechromosomes are mounted. Normalprocedure involves what is known asa double-blind technique, where thescientist does not know which populationgroup in the study is representedon the slide he is evaluating.Classification of a chromosome as abnormalis highly subjective, and thedouble-blind procedure helps minimizeany anticipations on the part ofthe observer.Indeed, Dante Picciano, the chiefscientist from Biogenics, even refusedto allow independent investigators toview the data. Subsequent viewing ofphotos of the chromosomal preparationsby an EPA panel led to the conclusionthat Picciano himself was inconsistentin his evaluations and thatthere was no evidence of excessivechromosomal abnormalities for theresidents of Love Canal.Fourth, for most scientific papersthere is a process of peer review,whereby a paper is evaluated andcriticized prior to release or publication.This was not the case with theLove Canal study.What's Going On?Why did the EPA release a studythat had such obvious inadequacies?There are two results of the EPA'saction that suggest the answers. TheFederal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) was brought into play,managing all levels of the operationtop down, from news conferences toevacuation and relocation of the residents.Under FEMA, Love Canal residentscontinue to be the object ofsociological study, speculation, andmedia headlines.In addition, the well-publicizedLove Canal event has been used tofuel the antiindustry activity of theenvironmentalists as well as to attackthe chemical industry head on.It is generally agreed that Hookerwas using the best techniques availablefor dumping wastes at the time,in full compliance with the law as itwas then written. To find a companyguilty of wrongdoing under these circumstanceswould condemn the entireindustry to extinction; in effect,no standards would exist that, whenfollowed, could remove the industry'sfuture responsibility.—Dr. RichardPollak4. The staff recommends that Pennsylvania's future(next 20 years) or additional etectricai energyneeds be met by non-nuclear means - primarily coal,conservation, cogeneration and renewable energysources.5. The staff does not recommend that new nuclear powerbe excluded as a future supply option.A page from the Pennsylvania draft energy plan. Who does the governor'sstaff think they are kidding?Penn. Energy Plan Excludes NuclearThe Governor's Energy Council ofPennsylvania this May released a DraftEnergy Plan for excluding nuclearpower from the state's energy future.While the plan's specifics are sometimesself-contradictory, overall itmandates a de facto ban on expansionof nuclear power facilities and thepermanent shutdown of Three MileIsland Units 1 and 2.Titled "Pennsylvania EnergyChoices: An Energy Policy Plan forPennsylvania," the document statesthat "increasing economic uncertainties,coupled with tenuous utility financingcapability, have made nuclear'the first to go.' . . . The staffrecommends that in Pennsylvania'sfuture [for the next 20 years] additionalelectrical energy needs be met wherefeasible by nonnuclear means—primarilycoal, conservation, cogeneration,and renewable energy resources."The phrase "where feasible" ischaracteristic of the report, whichcites the crushing costs of making uppower lost by Three Mile Island'sshutdown, yet supports the KemenyCommission report on Three Mile Islandalthough it "may well createmore restrictions and financial uncertaintiesthan utilities can afford."As for "nonnuclear means," the reportis replete with studies on "urbanwaste, biomass, energy plantations,wind and forests," but does not evendevelop a credible plan for the hightechnologyuse of coal, a plentifulstate resource. Instead, the report reliesheavily on the recent HarvardBusiness School Energy Future study,projecting "a 20 percent contributionby solar by the year 2000."The Pennsylvania Energy Plan doesadmit to one big problem: How doyou convince people to invest in energypolicies that don't produce anything?Rather than stressing investmentin the energy efficiency that haspushed foreign industrial productivityfar ahead of U.S. productivity, thereport stresses energy conservation,advocating mandatory investment incogeneration and "deregulation ofelectricity generation" to decentralizeutilities and close off their capitalmarkets access.As for convincing the nuclear industryto go nonnuclear, the reportblithely urges that nuclear advocatesgive up: "There is a real possibility,particularly in the United States, oflosing three decades of technology aspersons with very specialized skills areforced to seek employment outsidethe nuclear power field and as thedim prospects for renewed growthretard the recruitment and training ofnew scientists, engineers, and technicians.. . . Those who worked thehardest to make the nuclear dream areality will have to concede on somethings they deeply believe themselvesto be correct about. Otherwise theywill see their dream dissolve forever."The Governor's Energy Council reportstates that its conclusions do notnecessarily represent those of GovernorThornburgh. Thornburgh, whohas continued to generate antinuclearhysteria over TMI, has not yet reportedany dissension from the plan.—Mary GilbertsonSeptember 1980 FUSION 59

AAAS-Brookings Conf.:Nonscience AgenciesCall R&D TuneThree-hundred government, industry,and academic representatives atthe annual American Association forthe Advancement of Science conferenceon U.S. research and developmentpolicy held June 19-20 in Washington,D.C. heard Dr. Frank Press,director of the Office of Science andTechnology Policy, and Dr. John C.Sawhill, deputy secretary of the Departmentof Energy, announce thatthe federal government has laid downexplicit R&D guidelines mandatingmilitary, energy, and agricultural researchas top priority.In an era of budget cuts and inflation,they emphasized, this will meanpruning other areas and stressingshort-term applied programs ratherthan long-term commitments to basicscience.University researchers were toldthat their funding will depend ontheir pursuit of "deep-ocean drillingtechniques and economy auto research"as major priorities. CommentedDr. Edward Frieman, directorof the DO(E Office of Energy Research:"It's a gloomy environmentfor R&D at universities. We'll have tocut 1,500 from the national laboratories."Othel' speakers protested thatU.S. basic itesearch was being hinderedby a lack of equipment."Synfuels! is the key to energy development,"said Dr. Sawhill; "thesynfuels program must be carried outwith the support of the bankers andthe scientists, and the program will bemobilized like the space program."Omitting any mention of nuclearpower in his prepared remarks, Pressalso emphasized synfuels while callingfor the United States to take the leadin energy exploitation of biomass.Other presentations stressed the recentlypromulgated memorandum byJack Watson, White House liaisonwith the Federal Emergency ManagementAgericy (FEMA) and James T.Mclntyre elf the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB), urging topdowncontrol and coordination byFEMA and t>MB of local and regionaltechnology applications.The Washington-based BrookingsInstitution, which collaborated withNEW CHEMICAL PROCESSPRODUCES URANIUM FUELThe first shipment of uranium oxideproduced by a new processwas sent recently from InternationalMinerals and Chemical Corporationin Florida to be enrichedinto nuclear reactor fuel. The uraniumoxid$ is the first producedfrom phosphoric acid at the IMCrefinery, which began commercialproduction 1 in May. The new processtakes advantage of the byproductsof IMC's phosphatechemicals plants by extracting thevery small amounts of uraniumnormally present in these phosphates.IMC shipping officialsmonitor part of the initial 30,000-pound shipment.60 FUSION September-1980the AAAS in organizing the conference,was represented by its directorof economic studies, Dr. Joseph Pechman,who summarized the R&D fundingapproach: "I do not see a distinctionbetween creating wealth andredistributing wealth."Keep MaineYankee Operating!Maine is the first state in which areferendum will decide whether toshut down an operating nuclear plant,the Maine Yankee. The referendumwas placed on the September ballotafter 1,500 environmentalists from theEast Coast gathered 55,000 signaturesduring several months of petitioning.We are pleased to reprint here theremarks of Abbot Fletcher, assistantprogram manager of the FFG programat Bath Iron Works, one of the leadersof the pronuclear fight. The FFG programis building 16 guided missilefrigates for the U.S. Navy.The Maine Yankee nuclear plantcarries one-third of the state ofMaine, provides power at 1.6

SygmaThe neutron bomb debate: Traditionalist French military thinkers have opposed tactical neutron bombs as inappropriategiven Soviet military doctrine. The latest advances, however, can be used in the civilian nuclear program to generatelarge amounts of fissile fuel cheaply. Shown here is a French bomb in the Pacific Island of Mururoa.French Gain Reported in Nuclear WeaponsResearchers working on the developmentof French nuclear weaponshave reportedly achieved a major scientificbreakthrough in the course oftheir neutron bomb experiments inthe Pacific. According to the June 7-8 issue of the French daily Quotidiende Paris, French scientists have overcomethe barriers to construction oflarge-scale neutron bombs.Previously it was believed that neutronbombs were limited to a size of1 kiloton of TNT equivalent, andtherefore capable only of tactical battlefieldapplications. This reflects considerationsof the kind of fusion fuelused and how the fuel is burned andignited. Tritium has a half-life of 1,1years and is expensive; U.S. N-bombsare said to depend on tritium fuel.Other fuels such as lithium deuteride,used in ordinary H-bombs, have thedisadvantage of absorbing and degradingfusion-generated neutrons.In most seemingly practical configurations,such as a sphere, the unburnedfusion fuel itself absorbs anddegrades fusion-generated neutronsas the thermonuclear burn wave,which is generated at the core of acompressed fuel configuration, heatsand ignites the cold outer layers offusion fuel.If this report is confirmed, Frenchscientists have made significant advancesin understanding either thedynamics of thermonuclear burnwaves, thermonuclear ignition at highdensities, development of totally newtarget approaches, or all three.From a strategic point of view,Quotidien de Paris commented thatthis breakthrough will further ensurethe national security of France fromthe energy standpoint as'well as thedefense standpoint, and supersedethe debate on deployment of "tactical"neutron bombs with developmentof a new generation of strategicweapons. Another French daily, LeFigaro, was less sanguine about thecontribution to France's security.French Nuclear Program Alarming?The May 1980 issue of Bild der Wissenschaft, the highest-circulationpopular science magazine in West Germany, features an article onFrance's full nuclear fuel cycle program by Martin Urban that views theFrench program with alarm. Bild expresses unsubstantiated concernsabout "radioactivity blowing over the border to Germany" and otherdangers from alleged safety problems that might arise from the massproduction of nuclear power reactors that France has pursued.Considerable influence on the magazine's editorial policy is exercisedby Robert Jungk, the most prominent West German opponent of nuclearpower. To European environmentalists, what Bild describes as "thecentrally directed, results-oriented atomic energy policy" has become amatter of the utmost concern. Unlike the U.S. situation, the environmentalisthave been unable to stop or delay France's progress.September 1980 FUSION 61

