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