Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 8 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
Nuclear
Power
To the editor:
May I suggest that before joining Jane Fonda and Dr. Day in anti-nuclear activities, we note what the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE has to say regarding nuclear power, by considering the following quotation from Chemical & Engineering News of Feb. 25, 1980.
The National Academy of Sciences, after an exhaustive four-year study, has concluded that coal and nuclear power are our nation's only choices to meet elctrical demands of the next 30 years. Furthermore, the academy stated that nucler may be the only choice after 1990 because (1) coal rfill be far more valuable as a source of gas and liquid fuel, and (2) coal may put so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that it could trigger a catastrophic change in the climate.
The academy also said that the use of breeder reactors would keep the price of electricity low while extending the domestic supply of uranium for thousands of years. They were cautiously optimistic that nuclear fusion could contribute to our energy needs, but not until after 2010. 4
This study by the academy (hardly a pro-nuclear organization) is based on available facts. Commercial nuclear power plants consume no irreplaceable fossil fuels, release no toxic heavy metals or sulfur or carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, release less radioactivity into the atmosphere, than a comparable-sized coalburning plant (Science, 202, 1045, Dec. 8, 1978), and have an unmatched safety record of zero nuclear-related fatalities.
94.7%