Siberian development is at thecenter of the new Soviet energyplan. Above: Andrei P. Kirilenko;At right: an engineer at the NovosibirskHydrodynamics Institutepreparing the explosion opticalchamber. Welding by explosionshas created more than 100 metaland alloy compounds here.Soviet UnionPressing EnergyDevelopmentTass from SovlotoSoviet Politburo member A.P. Kirilenko stressed the expansion ofnuclear power in a speech on energy development June 3 to thegovernment's Central Committee, which is now deliberating on theSoviet Union's new Five Year Plan. The danger of war "dictates thenecessity for successful implementation of the development plans forSoviet electrical energy, which play a key role in the further growth ofthe country's economic and defense potential," Kirilenko stated.Declaring that the Carter administration's economic sanctions againstthe Soviet Union will fail, he stressed the need to plan the energy baseof the future: "This means expansion of the construction of nuclearpower stations with fast breeder reactors," he said, "the development ofwork on thermonuclear fusion power, solar and geothermal energy, andthe phenomenon of superconductivity."Siberia is expected to make growing contributions to the SovietUnion's tenergy base. More broadly, its scientists and planners arepromoting the Siberian emphasis on large-scale integrated industrializationprojects and scientifically based Investment decisions as crucial todrafting the 11th Five Year Plan. The Siberian division of the SovietAcademy! of Sciences has issued a program called Sibir for the scientificdevelopment of Siberia as the basis of the region's economy, and arerefining if through tests on the Novosibirsk econometric models.The Wf st German-Soviet industrial cooperation accord reached at theend of Mby is expected to help shape Soviet energy planning. Accordingto West German corporate executives, a decision to implement a giganticnew natural gas pipeline between the two countries could be taken inthe middle of this year, pending the results of Chancellor HelmutSchmidt's discussions in Moscow at the end of June.62 FUSION September 1980

EnvironmentalistRoundupArgentina,Brazil UniteOn Atomic EnergyNuclear energy was in the forefrontof the agreements reached betweenArgentina and Brazil during an historicmeeting of their presidents May14-17, pointing the way toward theintegration of nuclear plans throughoutSouth America.On the nuclear front, the ArgentineAtomic Energy Commission and Brazil'sNuclebras signed three contractsproviding for joint applied nuclearresearch. Argentina will also provideBrazilian reactors with the zirconiumtubes and sheaths for holding reactorfuel, while Brazil will sell reactor vessels.Since the West German KraftwerkUnion is building the nuclearplants in both countries and has heavilyinvested in Brazil's Nuclep facility,the largest nuclear engineering plantin the Third World, it is expected thatthe German firm will approve Brazilianmanufacture of the metal corevessel for Argentina's planned 600-megawatt plant.Proposals for a Sudatom organizationto provide South America withnuclear integration comparable tothat of Euratom, the Western Europeannuclear organization, were extensivelydiscussed at the World Congresson Nuclear Law in Buenos Aireslast October. The prerequisite "marriage"—touse Brazilian President Figueiredo'sterm—between the twopowers in the region with active nuclearenergy programs had been lacking.Now Argentina and Brazil arecommitted to helping all the remainingcountries of South America (exceptGuyana) initiate nuclear energyprograms. Figueiredo pursued hismetaphor by announcing that Argentinaand Brazil will now agree "howmany children to have and how toeducate them."Editorial AtlantidaFuel rod assembly at the Atucha nuc/earplant in Argentina.India AchievesBreakthroughOn MHD ResearchIndian scientists scored an importantbreakthrough May 22 when anIndian-manufactured magnetohydrodynamic(MHD) generator was successfullytested at Soviet facilities. TheIndian team of scientists and engineersfrom the Bhabha Atomic ResearchCenter was led by Dr. V.K.Rohatgi. Reporting the testing success,Rohatgi indicated that the generatoris wholly based on Indianknowhow and independently designedand built by Indian specialists.The Soviet Union and the United,States are considered the only twocountries with significant MHD progress.For India, the MHD program andits initial success point toward efficientuse of the country's abundantbut low-grade coal reserves. The nextphase for Indian MHD work is establishmentof a pilot plant similar to theU-25 in operation in the Soviet Union,followed by a commercial powerplant at Tiruchi in the southern stateof Tamil Nadu.September 1980'GE-3' ChallengeItalian Nuclear SafetyA trio of discredited U.S. antinuclearspokesmen known as the"GE-3" has issued a widely circulatedreport challenging the safety of Italiannuclear reactor design. The group,called MHB Associates of San Jose,California (it stands for Minor, Hubbard,and Bridenbaugh), made frontpageheadlines here in the 1970swhen they resigned in protest overalleged safety violations in GeneralElectric's nuclear reactor design.Creative Karma?Subsequent investigations revealedthat the trio's "road to Damascus"conversion into the antinuclearmovement's Union of Concerned Scientistswas accomplished via a quasireligioustransformation at a California-basedconsciousness-raising centerknown as the Creative InitiativesFoundation. (This foundation's personnel,by the way, won't talk to youon the telephone unless you tell thespokesman your "karma" first.)MHB was invited into Italy by theFriends of the Earth and their smallantinuclear party, the Radical Party.The Italian nuclear industry has attackedthe report as "not a technicaldocument" but an alarmist collectionof false assumptions and misleadingcorrelations.NRC Backs UCSGroup's PetitionThe Nuclear Regulatory Commissionhas approved a complex legalprocedure that could eventually shutdown the Indian Point, N.Y. nuclearreactor, 30 miles north of New YorkCity. The procedure, based on a pe-FUSION 63

tition from the antinuclear Union ofConcerned Scientists, could also be aprecedent for shutting down a numberof other reactors located nearurban areas."Procedurally, [the NRC] has doneabout everything we asked for," commentedUnion of Concerned Scientistsspokesman Robert Pollard.The NRC procedure mandates reviewof the "effects of the worst-possiblenuclear accident—a core meltdown—onlocal residents," for thefirst time requiring reviewers to lookbeyond the usual 10-mile radiusaround the plant when consideringthe government and utility emergencyevacuation plans.The five NRC commissioners ruledon the petition in an unusual decisionto review an earlier action of NRCreactor regulation chief Harold Dentonwhere he agreed to decommissionone obsolete Indian Point reactorbut refused to order two newer onesout of service.Seabrook DemoCosts Taxpayers...One little-publicized aspect of theMay and June 1980 antinuclear assaultsby environmentalist groupsagainst the Seabrook, N.H. nuclearfacility is the cost to taxpayers of guaranteeingpublic safety at the site.When demonstrators attempted tooccupy the Manchester headquartersof the parent utility, PSC, 58 peoplewere arrested. The cost? PSC spokesmanNorman Cullerot said: "Iwouldn't be surprised to see the figureup to three-quarters of a milliondollars."More than 200 state troopers fromfive New England states joined 200National Guardsmen and 100 privatesecurity guards hired by PSC to avertthreatened acts of violence at the Seabrookplant site. The state of NewHampshire has appropriated $177,000to pay the state police salaries; theremaining cost will be paid by theutility.Despite the costly antics, demonstratorsfailed in their stated objectivesto occupy the site or slow construction.—W///iam EngdahlFusion NewsThe Princeton Large Torus reached new record temperatures in May.PLT ReachesRecord TemperaturesThe Princeton Large Torus tokamakat the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory(PPPL) reached record temperaturesclose to 80 million degreeswith an increased neutral-beam heatingpower of 2.4 million watts in May.In summer 1978, the PLT vyas thefirst major magnetic confinement fusionsystem to go beyond the fusionignition temperature of 44 million degreesCelsius while maintaining a stablyconfined fusion plasma. Usingneutral beam heating supplied by theOak Ridge National Laboratory inTennessee, the PLT reached temperaturesof 70 million degrees in 1978(see Fusion, Oct. 1978).The PLT retained the same stableplasma parameters of 1978 at thehigher ternperature: more than 30trillion plasma ions per cubic centimeterdensity and 25 thousandths ofa second g obal energy confinementPPPLtime. The continuing success of thePLT further ensures that Princeton'sTokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR),due to begin operation in 1981, willreach, and even go beyond, breakeven.Exploring the Fusion RegimePPPL scientists are continuing to exploreimportant aspects of the "fusionregime" with the PLT as well as thePoloidal Divertor Experiment (PDX).Although the spectacular results ofthe PLT demonstrate the scientific viabilityof the tokamak approach tofusion, it is actually the more mundaneaccomplishments of the PDXthat are of immediate significance fordeveloping a practical tokamak powerplant design.The PDX, an even larger tokamakthan the PLT, is designed as one ofthe most versatile experiments inmagnetic confinement research in the64 FUSION September 1 1980

