Page 4-Wednesday, November 9, 1977-The Michiqan Daily
Eighty-Eight Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Vol. LXXXVIII, No. 54
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Court punishes township
voterts for ciy's m1Stak e
Save breeder option
By RICK GOLDSTEIN
Last week President Carter
vetoed a bill authorizing funds for
the Clinch River Breeder Reactor
Project. The President has ex-
pressed the fear that the
plutonium producing breeder
might foster the spread of
nuclear weapons since there are
not adequate safeguards to
prevent plutonium, which can be
used to make nuclear weapons,
from'falling into the hands of a
terrorist group or unstable
nation. Carter has called upon
Congress, as well as leaders of
other industrial nations, to limit
breeder development until a
reliable system for safeguarding
plutonium can be developed and
used. Clinch River is being of-
fered as proof of our sincerity to
other nations.
Although the President's con-
cern about nuclear proliferation
is welcome, his opposition to
Clinch River is based on several
erroneous assumptions. The first
is that breeder development will
lead to a spread .of nuclear
weapons. The countries with ad-
vanced breeder programs
(France, West Germany, and the
Soviet Union) already possess
nuclear weapons or the
capability to produce them.
Other nations would not'be likely
to use the breeder to develop a
nuclear weapon, since they could
do so more easily and for a frac-
tion of the cost using a conven-
tional research reactor.
CARTER also overestimates
the impact that a unilateral ac-
tion by the United States will
have abroad. Few coun ries have
the abundant coal and uranium
resources of the U.S., and most
have a pressing need to develop a
secure, long term source of
energy. Carter's pleas to slow
breeder development have thus
far been either ignored or flatly
rejected by the countries with the
most advanced breeder
programs. The prospects are that
cancelling Clinch River would
place the U.S. far behind the rest
of the world in breeder develop-
ment and thus decrease our in-
fluence on future international
nuclear issues.
The most disturbing aspect of
Carter's position is his assertion
that we won't need breeder power
if his predictions are correct.
The projections of future U.S.
energy needs presented by the
Carter Administration are
radically different than those of
past administrations. Since the
amount of uranium and other
resources that will be
economically recoverable in the
future is a highly speculative
estimate, we would be taking a
grave risk if we allowed the op-
timistic projections of the present
Administration to persuade us
not to keep all our options open,
including the breeder.
THE CLINCH River issue is
really part of a latge debate that
is. going on over how to meet our
needs for a secure, long term
supply of energy. Our school of
thought favors development of
decentralized energy systems
using solar, geothermal, and
other unconventional sources of
energy. This view has received
I
ESTERDAY. THE Michigan Ap-
peals Court knocked a chunk out of
the state Constitution.
The court upheld a ruling that 20 Ann
Arbor Township residents who voted
illegally in last April's mayoral ele~c-
tion would have to reveal their votes in
court.
The court cited two ancient cases
(1929 and 1931) as precedent for its
ruling that "A person who admits that
he voted without proper qualifications
can, in a judicial proceeding, be
required to disclose how hw voted."
But, although the 20 persons in
question now admit that they cast their
votes "without proper qualifications,"
they all thought they were voting
illegally at the time. There was no at-
tempt to defraud city officials by the
voters. The error was the fault of
registration officials who thought the
illegal voters actually lived within the
city limits. Thus, the court has eeri fit
to deny these 20 voters their right to a
secret ballot, through no fault of their
own, because several registration of-
ficials erred.
Why should these people be made to
pay for the mistakes of others? _
The court defendled its position
thusly:
"But even though the error was
inadvertent both on the part of those
registering and the city officials taking
the registration, the 20 persons in-
volved were not qualified to vote. To
them the right of secrecy in voting does
not extend. Any other rule would per-
mit, as it would here, non-residents to
elect to office a person not elected by
resident qualified voters . . .
While we, agree that it would be a
gross injustice for non-qualified voters
to have determined Ann Arbor's
mayoral election, there are alter-
natives to the solution chosen by the
court.
NE ANSWER would be to declare
the election void. This would
eliminate the influence of the illegal
ballots, without forcing the township
residents to reveal their votes. Then,
the city could stage a new election.
Thus the mayor would be determiped
by only Ann Arbor residents. But a new
election would be timely and costly,
and unnecessary. There is a much
simpler solution.
Each illegal voter should be required
to recast his or her ballot-secretly.
Then the 20 ballots could be tallied, and
the Belcher and Wheeler votes sub-
tracted from their respective totals. As
long as the ballots were cast while on
the witness stand, we could assume the
township residents would vote as they
had in the actual election. This method
would protect the voters' right to a
secret ballot, while giving the court the
information it needs to determine who
actually won the Ann Arbor mayoral
election. Though this possible solution
has escaped the Appeals Court's
notice, we hope the state Supreme
Court will consider it when it hears the
case on appeal.
01 hi Atchion Wat-L
considerable attention and is an
area where research efforts are
being increased. It is not,
however, sufficiently developed
to play a major role in the energy
policies now being formulated,
according to the best information
available to policy makers at this
time. They must therefore turn
their attention towards
developing more conventional
forms of energy, particularly
coal and nuclear.
