fusion energy foundation

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