world. It is demonstrating techniquesfor removing impurities and fusionreaction ash from tokamak plasmaswith a "magnetic poloidal divertor."Impurity control is the most difficultquestion involved in actually constructingthese machines, accordingto designers working on the U.S. EngineeringTest Facility tokamak reactorand the international test reactorIntor, both of which are designed todemonstrate the overall technologyneeded for practical power plants.Preliminary results from the PDXindicate that the poloidal divertor indeedworks. Basically, the poloidaldivertor is a "hole" in the confiningmagnetic bottle configuration that allowsthe surface of the tokamakplasma to be scraped off and removedin an attempt to achieve a pure hydrogenplasma. The PDX has shownthat this can be accomplished whilesimultaneously maintaining a stableconfinement of the remaining plasma.Furthermore, impurities such as oxygenand carbon are significantly removed.Difficulties have arisen, though, inthe case of titanium removal. Whilethe titanium content of the plasma atfirst decreases, at a later point in thetokamak discharge the titanium contentincreases. It must be remembered,however, that this is only thebeginning of impurity control experimentsin the PDX.Increasing DensityThe PDX is also exploring methodsof increasing the fusion power densityrelative to the strength of the confiningmagnetic field.Changing the shape of the tokamakplasma is believed to be one of themost important methods to accomplishthis. The PDX has carried outpreliminary experiments in which thecircular cross section of the tokamakdonut is transformed into a D or aninverted D shape. Theory suggeststhat these configurations will allowthe same plasmas to be containedwith weaker magnetic fields, and thePDX results indicate that the invertedD is the most stable. More experimentsare planned with further elongationof the D shape with increasedneutral beam heating of 6 millionwatts by the end of the summer.Winterberg ProposesNew Pellet DesignFor Inertial FusionIn a recent paper, Dr. FriedwardtWinterberg of the Desert ResearchCenter in Nevada proposed a newapproach to the design of pellets forinertial confinement fusion. AlthoughWinterberg, who pioneered many ofthe concepts in inertial confinementfusion, has developed his new approachwith impact driver systems primarilyin mind, his pellets could, theoretically,be used by any inertialdriver system. The importance of hisproposal lies in its potential to drasticallydecrease the driver power-intensitylevel necessary for fusion ignitionand burn.Winterberg's idea is to place thefusion fuel pellet in the center of avery thin-shelled spherical cavity inwhich blackbody radiation has beentrapped. The driver energy—laser,electron, or ion beams or an impactfusion projectile—would not implodethe pellet directly but, rather, thethin-shelled cavity of blackbody radiation.By arranging this implosionto compress the blackbody radiationadiabatically, the temperature of theradiation can be efficiently and rapidlyincreased.Since the power intensity of radiationscales with increased temperatureto the fourth power, the powerintensity of the blackbody radiationthus increases greatly. This implosionsystem, therefore, acts as a radiationpower amplifier, taking low-powerradiation and the hydrodynamic energyof the imploding cavity andtransforming it into high-intensity radiation,primarily of short wavelength.Driver Power LevelThe pellet at the center of the cavityis then imploded by the high-intensityradiation produced. Preliminary calculationsindicate that the necessaryvelocity of an impact fusion projectile,for example, can be decreased from200 kilometers per second to 50 kilometersper second, to achieve fusionSeptember 1980ignition and burn. Roughly speaking,this means that the power level of thedriver can be decreased by more thanan order of magnitude by this amplificationsystem. Obviously, correspondingdecreases in the power levelsof other inertial drivers would alsoresult.In fact, the benefits of using adiabaticallycompressed blackbody radiationin the fusion target are numerousand increase the possibilitiesfor inertial fusion drivers of decreasedtechnological diff'culty. Chemical explosives,for example, could be usedWINTERBERG'S PELLET DESIGNThe Winterberg pellet designuses blackbody radiation trappedin a fusion fuel pellet toincrease the temperature of theimplosion. This design theoreticallymakes it possible to decreasethe power level of thefusion driver (laser, ion, or electronbeams) by more than ani order of magnitude and also touse a less technically difficultdriver system, (n this schematic,{fie driver implodes the thinshell cavity of blackbody radiation,compressing it and increasingits temperature andamplifying its radiation power.This high-intensity radiationthen implodes the fusion fuelpellet.FUSION 65

as the primary driver to implode thethin-shelled sphere. The primarydriver no longer has to achieve anisentropic, stable implosion since thecompressed blackbody radiation, likethe soft X-rays suggested by Sovietfusion scientist L.I. Rudakov, will accomplishthis.Winterberg's latest idea could, indeed,transform the entire spectrumof inertia! confinement fusion research.MultidimensionLaser DevelopedWorking at the Lebedev Physics Institutein Moscow, Dr. Z. Gy. Horvathof the Hungarian Central ResearchInstitute for Physics has developed anew laser system that emits coherentlight across 360 degrees, in the shapeof a circular plane or halo. As Horvathreported in the June issue of LaserFocus, his circular laser system couldbe applied for reference planes, atmosphericcommunications amongseveral nearby terminals, and laserfusion.Although to date lasers have operatedin only one dimension—a "pen-MULTIDIMENSIONAL LASERDESIGNThe multidimensional laser systemgenerates light in two dimensionsin the shape of a halo.The circular plane of light formsa flat cylinder that moves outwardfrom a cylindrical resonator.cil" of laser light emitted by the systemof mirrors used to amplify thebeam—Dr. Horvath's system generateslight in two dimensions, with theoutput forming a flat cylinder movingoutward from the cylindrical resonator(see figure). A further possibility,applicable to laser fusion, is a threedimensionalspherical laser, the "laserlamp."If such a laser lamp could be modifiedto direct its light inwardly towardthe center of a hollow sphere inwhich the! fusion target would beplaced, it rrjight lead to a real advancein inertial Confinement fusion. Someof the advantages of such a hypotheticalsystem^ would be the uniformityof the inc dent energy and the removalof unnecessary interveningmirrors.Rochester LabMakes Laser AdvanceFusion scientists at the University ofRochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics(LLEj have made a major technologicaladvance with high-powerglass lasers for inertial confinementfusion reslearch, converting longerwavelengthlight to the short-wavelengthlight necessary for fusion.An important parameter that determinesthe efficiency with which fusionpellets can be imploded to starlikedensjties and fusion ignitiontemperatures is the wavelength of thelaser light used. Simply put, theshorter the wavelength (that is, thehigher the frequency) of the laserlight, the more efficiently it is absorbedby the fusion pellet and themore suitable that absorption is forachieving high compressions of fusionfuel.High-pdwer laser systems used ininertial confinement research arechiefly bcised on the neodymiumdopedsolid state glass technology.The primaVy output of the neodymiumlaser ijs light of 1.06 microns wavelength.But fusion pellet designerscurrently believe that shorter wave-lengths of 0.69 to 0.25 micron will beneeded for driving the implosions ofbreakeven inertial fusion targets.Shorter-Wavelength ExperimentsShorter-wavelength laser absorptionexperiments have been carriedout at Lawrence Livermore Laboratoryin California, the Ecole Polytechniquein Paris, KMS Fusion in Michigan, andthe Rutherford Lab in Great Britain,using KDP (potassium-dihydrogenphosphate) crystals to convert the1.06-micron glass-laser light to shorterwavelengths. These experiments havetended to show a marked improvementin the efficiency and quality oflaser light absorption at shorter wavelengths.Plans have been developedto include KDP crystals in the largebreakeven lasers scheduled to becompleted by the mid-1980s, in particularLivermore's mammoth Novalaser, which will first attain an outputof several hundred thousand joulesand then be scaled up to 400 kilojoules.Until the recent results at LLE, however,it was believed that less thanhalf of the 1.06-micron laser light outputof Nova could be converted to0.53 micron (green light), and lessthan this converted to 0.35 micron(blue light).Under the recently implementedDepartment of Energy policy of determining"lead laboratories" in specificareas of inertial confinement research,LLE had been directed tooversee research on methods of convertingglass laser light to high frequencies(shorter wavelengths). Ateam consisting of Stephen Craxton,Stephen Jacobs, Wolf Seka, JosephRizzo, and Robert Boni has been carryingout experiments using the LLEGlass Development Laser (GDL) to explorevarious configurations. The GDLwas the prototype beam utilizedto develop the technology for themultibeam Omega laser system onwhich fusion pellet experiments arecarried out.In May the LLE team succeeded inconverting 1.06-micron light to 0.35micron at an efficiency in excess of 80percent. This was accomplished at apower density of 1.5 to 2.5 gigawattsper square centimeter, using two 12-millimeter thick KDP crystals. Al-66 FUSION September 1980