Coal and uranium, like oil and
natural gas, are ultimately
depletable resources that cannot
be relied upon indefinitely. The
overnment has been researching
energy sources that will provide
a virtually inexhaustible supple
of energy, and at this point tfhe
breeder is the most promising
alternative.
THE VALUE of the breeder is
that, in the course of producing
energy it converts uranium to
plutonium, itself a reactor fuel.
This means that in essence, the
breeder creates its own supply of
fuel while it generates electricity.
Breeders thus make it possible to
obtain some 50 times more
energy from a given amount of
natural uranium than can be ob-
tained using the type of reactors
in use today.
The Clinch River Project is
designed to test a small version of
the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder
Reactor favored by the utilities
and nuclear industry. The in-
dustries feel it is important to
show that the breeder can be
counted upon if we should need it
in the future.
Clinch River must be seen in
the perspective of the changing,
uncertain situation our country
now faces as energy supplies
dwindle. It is imperative that we
develop a range of energy alter-
natives. The question is not
whether the breeder is the most
desirable alternative, but
whether or not we should con-
tinue to develop needed energy-
related technology. By con-
tinuing at a cautious pace, we are
not committing ourselves to
anything. We are merely keeping
our options open.
:
.'\ .
r TCri E1'oVATE (RI/'1E5 HE/4'&
HA SLEENVASSirkiEt'To
OUARD2 1)r 7-FokEN&x7-
0
EDITORIAL STAFF
ANN MARIE LIPINSKI
Editors-in-Chief
JIM TOBINI
NUCLEAR-
NO rPESPASNc.
A2 o 'Mp..lACTI CAL!
ARMLESS,)
LOIS JOSIMOVICH....................Managing Editor
GEORGE LOBSENZ........................Managing Editor
STU McCONNELL...... ...............Managing Editor
JENNIFER MILLER................... .....Managing Editor
PATRICIA MONTEMURRI............. Magaging Editor
KEN PARSIGIAN...... ...............Managing Editor
BOB ROSENBAUM ...................... Managing Editor
,MARGARET YAO ...................Managing Editor
SUSAN ADES JAY LEVIN
Sunday Magazine Editors
ELAINE FLECTCHER TOM O'CONNELL
Associate Magazine Editors
STAFF WRITERS: Susan Barry, Richard Berke, Brian Blan-
chard, Michael Beckman, Lori Carruthers, Ken Chotiner, Eileen
Daley, Lisa Fisher, Denise Fox, Steve Gold, David Goodman,
Elisa Isaacson, Michael Jones, Lani Jordan, Janet Klein, Garth
Kriewall, Gregg Krupa, Paula Lashinsky, Marty Levine, Dobilas
Matunonis, Carolyn Morgan, Dan Oberdorfer, Mark Parrent,
Karen Paul, Stephen Pickover, Christopher Potter, Martha
Retallick, Keith Richburg, Diane Robinson, Julie Rovner, Dennis
Sabo, Annmarie Schiavi, Paul Shapiro, R. J. Smith, Elizabeth
Slowik, Mike Taylor, Pauline Toole, Sue Warner, Jim Warren,
Linda Willcox, Shelley Wolson, Tim Yagle, Mike YelIin, Barbara
Zahs, Jim Zazakis
Mark Anarews, Mike Gilford, Richard Foltman
Weather Fiorecasters
BUSINESS STAFF
DEBORAH DREYFUSS..................... Business Manager
COLLEEN HOGAN ...................Operations Manager
CROD)KOSANN .. Sales Manager
NANCY GRAU....... . ..........Display Manager
ROBERT CARPENTER ...............Finance Manager
SHELLEY SEEGER.................Classified Manager
SUSAN BARRY ..................... National Ad Manager
PETE PETERSEN....................Advertising Coordinator
STAFF MEMBERS: Steve Barany, Bob Bernstein, Richard
Campbell, Joan Chartier, Fred Coale Caren Collins, Pam Counen,
Lisa Culberson, Kim Ford, Bob Friedman, Kathy Friedman,
Denise Gilardone, Nancy Granadier, Cindy Greer, Amy Hart-
man, Susan Heiser, Larry Juran, Carol Keller, Randy Kelley,
Dough Kendall, Katie Klinkner, Jon Kottler, Lisa Krieger,
Debbie Litwak, Deb Meadows, Art Meyers, John Niemisto,
John O'Connor, Seth Petok, Dennis Ritter, Arlene Saryan'
Carole Schults, Claudia Sills, Jim Tucker, Karen Urbani, Beth
Warren
,. ,
i4
,, I ' t .
' , .
,,
1,
r
1'
(.
p
Let.ters t o
The Daily
dna research
To The Daily:
We have learned from the
Daily's rather needlessly
euphoric article (Medium-risk
DNA work begins," Nov. 1, 1977)
that "Schmickel and Wilson will
take strands of DNA from human
fetuses and splice the DNA into a
bacteriphage. . . " So we are
already (at the very beginning!)
engaged in genetic engineering of
human beings. Let us be aware
that during the big debate over
the last two years we heard so
much about the importance of
DNA research for improving the
quality of grain, for curing rare
diseases, etc. But when it came to
the crunch, it is human fetuses
that are being tampered
with-which was to be expected,
for the subject is too fascinating
and too irresistible.
