Page 4-Saturday, April 7, 1 THIS MEETING OF THE NYDROGEN-MBOW-HAVE-NOTS WILL COME TO ORDER !MR. BRIGHT OF SOUTH AFRICA t7:' j~ 1979-The Michigan Daily I REGRET NWAT FIVE 4 EARS OF WORK BY OUR M0ST 3RILWANT NUCLEAR PMYSICIST5 HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE SECRET! MR. YAMAEL OF ISRAEL? ALAS! OURTOP SCIENTISTS CANNON FIND THE SECRET! The expensive costs of shutting down the Nukes -4 J~APAN ? / 5 0 6LLY! ARfNTINA7? NT QU5, RAR ! EAR t iwg .; - YES! Anti-nuclear activists are pointing at the Three Mile Island power plant disaster as the ultimate evidence for turning the tide against nuclear power and shutting down the nation's entire nuclear network. But turning off the nuclear power switch may prove at least as difficult, and as dangerous, as the uncertain efforts to cool off Three Mile Island. For to contemplate such a move is to confront one of the more tragic ironies of nuclear power: because of the huge cost of atomic reactors, the industry con- siders its economic commitment to nuclear power as irreversible as an uncontrolled meltdown. From the public point of view, the monetary cost and radiation hazards involved in "decommissioning" plants are still unknown, though certain to be extremely high. LEAVING ASIDE the kilowatt costs of operating a nuclear power plant, as com- pared to conventional power plants, let's look at the cost of not operating them. It is far more expensive to shut down a nuclear power plant than a conventional plant even before the cost of disposal of radioactive materials is counted in. 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Eigh ty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom If a t shutdown emporary of a nu- Vol. LXXXIX, No. 150 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Human right IT IS OFTEN the case that there is a lot of hoopla when a bill is passed but, when it comes time for im- plementaton, the legislation is all but forgotten. One blatant example of this flaw characteristic of local, state and national governments involves the city's human rights ordinance, which, when adopted a year ago, was hailed as the most sweeping declaration of human rights ever adopted by a local government. A short time after the law was enac- ted, the Ann Arbor Human Rights 'Department, charged with carrying obit the ordinance, merged with the Personnel Department at City Hall. Biut since the merger took place, the new department has been scarred by severe staff cutbacks, a lack of leader- ship, and no apparent direction. The ordinance was created to curb discrimination in Ann Arbor, but staff nmembers in the department say the city isn't handling any more discrimination complaints than it did a year ago. In fact, the staffers complain that the department has been less ef- ficient in handling the complaints that it does receive. Department staffers blame the troubles on severe staff cutbacks. While that certainly contributes to the difficulties, the real blame should be pointed at our city leaders. Mayor Louis Belcher, who has the ultimate responsibility of seeing that City Council ordinances are properly administered, won't even acknowledge the department's woes. The merger led to a combined loss of four people in the two departments, resulting in a total staff of seven and a budget cut of 35 per cent. But Belcher insists that the merger has created an increase in staff. "I don't see any reason to enlarge the department. Every department in City Hall wants more people," he said. s law ignored Belcher said the budget cutbacks in the Human Right's Department are- com- parable to reductions made in other city offices. Figures on departmental staff and :budget cutbacks for fiscal year 1978-79 reveal, however, that none of these decreases came close to those of the Human Rights Department. So here we have it: a mayor who won't confront, the facts, and a City Council whose members' inaction shows they are just as guilty in their lack of concern for the fate of the department. There are several areas which must be covered if successful implemen- tation of legislation is to take place. In the case of the human rights ordinan- ce, from the time the law was enacted steps should have been drawn up which would allow for this crucial implemen- tation. For instance, one reason why the city isn't adequately administering. the program is that - though it was the subject of wide publicity when it went before Council - few people seem to be aware that the ordinance even exists. Council must see to it that citizens find out about the ordinance. A "Human Rights Booklet" could be created that's modelled after the pam- phlet the city puts out on tenants' rights. That way, people could find out how the ordinance affects them. And if the law gets this added publicity, then Belcher and Council will have less op- portunity to fail to implement it. Proponents of the human rights or- dinance called it a "model" in civil rights laws. City government leaders have another opportunity to portray Ann Arbor as a trend-setting city: to show the public that Ann Arbor knows how to implement its laws and inform citizens of their rights. But the current trend, in this city at least, seems to be to let such legislation lie dormant in hopes that it will be conveniently forgotten. clear plant is expen- sive, the costs of turning the plants off forever is stag- gering. This is because some 90 per cent of the elec- tric generating costs of a nuclear plant are accounted for in the construction of the plant itself. Conventional power plant construction costs only 50 to 60 per cent of the electric generating cost. As a result, for most utilities nuclear power plants mean long-term bank finan- cing-enormous loans that must be paid off whether or not the plant ever generates elec- tricity and profit. THIS "FRONT-END loading" of the cost of nuclear power, compared to conventional power, means that nuclear plants are nor- mally much less flexible in their operating schedule. Any shutdown, even a short-term one for inspection or repairs, is costly because the lost production value counts mainly against the cost of the plant construc- tion. The monthly or quarterly bank paymen- ts become due whether the plant is operating or not. The same is true, of course, for conven- By Martin Brown tional power plants, but less so. When a con- ventional power plant is temporarily shut- down, the value of the lost production is largely counted against fuel that isn't burned. A much smaller portion, of the loss counts against the plant construction cost. If a temporary shutdown of a nuclear plant is expensive, the costs of turning the plants off forever is staggering. This is all the more true because most of the 73 nuclear power plants in operation today are relatively new, having come on line in the late 1960s or 1970s. Thus, they have generated only a small portion