though the LLE conversion system wasbased on the same fundamental principlesas previous, less efficient systems,the configuration of angles usedin the optics was far more complex.Optical parametric mixing, used bythe LLE researchers, is a process inwhich the coherent electromagneticwaves of laser light nonlinearly interactwithin an appropriate crystal suchthat the waves are added together togenerate new electromagnetic wavesof doubled frequency. A threefoldincrease in frequency is accomplishedby mixing already doubled frequencylight with the primary 1.06-micronbeam.Future PlansLLE scientists believe that 9-millimeterKDP crystals will achieve evenbetter results. LLE plans to incorporatethis conversion system for frequencytripling on six beams of the mainlineOmega system to carry out full-scalepellet experiments with the shorterwavelengthlaser light. If this LLE conversionsystem proves to be capableof scaling to higher power levels whilemaintaining the optical quality of thelaser beams generated, it could markone of the major technological advancesin laser fusion research of thedecade.Impending Change inClassification Policy?The U.S. Department of Energy isabout to implement a major relaxationin the top secret classification ofresearch in inertial confinement fusion,according to informed Washingtonsources. This action will resultfrom the fact that major portions ofscientific work at the U.S. nationalweapons laboratories at LawrenceLivermore and Los Alamos have beendeclassified "de facto" through thelitigation and publication of the famousProgressive magazine article onthe H-bomb.A relaxation in the stringent guidelinesthat currently suffocate U.S. laserfusion research will be greatly welcomedby most leading scientists inthe field.CDCThis comparison of the large-scale integrated (LSI) circuitry (left) used in theCDC Cyber 205 and the equivalent logic of the CDC's first supercomputermodel, the STAR-TOO shows the advances in computer logic technology.CDC AnnouncesPowerful SupercomputerControl Data Corporation announcedthe world's most powerfulsupercomputer system, the CYBER205, in early June.In its maximum configuration, thenew system is capable of performingup to 800 million operations in a singlesecond. This is up to eight timesfaster than any of the company's previousmodels and more than threetimes faster than any other computercurrently available.CDC has billed the computer asespecially designed to solve the criticalproblems of the 1980s, in terms ofmatching the need for three-dimensionalprocessing of huge volumes ofdata such as those associated withfusion research, nuclear plant safety,petroleum exploration, and structuralanalysis, as well as the billions of calculationsrequired for more accurate24-hour weather forecasts.The predecessor of CYBER 205, theCYBER 203, is now being used in avariety of nuclear power plant applicationsand in laser fusion research.The new system offers a number ofperformance improvements over theearlier system, including: centralmemory capacity up to 4 millionwords; virtual memory capacity rangingto 2 trillion words, utilization ofcombined vector/scalar processing;utilization of both 64-bit and 32-bitarithmetic operations; and up to 16input-output ports, each capable ofhandling 200 million bits per second,resulting in an expanded I/O bandwidthof 3.2 billion bits per send,highest in the industry.In addition, the CYBER 205 is theonly supercomputer in the industryusing large-scale integrated (LSI) circuitry,which increases reliability andsimplifies maintenance. The systemuses only 29 different types of plug-inLSI circuit chips.September 1980FUSION67

A CDC spokesman said that thenew system was especially designedto handle the processing of data relatedto the search for new and alternateenergy sources; management ofthe production and distribution ofenergy products; production of accurate,long-range weather forecastsand processing of other environmentaldata that affect agriculture, worldfood supplies, and prices; design andmanufacture of aircraft and automobilesthat are cost-effective and fuelefficient;design and operationalanalysis of nuclear power plants toensure increased safety; design andanalysis of large-scale constructionranging from skyscrapers and bridgesto hydropower dams and offshore oildrilling platforms.In each of these activities, CDCspokesman said, huge volumes of informationmust be processed, sorted,and compared, and pertinent resultsPhoto by Larry Hincbner, courtesy of Lampson'OVER-THE-TOP' REACTOR INSTALLATION WlTH GIANT CRANE"Transi-Lift," the world's largest transportable

Computer ApplicationsTo MHD ResearchFor 20 years, U.S. scientists havebeen conducting experiments on laboratory-scaledevices to develop amagnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator.MHD is a process of convertingheat directly to electricity by the interactionof a plasma and an externalmagnetic field.Optimizing this potentially efficientdirect-conversion process has requiredan intricate balance between themagnetic field strength, the electricalconductivity of the plasma, and thespeed of the plasma flow. To predictthe efficiency of conversion as theseparameters are changed experimentally,a series of computer codes hasbeen developed to indicate with considerableaccuracy the best combinationsfor the laboratory experimenter.Based on the physics equations thatdetermine the turbulence of the fluidflow, these codes can predict the resultsof manipulating the experimentalparameters, eliminating the need fortrial-and-error experimentation.MHD computer codes developedsince 1964 by the STD Research Corporationin Arcadia, California, havealso been able to do useful crosscheckingof results obtained on experimentaldevices. For example,computer analyses of results reportedon the Avco Mark Vl-C generator andthe experiment at the University ofTennessee Space Institute revealedsignificant discrepancies between reporteddata and computer predictions.When these discrepancies were discussedwith the experimenters, it wasdiscovered that problems and malfunctionsin the experimental apparatushad produced the anomalous results.Corrections were then made onthe basis of the computer analysis.Projections for the 1980sThe STD computer codes have alsobeen used to analyze how the existinglaboratory-scale MHD generatorsshould be scaled up for pilot plantoperation, based on a multidimensionalanalysis of how the behaviorof the plasma will change with thesize of the device.In the 1980s the first pilot plant, the50-megawatt Component DevelopmentIntegration Facility in Butte,Montana will take MHD into the precommercialstage. Unlike the scalingupof conventional generators, accomplishedby engineers during thelast two decades, components for ascaled-up MHD generator cannot simplydouble in size.Simulating how the behavior of theelectrically conductive plasma—itsvelocity, mass-flow, and magnetic fieldstrength within a changing physicalgeometry of the MHD channel—willchange with size, the computer codeshave been able to identify the critical,defining parameters to optimize theelectric conversion process in powerplant-sizedMHD machines.Physicists involved in MHD theorycan certainly make such calculationswithout a computer, and engineerscould design a machine that will meetthe scientific criteria. But the use ofcomputer codes to optimize the complexinteraction of the plasma in amagnetic field and the engineeringdesign, making multidimensionalphysics systems into an operable machine,will simplify the process ofMHD commercialization.COMPUTER GRAPH OFMHD TEMPERATURE CHANCEThis three-dimensional graphgenerated by the STD computercodes predicts the temperaturechange as an MHD plasma travelsdown the flow train oi the generator(from left): The MHD travelsfrom the combustor, which burnsthe coal and produces the plasma;through the nozzle, which acceleratesit; through the channel,where the electric power is produced;and, finally, out the diffuser.The computer results showthat temperature waves are expectedas an additional function oftime. This graph can be used tocross-check experimental results.September 1980 FUSION 69

Space Science& TechnologyThe Solar Polar Mission:A New Window on FusionEditor's Note: The U.S. House AppropriationsCommittee voted May 9 toterminate the Solar Polar Mission bycutting all its funding in the 1980 supplementalbudget. NASA had alreadypostponed the two-satellite launchdate from 1983 to 1985 in an attemptto meet the committee's budget-cuttingrequirements. The committee'sdecision now goes before the fullHouse vote. Your letters can help turnthe situation around. Write your congressmanand senator and write Rep.)amie Whitten (D-Miss.), chairman,House Appropriations Committee,and Rep. Edward Boland (D-Mass.),chairman. Subcommittee on IndependentAgencies, House AppropriationsCommittee, both at 2426 Rayburn,Washington, D. C. 20515.The Solar Polar Mission, an internationalproject for study of the nearestworking fusion reactor to theEarth—the Sun—promises to provideessential new information for nuclearfusion power development. The missionis jointly sponsored by the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) and the EuropeanSpace Agency (ESA) under a"memorandum of understanding"signed in 1979.By launching two spacecraft to examinethe Sun from opposite polessimultaneously, scientists will obtainthe first three-dimensional view ofthe Sun and its atmosphere, or heliosphere.The probability that theSun's polar regions have much lessactivity than other solar regions willallow scientists to observe and measureprocesses underneath the Sun'ssurface corona—processes revealingmore about the thermonuclear processeswithin the star.Moreover, since the Sun's spots,70 FUSION September 1980magnetic Storms, and other activitiesaffect the Weather, climate, and radiocommunications on Earth, closermeasurements and better understandingof the fundamental scientificprocesses of the Sun will eventuallyallow scientists to predict the changesin communications possibilities necessaryfor improving navigation andradio transmission.The mission will be the first to senda craft outside the plane of the ecliptic(the plane' in which the Earth orbitsthe Sun), which no spacecraft has hadsufficient energy to do before.The two Solar Polar spacecraft, onebuilt by NASA and the other by ESA,will include stationary instrumentswith their sights fixed on specific objects,and instruments mounted on aspinning platform to see in many directions.NASA's Space Shuttle is assigned tolaunch the two spacecraft in a necessaryfirst step to reach Jupiter. Jupiter'simmense gravity will thenboost them free of the plane of theecliptic, and as the craft fly by thegiant planet, they will also make X-raymeasurements.On their mission, the Solar Polarspacecraft are set to explore and addto information on:Corona: In 1962, Mariner II verifiedearlier theories that a solar wind continuouslyblows outward from theSun's corona, or outer halolike layer.Since then, scientists have learnedthat high-speed streams in the solarwind cause periodic magnetic stormson Earth. Scientists suspect that thesestreams originate from holes in thecorona. Spacecraft observations ofthese coronal holes could allow themto predict geomagnetic and auroralactivity as far as 10 days in advance, tohelp shortwave radio communications,navigation, and geological explorationsystems that use magnetometers.Two of the Solar Polar Mission'sinstruments, the white-light coronagraphand an X-ray (ultraviolet)telescope, will give scientists a threedimensionalview of the Sun's corona.Convection layer: Underneath thecorona, closer to the thermonuclearreactions taking place in the core ofthe Sun, is a layer from which it appearsthe Sun's magnetic fields originate.Heat from the fusion reactionscannot escape to space as fast as it isAfter NASA's Space Shuttle launches the two Solar Polar spacecraft,Jupiter's huge gravitational force will boost the spacecraft free of theplane of the ecliptic allowing them to travel to the Sun's poles. An artist'sdepiction of the Shuttle launching appears on page 35.