In this context, Wilson's
assurance, "We aren't creating
monsters" sounds hollow,
spurious and hypocritical. How
can you know whether you are
creating monsters until and
unless you have produced some?
Besides, on the level of spliced
and recombined genes the con-
cept of monsters (or saints, for
that matter) does not enter the
picture. For at this level we are
only playing with possible per-
mutations of genes, some of
which will turn out to be
beneficial and some detrimental.
But those very adjectives
"beneficial" and "detrimental"
do not have any sense on the level
of recombined genes. They have
sense only in the context of
human values and of the human
world. Let me reiterate: recom-
bined genes do not care one way
or the other whether they are put
together in this way or that way.
It is only for us, human beings,
that it matters a lot. However, if
you are a really diligent scientist
you will want to know, and do
doubt will try to know, all the
possigle combinations; for this is
what science is all about, is it
not?
So Pandora's box has been
opened. I do not wish to sound
alarmist. It will take some 0-25
years to perfect new techniques. I
myself therefore will be out of the
danger zone by this time. But
many of you, the present students
at the University of Michigan,
may find in 20 or 25 years that you
possess some "undesirable"
genetic characteristics and that
it "might be better for society if
your genes were rearranged."
What would you say then? What
do you say now?
Now this possible
rearrangement of one's genes in
the future is partly in the realm of
science fiction. What is not in the
realm of science fiction is the
responsibility and accountability
of Committee C, the watchdog
committee overseeing the ap-
propriateness of .DNA research.
What kind of mandate does
Committee C possess, and what
kind of criteria does it propose to
use in order to prevent "creating
monsters," 'in order to assure
that undesirable (from the stan-
dpoint of human welare) resear-
ch is not going on?
-Henry Skolimowski
Professor, Department
of Humanities
(A member of Task
Force on Appropriate
Technology of the
United States
Senate)
C n
I
4
II ~l
. J ,
a
/"--'
'
J
i
i
t l
tt t
1
r
1
.
'r .
Health Service Handbook
By SYLVIA HACKER
and NANCY PALCHIK
QUESTION: I had mono most
of the summer and have already
suffered through two colds this
fall. In addition, my glands are
swollen most of the time. Any
suggestions on how I can spend
my winter not sick? I'm trying to
eat right and get both rest and
exercise.
Also, should I get a blood test
for mono again?.
ANSWER: We consulted one of
our Health Service physicians,
Dr. Edmund Whale, about this
and his answer follows:
To answer the last part of your
question first, I'd say it would
depend to some extent on the
number and type of blood tests
you had done this past summer.
If serial tests were done and the
mono was followed through to its
conclusion from a hematological
other viral infections may cause
these cells to look similar to the
way they appear in cases of
mono. Since relapses of mono are
rare, your doctor can decide
when and if more blood tests
would be necessary.
Having two colds this fall is no
cause for alarm but it may
suggest possible reduced
resistance to infection, perhaps
brought on, in part, by the mono.
However, these spells of illness
may be just coincidental and you
may well have a healthy winter
ahead without modifying your
present habits with regard to
exercise and diet. Some
physicians may suggest a supple-
mental multiple vitamin every
few days. Try to avoid super
stress of any sort, mental, emo-
tional or physical. Look around
you to see if your associates seem
sickly. Since your resistance
could be lowered, you may be
more susceptible to contagion
would a person just get drunk and
pass out?
ANSWER: It is very possible to
overdose on alcohol. According to
the information provided us by
the "Do It Now Foundation" on
Chemical Survival, about 1,000
people every year die from drink-
ing alcohol alone, that is, not in
combination with other drugs
(which has received most of the
publicity). Death is due to-
depression of the respiratory sys-
tem.
As we noted in one of our
earliercolumns, it takes approxi-
mately one hour for the average
drink (e.g. a 12-ounce bottle of
beer, a four-to-five-ounce glass of
wine, one-and-a-half-ounces of
whiskey or the average cocktail)
to be metabolized in your blood-
stream. Even if you drink alco-
holic beverages faster than your
body can metabolize it, there is
usually a built-in safety
m~ehanism: vyou get sick, pass
our system to realize that th
alcohol is there to begin with, yo
can pervert the whole process b
downing too much too soon. 1
shots of Tequila in 15 minutes, o
chug-a-lugging a whole fifth o
whiskey in 20 minutes could, de-
pending on your body weight,
your respiratory system'
uniqueness and other factors
create an overdose. Drinking th
same amount slowly, even if yo
could somehow manage to sta
awake to do it, would have
profoundly lesser effect since al
the while your liver is metaboliz
ing the alcohol and helping to ge
it out of the system."
We should also note that
common form of alcohol-relate
death can occur if persons vomi
in their sleep and then involun-
tarily inhale the vomit into theiL
lungs. So if you are around and
friends who have passed out fror
drinking a little bit too much
make certain that they ar
sleeping with their heads to on
dss.....s...**:**:*:*:*5%%525%25%3%5%%5%55