of the 30 to 40 years of electric production for which they were designed, and on which the utilities depend for a profitable financial return. IF ALL THE nuclear power plants were shut down today, the utilities--and no doubt ratepayers-would nonetheless be paying billions of dollars for them for the next 20 to 30 years. This inflexibility is even more true for the 90 nuclear power plants that are currently under construction. Pacific Gas and Electric, for instance, would have to pay off the entire construction cost of its Diablo Canyon plant, which is 99 per cent complete, without reaping a single kilowatt of electricity. This is why utilities will fight to continue operation of nuclear power plants on line or under construction well into the 1980s and 1990s-even when the predicted cost of nuclear power- becomes substantially more than conventional power. To operate them may be financially unrewarding; but to close them would be devastating. Thus, the utility industry can be expected to vigorously oppose a temporary or permanent shutdown of nuclear power plants-not out of any romance with the glamorous atom, but to recover their huge construction expenses. THE OTHER COST involved in shutting down nuclear power is both economic and en- vironmental. Decommissioning a nuclear power plant may cost almost as much as building it, and no one has yet figured out how to go about it without posing serious radiation hazards to the environment for decades or even centuries. The high cost of decommissioning results because the concrete and steel of the plant it- self-like the spent fuel-must be permanen- tly disposed of. It is highly radioactive. Neutrons produced by the uranium fuel during the life of the plant pass into the steel and concrete structures housing the fuel, producing radioactive atoms of iron, nickel, calcium and other elements. These elements have radioactive half-lives of from two-and-a- half to 80,000 years.- WHEN A POWER plant is permanently shut down, this material must be disassem- bled, separated and disposed of in a safe en- vironment for an indefinite period. An alter- native method is entombment, by which the entire plant is sealed off in a concrete tomb from any human or animal access. According to physicist Marvin Resnikoff of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who has conducted a study of decom- missioning, radition levels'inside a commer- cial power plant would be around 100 million rads per hour immediately after shutdown (500 rads is lethal to humans). Because of the continuing radioactivity of the materials in the plant, it would be necessary to wait at least 10-20 years to even attempt dismantling. During this time the reactor would have to be carefully monitored and guarded against any intrusion. AFTER DISMANTLING, the problem remains of how to securely dispose of the still highly radioactive materials. As yet, disman- tling procedures and disposal facilities- for commercial reactors do not exist. However, the small and experimental Elk River Reactor, built in 1962 at a cost of $6 million, was dismantled in 1968-at a cost of $6.9 million. The plant was tiny compared to the $1 billion commercial reactors built today. While it does not necessarily follow that dismantling will cost as much or more than initial construction, "the costs of dismantling a full-size commercial power plant . .. must certainly amount to many tens of millions of dollars," says Resnikoff. Added to the dismantling cost would be the long term public cost of developing and main- taining radioactive storage facilities, which still do not exist. The entombment alternative may be cheaper, but less acceptable environmen- tally. The Atomic Industrial Forum-the nuclear trade association-has estimated en- tombment cost at $30-$40 million per plant, or about six to seven$per cent of a commercial power plant's total cost. However, an entom- bment estimate by the industry for a reactorI in Oyster Creek, New Jersey, set the cost at one-half of the total construction cost. Clearly, a shutdown of the nation's nuclear power system today would raise as many questions and controversies about economics and safety in the next 30 years as the development and implementation of com- mercial nuclear power has raised in the past 30 years. Martin Brown, former West Coast coordinator for Science in the Public Interest, is science editor for the Pacific News Service. He is editor of The Social Responsibility of the Scientist. ' 1 -4 C")? Z6*T u~- ca 'I Health Service Handbook QUESTION: I've been reading the book Sugar Blues. From what I've read, sugar is more than just a cavity threat, it's a dangerous drug. Do you at the Health Ser- vice counsel people in the dangers of too much sugar? How often do you consult patients on theirdiet? ANSWER: Although William Dufty, author of Sugar Blues (which is available in the Dental Library on campus) makes many comparisons between sugar and narcotics and other drugs, it is best to think of sugar as a food. However, like other foods, it is capable of being overused and abused. There are many kinds of sugars (all of which are carbohydrates). By Gail Ryan sucrose contains no other nutrients besides its energy- producing (via calories) capability. ACCORDING TO Irene Hieber, a Registered Dietitian and Direc- tor of the Health Service Nutrition Clinic, the problems that arise from sugar are due to its excess consumption, not from sugar itself. She summarized these problems into six major categories, as follows (with the notation that research is con- tinually being done in this area): 1) An excess consumption of sugar may result in too few calories being taken from food- day? Yet the equivalent in refined sugar is a mere 5 oun- ces." p. 164) 3) DENTAL CARIES (cavities) result when sugar comes into contact with the teeth. Sucrose does more harm to the teeth than fructose or other sugars. Sucrose is also more likely to be eaten between meals or in a sticky form, which cause more damage than sugar con- sumed during meals or a in a liquid form (which will be removed or washed away more readily from the teeth). 4) There is some evidence that ce in the metabolism of the body, contributing to diseases such as diabetes or hypoglycemia. 6) THE REFINING process (not only of sugar but of grains) removes natural fiber from the plant; a lack of dietary fiber may result in gastrointestinal problems or disease. One of the ways to prevent these problems is to limit the consumption of sugar; this, however, is made difficult by the large amount of "hidden" sugars in foods. If you are trying to limit the amount of sugar in your diet, you must take into consideration all sources of sugar and not just those in "sweets" (.e., ice cream, cake, etc.). Foods such as ket- chup, prepared salad dressings, nnekn-,Iapitd eprnk ad alan nen- !ice - "' %v , " "III& 9XI if*' O///', "