produced, and the resulting convectionlayer of circulating fluids andenergy contains a great welling ofactivity. In connection with the Sun'srotation, which is faster at the equatorthan at the poles, the convection layerproduces an important variety of effects,including sun spots, solar flares,and prominences. Instruments on theSolar Polar spacecraft will providenew insight into the workings of theSun's convection layer.Solar bursts: High-speed protonsand electrons burst sporadically fromthe Sun. Traveling along magneticfield lines, they whip at near-lightspeed right through the solar wind.They are believed to originate in thehuge, fiery eruptions on the Sun'ssurface, called solar flares. Some seemto linger near the Sun and then sudfdenly flash across space; at othertimes they stream instantly outwardinto space.The Solar Polar Mission plans to"listen" to the radio waves emitted bythese high-energy particles from theSun, and try to track them as theytravel through the solar system, interactingstrongly with radio waves generatedlocally in interplanetary space.The mission craft will also listen tothis form of turbulence and determinehow the solar wind changes asit leaves the Sun or encounters obstaclessuch as the planets./nterste/lar space: Most of the matterand energy coming into the solarsystem from interstellar space isblocked from reaching the Earth, andcan be studied only from a positionoutside the ecliptic plane. The solarwind blocks interstellar gases; the solarwind's magnetic field keeps outlow-energy charged particles; andcosmic rays are also robbed of energyby the magnetic field in the solarwind. The Solar Polar Mission will beable to measure and track these phenomenawhile throwing open a newwindow on galactic space by detectingcosmic rays in their pristine statebefore they reach Earth. Techniquesof triangulation by the experimentsand other space-borne instrumentsnear Earth can locate the regions ofthe sky where gamma rays originateand possibly link them to an identifiableobject or objects.—MarshaFreemanInappropriateTechnologyHouse-Senate Cttee. Allocates$1.45 Billion for Biomass FraudAs part of the Synthetic Fuels Act,the House-Senate Conference Committeehas approved a $1.45 billionallocation for biomass projects overthe next two years—a costly fraud thatwill cut the productivity of U.S. agriculture.Biomass refers to the use of socalledrenewable resources, such ascrops, trees, and plant and animalwastes, in place of fuel or to producenew fuel. Examples include producingmethane from dung (popular in Chinafor the recycling of human waste),producing alcohol from corn, sugar,or other material by fermentation,and the use of corn stalks, straw, andso forth as a heat source.Although proponents admit thatbiomass is far from economicallysound, they hold that this bill willpave the way for the reduction of theU.S. need for imported oil. Some alsoeven say that biomass will provide asolution to what they call the problemof "overproduction" in the farm sector,because it turns food into fuel.At first glance there may appear tobe some merit in schemes that makeuse of "waste." However, a closerlook reveals that biomass is very expensive,highly labor intensive, andenvironmentally unsound.Gasohol: Highway RobberyLet's look at the highly publicizedcase of gasohol, where one part alcoholis mixed with nine parts gasoline,mainly for automotive use. Advocatespropose to produce ethylalcohol (ethanol) by fermentation instills located on individual farms or atcentral points. The fermentation feedstock would be crops such as corn, orsugar from cane or beets.Estimates of current costs indicatethat the alcohol will cost up to twotimes the cost of the gasoline it replaces!Because this is hardly an incentivefor large-scale use, the SyntheticFuels Act includes subsidies tothe gasohol producers. This meansthat taxpayers will be footing the billfor 50 percent of the cost of buildingthe facilities to produce the alcohol,as well as for government tax writeoffplans that will encourage speculativeinvestment and further subsidiesin the form of waiving of highwaytaxes (paid at the pump).Since state and federal highwaynetworks are built and maintained bythese highway tax revenues (whichrange from 4

hoto by C. Srinivasen/United NationsTo the biomass advocates, this labor-intensive process is computed as "nonpetroleumBTUs," with no thought to the overal^ inefficiency of replacingmachines with human labor.require 1.3 billion acres of corn production,four times the entire acreageharvested for all U.S. crops.Calculations used by biomass advocatesto present a more favorablepicture involve using corn stalks andstraw as fuel to operate the stills.Overlooked are the cost of harvest tobring these materials from the field tothe plant (involving labor, machinery,and fuel); the ecological cost in theremoval from the fields of biomassmaterial that replenishes the soil andminimizes soil erosion and water runoff;and the cost of refertilizing thefields (fertilizer is a very energy-intensiveproduct).Biomass proponents are not fazedby these facts, arguing that "nonpetroleumBTUs" are being used to producepetroleum-substitute alcohol.Incredibly, this means that their nonpetroleumbalance sheet substituteshuman labor for mechanical labor!For example, Dr. Miccolis of GeorgeWashington University noted in anevaluation of these data that by using5,000 calories per day of human laborto replace machines, "a positive energybalance can be achieved."Brazil is the example pointed to ofthis "positive energy balance." Thefacts are, however, that Brazil usesnear-slave labor for the productionand harvesting of sugar cane for biomass;workers are paid $3 per day fortheir heavyi manual labor.In additibn, the pollution from thefermentation sites is a costly problem.Brazilian officials have admitted thatSao Paulo':, distilleries pour into therivers the equivalent of the untreatedsewage of a city of 15 million people.The Brazil StoryPerhaps most telling, Brazil is consideringse ling its alcohol and usingthe revenues to purchase oil insteadof making jasohol. Despite its cheaplabor and land, in 1978 it cost 91

Riemannian EconomicsLatest Model Results on West Germany:German Economy 'Impervious' to Oil Price HikeEditor's Note: Fusion has periodicallyreported on the development of theLaRouche-Riemann economic model,launched jointly in 1979 by a team ofFusion Energy Foundation physicistsand Executive Intelligence Revieweconometricians. This column willsummarize on a regular basis the resultsof the computer modelers' studies,which take the economy as laphysical system and use Riemannianmathematics to identify the discontinuitiesessential in economic analysis,prediction, and policy planning.Economies are studied as a trajectorythrough a multidimensional phasespace that incorporates the parametersof time, rate of energy throughput,total physical output of usefulgoods, and the ratio of reinvestiblesurplus to maintenance costs for capita/equipment and labor—a ratio expressedin both volume and energyterms.Total energy intensivity rose, at thesame time these sectors became moreenergy efficient.In the U.S. economy, the oppositehappened. Inyestment shifted awayfrom energy- and capital-intensivesectors, and manufacturers substitutedlabor inputs for capital and energy.Total energy intensity fell, whileindustrial processes themselves failedto become more energy efficient.The consequences are reflected inthe 5.2 percent West German rate ofNet productive investmentBillions of 1970 deutschemarksincrease of manufacturing productivityin 1979, compared with a 1.4 percentincrease in the United States thesame year. The gap is actually larger,because the output per manhour definitionincludes a higher U.S. proportionof output irrelevant to the productivecycle.Computer-generated indices of theWest German economy from 1962through 1979 show that its net investiblesurplus rapidly recovered thepre-oil-crisis rate of increase afterThe latest LaRouche-Riemann studyon the West German economyreached the startling conclusion that"the German economy is almost imperviousto higher oil prices" in thefuture, even though the Federal Republicis twice as dependent on energyimports as the United States. Thereason? As the study shows, the WestGermans have invested in capital-intensive,energy-intensive industrywhile the United States has slid intothe opposite pattern. Total energyconsumption of West German manufacturingrose steadily through the1970s, while American energy consumptionfell, both per unit of outputand per hour worked. In the WestGerman economy, there was a concertedprogram of capital investmentin the most energy-intensive sectors.The LaRouche-Riemann model projected West German capital investmentfor 1980-1983, based on the 1975-1979 trends, as an "optimistic"alternative. The projection assumes a sizable increase in oil prices above1979 levels. Nevertheless, investment rises sharply to 42 billion marks in1983.September 1980 FUSION 73

1975. This index has been at or belowthe zero level in the United Statessince 1974, and in 1979 fell sharplyinto deficit (see Fusion, July 1980).Actual West German investment, netof depreciation, has risen nearly tothe all-time 1960s peak after a deepslump during the oil-price crisis; thisoccurred while American net investment(in constant dollars) had falleninto a $50 billion deficit in 1979 insteadof making up its $10 billion 1975deficit.The FutureThe modelers presented a numberof alternate projections into 1980-1983. The accompanying figure showsthe 1975-1979 trend line projectedinto 1980-1983, with an 80 billion constant-deutschemarkoil price increaseadded to the economy's overheadcosts-during these four future years.All parameters—net surplus, labormaintenance needs, net investment,and the free-energy ratio (net surplusas a proportion of capital and wagecosts)—not only fail to go into a tailspin,but the economy's growth potentialis only slightly below the sameprojection minus the oil surcharge.The study, excerpted in the June 17,1980 issue of the New York-basedExecutive Intelligence Review, comments:"We do not wish to give theimpression that West Germany is aperfect economy. . . . Rather, that nation'sproblems and successes areboth instructive. The functioning ofthe economy by all parameters—exceptliving standards—fell drasticallyafter the 1973 oil price rise, and thenresumed growth at about the previousspeed."There is nothing spectacular here.By our most optimistic scenario, theWest Germans will have barely recoveredtheir 1970 peak growth potentialsome time during 1982. But itcan be stated emphatically that WestGermany has slowly built up sufficientproductivity and energy efficiency tomake it immune from effects of evenfairly substantial price increases."The study also explores the exportgrowth that has provided incentivesfor expanded West German investmentto obtain economies of scale incapital goods industries.—Susan JohnsonNuclear the Safest...Continued Horn page 21cases is somewhat different, the overalleffect is the same. Increases intemperature produce negative reactivityeffects that immediately act toreverse the temperature increase. Ifthe temperature increase is caused bya power increase, the reactor will automaticallyfry to stop the power increase.The obvious question one mightask here is how can you increase thepower leve of a reactor? How canyou start it Up if this negative reactivityalways works to shut it down? Theanswer is that the reactor must bedesigned so that positive reactivitycan be added in a completely controlledmanner in order to make thesum of the two reactivities slightlypositive, allowing the reactor to startup and reach various operating powerlevels. This is accomplished by slowlywithdrawing banks of control rodsand stopping the withdrawal whenthe desired power level is attained. Ifany abnormality occurs at any powerlevel that causes even a slight increasein core terrjperature, the reactor willbegin to shut itself down.The Design Basis AccidentThe last part of the defense in depthconcept is the engineered safety systems.Here the designer assumes thateverything else fails to prevent anaccident. The designer selects theworst conceivable accident possiblethat is just on the borderline of beingincredible (that is, not possible) andthen designs the plant to withstandthe effects of such an accident and toprevent any harm to the plant personneland the surrounding area.This just-short-of-impossible accidentis termed the design basis accident.After tens of thousands of manhoursof analysis and investigationby hundreds of safety engineersthroughout the world, the conclusionwas that the design basis accident fora light water reactor (either a pressurizedwater or boiling water reactor) isthe loss of coolant accident or LOCA.In a LOCA, a massive rupture of theprimary coolant system causes thewater to depressurize, followed byrapid flashing to steam and a blowdownof this steam water mixture outof the ruptured pipe. The cause ofthe massive rupture is assumed to bea primary coolant pipe that breaks inhalf, although this could not actuallyhappen, even if there were an earthquake,since reactors are also designedto withstand earthquakes. Theblowing down of this steam-watermixture would soon cause the reactorcore to heat up, the fuel to melt, andradioactive fission products to escapethe core—if the reactor safety designerhad stopped his work on theproblem here.Multilevel Containment BarriersBut to ensure that this doesn't happen,the safety engineer provides asmany physical containment barriers asnecessary to prevent the release ofdangerous levels of radioactivity outsidethe reactor building. The accompanyingfigure illustrates these barriers,showing six levels of containment.The first containment level is thefuel pellet itself, which is made ofvery hard, close-grained ceramic uraniumoxide that traps most of theradioactive fission products within itsgrain boundaries during normal operations.To back this up, the fuelpellets less than Vi inches in diameterand 1 inch long are stacked in sealed12-foot tubes of zirconium. Undernormal operation, the pellets andtubes will contain almost all of theradioactive fission products duringthe entire three to four-year lifetimeof the fuel in the reactor.Even during normal operation,however, a few of the zirconiumtubes will leak so that a very smallamount of gaseous fission productswill escape the tubes and mix into theprimary coolant water. Therefore, theprimary coolant system is containedin a pressure vessel with walls 10inches thick and a piping system thatacts as the third containment barrier.This barrier will contain any radioactivematerial that escapes the fueltubes during normal operation andalso will act as the major containmentbarrier if an accident damages thefuel. This primary system has severalfilter systems attached to filter out anyradioactive fission products that arereleased to the coolant and collect74 FUSION September;1980

them in a controlled manner for laterdisposal.Under the* assumed condition thatthe primary coolant system containmentbarrier has been breached inthe required design basis accident,three more barriers are provided tocontain any fission products that escapeout of the ruptured pipes. Firstis the 7-foot to 10-foot thick layer ofconcrete shielding that surrounds thereactor vessel and the primary coolantsystem. Next is the containmentbuilding, which has two barriers: oneis a sealed, steel shell nearly 4 inchesthick designed to a pressure of 60 psi,which can contain any fission products,gaseous or solid, that leak out ofthe ruptured pipe. Outside this shellis more than 3 feet of concrete shielding,which will completely protectanyone outside the building from radiationtrapped inside.These barriers are designed to protectthe surrounding public in thecase of this very severe, design basisaccident. The incident at Three MileIsland was similar to what is called asmall pipe break or rupture, in reactorsafety terminology, and was far lesssevere than the assumed design basisaccident. Hence, given the existingsafety precautions built into the TMIplant, there was never any danger tothe public during that incident lastyear.Core Cooling SystemsThe other problem in safely containingradioactive fission products is,as mentioned earlier, that they giveoff heat long after the reactor is shutoff and must always be cooled. Inorder to assure that cooling is alwaysavailable, the other major line of engineeredsafety systems involves redundant,in-depth core cooling systemsto guarantee that water is alwaysavailable to the reactor core evenunder the conditions of the extremelysevere design basis accident. In otherwords, the back-up core cooling systemsare designed to keep the fuelfrom failing and melting under eventhese severe circumstances. If there issome severe failure or melting of thefuel, this back-up system will preventthe so-called core meltdown from occurring.The first line of defense is, ofCourtesy of Metropolitan EdisonAbove: Performance testing in a high-neutron flux environment. Techniciansloading fuel inside the pressure vessel of a pioneer U.S. test reactor at theNational Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. The straight pipes are two of thenine input tubes that have space for inserting samples of reactor fuels andstructural materials to be performance tested. The curved pipes containdetector instruments used to control reactor power.Below: A view of the TMI control room.September 1980 FUSION 75

course, the primary cooling systemitself. In most loss-of-coolant accidents,as long as the primary pumps(or even one out of the four available)keeps running and make-up water iscontinuously supplied, the fuel willcontinue to be cooled indefinitely,The make-up water is automaticallysupplied to the primary coolant systemby a set of large tanks, calledaccumulators, which are held at pressuressomewhat below the normal reactoroperating pressure. Therefore,if a coolant system rupture occurs andthe pressure drops, these accumulatorswill automatically inject waterinto the reactor vessel when the pressurefalls below that in the accumulatortanks.The water make-up system is entirelypassive, that is, it requires nopumps or valves to turn it on. Furthermore,the water in these tanks isborated; dissolved in it is a boron saltthat upon entering the core will absorbneutrons and completely shutdown the reactor, if for some reasonthe control rods have not shut itdown.Under certain hypothetical LOCA's,it is necessary to get water into thereactor core faster and at larger volumesthan the accumulators can supplyit. Therefore, there are two typesof Emergency Core Cooling Systempumps that will automatically turn onwhen certain preset pressures in thevessel are detected. There are bothhigh-pressure and low pressure emergencypumps—several of each—whichwill supply water directly to thereactor vessel and core if needed. Thehigh-pressure pumps are for smallruptures, while the low pressurepumps come on during large rupturessuch as a design basis accident thatrequires large volume and flows. Thegoal of these systems is to get thereactor safely through the initialblowdown phase of such an accidentwhile keeping the core fuel temperaturedown and preventing severefuel failure.Once the initial condition inducedby the blowdown is brought undercontrol by the back-up cooling systems,the reactor can then be broughtdown completely to low pressures (ifit is not already, as would be the casein a large rupture) and switched overto natural convection cooling (nopumps required) through one of thenonruptured coolant circuits. (Thereare always two or more of such coolantcircuits.))What all this means is that reactorsare designed with multiredundantcooling systems that guarantee thatcooling waier will be available to thecore underjany conditions.Ending the 'China Syndrome' HoaxThe 197$ antinuclear film "TheChina Syndrome" promoted one ofthe chief environmentalist myths: The"A 'China Syndrome' isscientifically and physicallyimpossible. ..."scare story! is that even though thereactor is designed to prevent a coremeltdown, it somehow happens andthe molten core forms into a roundglob of very hot fuel that meltsthrough the reactor vessel; drops ontothe concrete floor below, burns itsway through more steel and manyfeet of concrete into the ground below,and eventually gets to China.Along the way, of course, this mythicalfiery g ob would give off fissionproducts, contaminating all groundwater and anything else it touches onits way down.The fact is that such a "China Syndrome"is scientifically and physicallyimpossible^ as should be clear fromthe preceding discussion. First of all,the reactor is designed to contain andcool the worst conceivable accidentpossible, the design basis accident.Since the design basis accident is theworst accident that safety experts canconceive pf happening, this shouldbe the end of the story.However, nuclear safety engineersdo look at so-called hypothetical accidentsalso, just to answer all possiblequestions (or themselves as well as forthe various regulatory agencies. Hypotheticalaccidents are just what theterm impl es: accidents that cannothappen bilit are assumed to happenfor purposes of analysis. Under suchhypothetical assumptions, the coremeltdown could happen only if nocooling water got into the reactorcore for many hours or more. In thiscase, it is likely that as the fuel beganto melt slowly, from the inside of thecore outward, the molten fuel wouldstart dripping onto the massive steelsupport structure, and, perhaps,eventually to the vessel bottom. Thesteel would be a relatively cold materialso that the fuel would immediatelysolidify. Some of it would alsosplatter around when it hit the waterin the vessel bottom, sticking to thesteel walls or falling to the bottom ofthe vessel in solid drops. Since thefuel, in actuality, would be spreadaround the inside of the reactor vesselwalls and other structural material, itwould remain solidified and becooled by conduction through thethick steel walls.All this is to say that in any realreactor, even if meltdown were tooccur, no molten glob melts throughthe vessel and out of the building.The molten fuel would disperse andsolidify again, all within the reactorvessel containment boundary. (Andthis boundary is just number three ofsix different barriers.)Of course, the hypothetical analysisdoes not stop here. Suppose we assumethat none of the above happenedand that a hypothetical moltenglob of fuel finds its way to the vesselbottom. Such a glob might be able tomelt its way through the 10-inch vessel,although this is by no means certain.Assuming that it does, this materialwould have to fall many feet tothe floor of the containment building.The fall itself would cause the moltenmaterial to be broken up and splatteredall over a large area of thebuilding floor. This would ensure dispersal,which would guarantee thatthe material would remain solid andno longer capable of forming a moltenglob that could burn its waythrough the thick concrete floor.In sum, there is no "China Syndrome."To be continuedJon Gilbertson is the director ofnuclear engineering for the FusionEnergy Foundation and a well-knownnuclear safety authority.76 FUSION September^ 1980

PLATO'S ACADEMY . ARCHIMEDES • AVICENNAScienceAnd NonsenseEditor's Note: The proliferation ofpseudoscience and just plain nonsensemasquerading as science in thepopular press as well as the scientificliterature has prompted us to devotea regular commentary on the presscoverage of science. Readers are invitedto send us relevant clippingsand comments.SUPPORTING THE SUPERNATURALAn unsigned article April 12 in theBritish financial weekly The Economistreported that "according to modernphysics, the universe began with a bigbang, in which space and mattermade a sudden explosive appearance—fromliterally nothing."This has to be the case becauseaccording to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,The Economist said, auniverse that has always existed wouldhave run down, would have "died"by now. "The universe, like a clock,should be gradually but inexorablyunwinding, depleting its reserves ofordered energy. . . . Eventually, nearlyall the material of the universe shouldbe burnt out, its reserves of energydissipated into (disordered) radiation."The Economist's conclusion? Sciencemust ultimately submit to irrationalityand magic: "Modern cosmology,then, is faced with twoalternatives. Either some sort ofcosmic regeneration, or time-reversal,must be accepted. Or the big bangwas the beginning of the physicalworld as understood by modern scientists.If the big bang did mark thecreation, what caused it? Astronomersand physicists do not address thatquestion. Like Hume, they would arguethat not all events require causes."If that is so, the big bang, theinitial singularity from which the universeexploded, marked the interfacebetween the natural and the supernatural.Whatever preceded it, ifanything, is beyond the realm of science."Looking at some of The Economist'sausterity policies, one wonderswhether the editors also doubt theefficacy of science after the big bang.THE SEARCH FOR WHAT?The search for quarks, those illusive,nonobservable "fundamentalbuilding blocks of nature," has takena new turn since 1977 when the quarkcalled "bottom" was invented. (Bottom,of course, is supposed to fillsome of the theoretical gaps left bypreviously postulated types ofquarks.)Today, according to various accounts,scientists at the Cornell ElectronStorage Ring are looking for anew type of meson that would resultfrom stripping "bottom" of its companionquark called "antibottom."We're waiting for the headlines thatthey've discovered "bare bottom."'CHINA SYNDROME' FOR DNA?Is there another Three Mile Islandon the horizon, this time in the areaof recombinant-DNA?On May 28, CBS-TV presented anAquarian-style morality play called"The Henderson Monster." Just as themovie "The China Syndrome" containednumerous factual distortionsand half-truths—all of which convenientlycontributed to the antinuclearhysteria that preceded and followedthe sabotage at TMI, "The HendersonMonster" falsely portrayed the scientificbasis and supposed dangers ofthe biological field of recombinant-DNA.The soap opera story line of theTV movie paralleled the developmentsin Cambridge, Mass. in 1977-78when recombinant-DNA research wasblocked by environmentalist actions.Only briefly mentioning the excitingbenefits that this technology holds forsociety,the movie instead focused onthe contrived dangers of the process.The personalities of the individualsinvolved were credible only to themost antiscience environmentalist.The biologist doing the recombinant-DNA research is callous, ambitious, a"Nazi-science" doctor; his protagonistis the drunken literature professorwho chants "small is beautiful" attown meetings; the professor's wifeis the sexually promiscuous researchassistant to the biologist who findspeace when she rejects science andsides with the environmentalists tostop the research.CBS chose as consultants for thismonster Friends of the Earth, and thenetwork told us that the show hasreceived rave reviews.Despite the successes of the recombinant-DNAresearches, the environmentalistscare campaign to shut itdown has not abated. Is this movie atip-off to a new tack?(Our thanks to Anne Marie Vidalfor this item.)NAS UNDER THE GUNThe antiscience mob is on the warpathagainst the National Academy ofSciences. For all its faults, the Academyis one of the few scientific institutionsin the country that has notcompletely succumbed to the waveof kookiness in science' that is expressedin the espousal of so-called renewableenergy resources, the RalphNader-style deification of "safety,"and the general attitude that growthand progress are the banes of modernexistence.When the Academy truthfully reportedthat solar energy is economicallydisastrous, the New York Timeseditorialized that it had been "had"by the Academy. The recent reportfrom the Academy's Food and Nutri-Continued on page 80ROGER BACON • CUSANUS • BRUNO • GALILEO

_The Young Scientist.What IsEnergy?Energy is hydro, oil, coal, gas, nuclearfission, and fusion. Except invery special circumstances, it is notsolar, wind, or biomass. Why do Idistinguish between these two typesof energy sources? Don't they bothprovide ienergy? What is energy anyway?Let's consider three exarhples:1. Lightning strikes a tree in a dryforest. Tpe tree ignites, and soon thewhole frest is ablaze, releasing tremendousamounts of heat.2. A 20-year-old electrical generatorburns hundreds of tons of coal aPopulation(millions)5,000WORLD ENERGY USE: ENERGY ISNT RUNNING OUTThe world population has constantly increasedlits use of energy. The graphshows how energy consumption per person has increased as the worldpopulation increased. The dotted line represents the world population; thesolid line is energy use measured in calories.day to provide electricity for homesand industries in an old Midwesterncommunity.3. A floating nuclear plant off thecoast of India begins to provide heatand electricity to develop modern agricultureand industry for an area includingseveral million people.What are the differences amongthese cases? Obviously, in the firstcase, no useful work is being donewith the large amount of energy releasedby the forest fire. In the secondcase, further transformation (changein composition) of the form of energyis responsible for useful work. In thethird case, larger amounts of moreconcentrated types of energy arebeing used to increase the efficiencyof useful work.All these separate ideas can becombined into one: Energy is thestored-up potentiality (the ability todevelop) that can be used to transformnature in such a way that (1)useful work is done, or (2) a greaterpotentiality is created for future usefulwork, or (3)—most important—both things happen. The energy potentialis contained in the organizedstructures of the physical universe (forexample, fuel). This energy potentialis made into usable energy by thechange of organization and work thatoccurs when it is used.Therefore, the important thingabout energy is that if the propertypes are properly used, we can increasethe amount of energy availablein the future and the benefits fromthe use of each unit (piece) of thatenergy. To do that, however, we mustuse science to constantly discovernew types of energy and new ways toeffectively use that energy (technology).This means that we have to developnew types of energy faster thanwe use up existing energy sources.But at the same time we have to useexisting energy fast enough to givethe world population a high enoughstandard of living to make possible ahigh rate of scientific progress.Will Energy Run Out?How does the history of energy useshow us that it is self-developing andself-expanding? The accompanying78 FUSION September! 1980

figure shows that the world populationhas constantly been increasing itsrate of energy use by inventing new,more efficient types of energy. Thesenew energy sources provide the basisfor further growth by discovery andapplication of even more advancedenergy technologies. This process oftransformation of energy sources andtheir uses—from solar and biomass towood, then coal, oil, and now fissionand fusion—also provides the answerto the question: "But how much energyis there on earth or in the universe?Will we ever run out?"These questions, put in this way,mean that the questioner is using thewrong set of ideas and facts aboutenergy.If we are stuck in a situation withno new science or technology, thenwe will eventually run out of energy.In this fixed (unchanging) situation,there will be a limit (boundary) to theamount of energy we can get fromthe resources available to us. But ifwe move up to a more advancedsituation where there is a new combinationof science, technology, andresources, then there will be a new,higher limit to the amount of energywe can get. Each new combination ofscience, technology, and resourcesmoves up the limit on energy availablefor the population to use. Thenumber of new situations is itselfwithout limit or infinite.Each new situation in the infinitenumber of situations possible is calleda transfinite in relation to all the othersituations. The importance of lookingat the energy situation in terms of thetransfinite is that it gives us a realmeasure of energy. The full measureof any energy source is in the transfiniteprocess of creating the next,better forms of energy.This measure of energy is so powerfuland accurate that it also takescare of the objection to progress usedby some miseducated people today.This is the argument that rapid growthor development creates a lot of waste.The technical name for this waste isentropy, a quantity related to the creationof unusable forms of energy(like friction heat).This argument is not even usuallytrue, since more advanced energytechnologies (usually at higher temperatures)can be fit together withindustrial processes to reduce wasteand increase efficiency. One exampleis the use of heat from nuclear plantsto desalinate (take the salt out of)water or make fertilizer. But even ifsome energy must be "wasted," thatis not important compared to the processof development of new energysources. What is crucial is the growingamount of extra energy available todrive the process of development. Wecall this extra energy free energy. Thepercentage of free energy availablehas been increasing as new, more efficientenergy technologies—like nuclearfission—have been developed.At each stage of history, it may beuseful to do the simple type of countingof the energy used, created, andlost. But in each new situation the oldnumbers cannot be added up continuouslyand carried forward. In someways this situation can be comparedto running partway around a circularrace track suddenly to find that thetrack has turned into a more complicatedsurface like a sphere (globe). Just asyou would need a new set of measurementsto measure your path onthe sphere, so we need new measurementsfor the productivity of energyevery time there is an importantchange in energy and other technology.New TechnologiesAs long as science and progressexist, energy is not restricted by theso-called laws of conservation or entropy.These laws just provide a convenientmeans of counting duringeach stage of technology. Our realneed, however, is the developmentand widescale use of new forms ofenergy, like nuclear fission and fusiontoday. These are the new technologiesthe youth of today will be improvingand using in the future. Evenmore exciting, today's youth will bediscovering new types of energy onearth and in space that have barelyyet been thought of. We will be describingthem for you in future columns.—Dr. Morris LevittBooks ReceivedMcGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of EnvironmentalScience. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. 858 pp., $34.50.To Choose a Future. Ronald Q. Ridkerand William D. Watson. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1980. 410 pp.,$33.50.The Development of the U.S. UrbanSystem. Edgar S. Dunn, Jr. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.192 pp., $65.The New Tyranny: How Nuclear PowerEnslaves Us. Robert Jungk. Binghamton.N.Y.: Grosset and Dunlap, Inc., 1980.200 pp., $10.Robert Oppenheimer: Letters andRecollections, ed. Alice Kimball Smithand Charles Weiner. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1980. 376 pp.,$20.Morality In Medicine. Richard Warner.Sherman Oaks, Calif.: Alfred PublishingCompany, 1980. 137 pp., $7.95.McGraw-Hill Modern Scientists andEngineers, ed. McGraw-Hill EncyclopediaScience and Technology staff. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1980.1,420 pp., $110.World Guide to Battery-poweredRoad Transportation. J.M. Christianand G.G. Reibsamen. New York: Mc­Graw-Hill, 1980. 392 pp., $49.50.Process Heat Exchange. Chemical EngineeringMagazine. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. 488 pp., $34.50.The Many Faces of Suicide, ed. NormanL. Farberow. New York: McGraw-Hill,1980. 446 pp., $18.95.The Quick Knife: Unnecessary SurgeryUSA. Duane F. Stroman. New York: KennikatPress Corp., 1980. 178 pp., $12.50.Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered.ed. V. Kerry Smith, Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1979. 290 pp.,$6.95.The Management of Schisosomiasis.Patricia L. Rosenfield. Washington, D.C.:Resources for the Future, 1979. 136 pp.,$6.75.Manufacturing Processes. Herbert W.Yankee. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1979.740 pp., $23.95.Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries.Marvin Greenberg. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Company, 1980. 400pp., $18.The Big Bang. Joseph Silk. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Company,1979. 394 pp., $18.Continued on page 80September 1980 FUSION 79

Lyndon LaRoucke, Democrat for President, was the first candidate to visit the Sea. . . Our relevant branches ofresearch and development havealmost gone out of existence, andour present monetary and antiadvancedtechnologies policiesabsolutely prevent us fromhoping to match the continuingand growing military potentialsof the Soviet Union.. . . One cannot adopt a"neomalthusian" policy againsttechnological progress in expandedindustrial investment and maintainstrategic parity against nationseffectively pursuing policies ofwhich are promoting science andScientists and Engineers for LaRouche include among their number:Robert J. Moon, PhD,Professor of Nuclear PhysicsUniversity of ChicagoJohn Kozarich. Ph.D.Department of PharmacologyYale School of MedicineTom SawyerFounding Member, AmericanNuclear Society; Founder,Gas Turbine Division, AmericanSociety of Mechanical EngineersIra SeyboldHead of DisometryThree Mile Island: nuclear construction site.scientific potentials of industry andlabor-force... .Let us ccrrect the policies,and go back to a NASA-likeoutlook again. . . (but) theproblem goes deeper than simplychanging policy. . . (it) requires amassive upheaval in our politicalparties' leaderships... . The very existence of ournation—perhaps of all "westerncivilization"—stands in immediatejeopardy unless we can rid ournation of the neomalthusian forcesreflected in Zbigniew Brzezinski's"technetronic"! obsessions.Uwe ParpartDirector of ResearchFusiori Energy FoundationS. Johjn Oechsle, P.E.President, Metal Weld, Inc.Philadelphia. PA(Affiliations for identification only.)President Carter's policies have destroyed America'sscientific and industrial base. According to recentpolls, over 50% of Democrats are fed up with Carter'sincompetence and are demanding an open DemocraticConvention in August. It is time to defendDemand an Open Democratic Convention!Plato's AcademyContinued from page 77tion Board (see National News, thisissue) met a similar fate.The Washington Post has gone sofar in its rage as to call for an investigationof the Academy. After rehashingthe "sins" of the Academy, a Posteditorial pointed out that Philip Handler,the current president of theAcademy will retire next year and thatthe search for a successor is now underway. "Considering its [the Academy's]importance to a much largerconstituency, the qualifications andviews of the candidates should be thesubject of a much wider debate. Theworkings of that club require morescrutiny than they have ever receivedbefore."Ironically, Handler recently editorializedin Science magazine that scientistsshould retreat from the politicalarena and immerse themselves intheir specialties.—yohn SchoonoverBooks ReceivedContinued from page 79Limiting Oil Imports. D. Bohi and M.Russell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1978. 348 pp.. $22.50.Who Goes There: The Search for IntelligentLife in the Universe. EdwardEdelson. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.228 pp., $4.95.Fundamentals of Plasma Physics. V.E.Golant, A.P. Zhilinsky, I.E. Sakharov.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.395 pp., $39.At Highest Risk: Environmental Hazardsto Young and Unborn Children.Christopher Norwood. NewYork:McGraw-Hill, 1980. 248. pp. $12.95.Language and Learning. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,ed., Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1980, 379 pp., $20.00.Science and Technology: A Five YearOutlook. National Academy of Sciences,San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1979, 544pp., $15.00.Competition in the Health Care Sector.Warren Greenberg, ed., Germantown,Maryland: Aspen Systems Corp.,1978, 383 pp., $26.50.Coal: Bridge to the Future. Carroll L.Wilson, Cambridge: Ballinger PublishingCo., 1980, 220 pp., $12.95.80 FUSION September 1980

What would the worldbe like withoutFUSION?MAGAZINE OF THE FUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONSubscribe now!Fill out the membership and subscription blank on this issue's insert card.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines