The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 66, No. 32, Ed. 1 Tuesday, April 10, 1979 Page: 2 of 12
twelve pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Rice Thresher, April 11,1979, Page 2
Will Three Mile stir Rice from lethargy?
David Dow
The inundation of articles in
reaction to the accident at
Three Mile Island follows a
ludicrous media pattern
whereby silence prevails until a
crisis arises. Scientists and
politicians, among others, have
for years discussed the problem
now associated with the
Metropolitan Edison project;
sadly, no one apprised the
public of the risks until an
accident affected thousands.
Three Mile Island gives the
national anti-nuclear partisans
a rallying point, and perhaps
will serve to stir the Rice
Community from its lethargy
about environmental policies.
From within the hedges,
Harrisburg may seem like
another world. But how about
the Bay City facility, shown
here in all its glory. Do you see
pernicious, destructive monsters
in these pictures? Certainly not.
So we ignore radiation because
we can't see it. Another reason
for disregarding nuclear
hazards is that their effects,
cancer and birth defects, do not
appear until years after
accidents occur. The Three
Mile Island incident created so
much tension because the
threat was immediate: a
radioactive bubble of hydrogen
almost exploded. These
photographs don't arouse the
same fear; but they do remind
one of the possibility of the
seepage of radioactive waste.
The plant looks secure, but
after thirty years of research,
industry has not established a
technologically or economi-
cally feasible method to dispose
of nuclear wasle. The
underground tanks at the
Savannah River Project have
leaked over 100 gallons of
waste past secondary barriers
into the soil, contaminating
ground water supplies.
Similarly, a leak at the Hanford
Project in the state of
Washington went undetected
for 48 days, allowing 115,000
gallons of waste to spill.
Still more frightening than
these incidents, industry has
abdicated its responsibility for
nuclear accidents: Metro-
politan Edison of Pennsylvania
refused to discuss honestly the
nature of their problem. And in
cases where a problem is public
knowledge, industry may flee.
In West Valley, New York,
Getty Oil abandoned their
operation to avoid paying for
measures required by new
safety standards to contain
leaking nuclear waste. In fewer
than 10 years, leaks have
occurred at 6 of the 11 sites
where nuclear wastes are
buried. Will we allow Bay City,
located a mere 100 miles from
08
IKIIAI
STATIN
CtNTRM.
UCHT
mmm
Rice, to become another
statistic?
The waste problem trans-
cends our hedges largely
because of the volume and
mobility of the materials
involved. In twenty years
America may expect to have
nearly a billion cubic feet of
radioactive garbage—enough
to cover a coast-to-coast, four-
lane highway one foot deep.
Despite this threat to our
biosphere, we are constructing
another plant, at Bay City,
which lacks a safe nuclear
waste disposal system.
Why does the Federal
government not demand
greater safety measures? James
Nathan Miller suggests a likely
answer. "The NRC (Nuclear
Regulatory Commission),
under pressure from industry,
has allowed serious com-
promises with safety to creep
into the design, construction,
and operation of U.S. nuclear
plants." Industry has found the
most effective weapon;
ironically, we too have access
to it: a strong, vocal position on
nuclear power. We must let
government know that
industry's blueprint for nuclear
plant safety applies only in a
"technological paradise."
A moral objection to nukes
carries as much weight as the
self-interest approach. Think
about the length of time that
the waste remains deadly. How
can we guarantee the continued
constant supervision of
disposal sites needed even if we
store the wastes in presumably
failsafe geologic formations?
Society lacks the stability and
institutional arrangements to
monitor the wastes for even a
millenium, yet wariness for
millions of years is called for.
Obviously we are confronting a
fundamental ethical dilemma.
Our exploitation of nuclear
power takes the chance of
compromising the earth as a
home for succeeding gener-
ations. The radiation may not
escape during our lifetimes, but
the overwhelming odds are
that it will escape in the future.
Clearly we have a moral
obligation to develop other,
—photo by J. Young and Bobby Deen
less dangerous energy sources.
Since energy companies
prefer the economics of the
nuclear alternative, they ignore
less volatile, albeit costlier,
energy sources. The pro-
nuclear decision comes too
easily to energy executives
because not enough protest has
reached them. Students can
express opposition as
effectively as any other group.
Yet it is all too typical that an
anti-nuclear interest group in
Houston, the Mockingbird
Alliance, lacks support: many
people make idealistic
commitments, but few lend
palpable support. Merely
sympathizing with a cause does
not augment its strength. The
myopic rush to nuclear power
will proceed rapidly unless
opponents—including Rice
students—consolidate their
strength and express their
sentiments. With a united
opposition, we can stop the
energy industry, whose
inordinate concern for profit
comes at the expense of our
environment.
Negligence Award generates controversy
To the Editor:
I admire the efforts of the
"Most Negligent Department"
Committe to improve the
quality of education we all
receive from this fine
university. If I should be so
fortunate as to graduate, I
would welcome an opportunity
to provide a few constructive
suggestions to my department.
I am sure this year's seniors also
have plenty of hindsight that
thev might share with us.
However, I am not entirely
convinced that hurling a well-
aimed lead brick at the ass of
any department on campus is
the proper way to accomplish
these goals. Just as we do not
provide similar lead items for
most negligent teacher, most
negligent administrator, or
even most negligent student, it
does not seem that the
presentation of such a
departmental award would be
in keeping with the goals of this
university. The "negative
waves generated by the
presence of large masses of
dense material in any
department is sure to dampen
the spirit and enthusiasm of all
those who are to follow.
Therefore, I respectfully
submit that we take this leaden
artifact, transfrom it to gold,
and award it to the most
outstanding department on
campus. More likely are we to
follow 3 the example of the
leaders, if we spend less time
harassing the losers.
Thank you,
John McCree, Wiess 80
To the Editor:
I am troubled by this award,
firstly because it assumes that
every junior and senior is
familiar with every depart-
ment. Otherwise, how could he
or she choose the most
negligent? But few students, if
any, have that kind of
familiarity. I have taken a few
psychology and political
science courses and was
unimpressed with my glimpse
of these departments. That
glimpse, however, hardly
qualifies me to condemn either
one as a whole and even less to
determine who is at fault. As
for science and engineering, I
took my distribution courses
and no more. Am I to judge
those many departments on the
basis of the four courses I took?
Thft leaves the departments
in which I have taken a number
of courses, economics and
accounting (previous majors),
and English and fine arts
(present majors). Should I then
choose the most negligent
among these — even though I
have, on the whole, been well
satisfied with these depart-
ments? Can I in good
conscience label one the most
negligent at the school? I
shouldn't and I can't, and this
problem, I think, applies to
almost every student. He is
unlikely to major in a subject
whose department he feels to be
the worst at Rice. Yet, with rare
exception, his major depart-
ment is the only one he knows
well enough to assess with
acuity.
Secondly, I am appalled by
the spirit*of the award. Texas
Monthly and Esquire can get
away with their Bum Steer and
Dubious Achievement awards
because their targets are distant
ones. But this is a small school,
and a lead brick and an
insulting label are bound to
engender ill will within the
community. Moreover,
suppose a department is "most
negligent" because it hasn't the
funds it needs. Should it then
suffer the ignominy the
Thresher plans to lay upon it?
In short, the award is at best
tactless and at worst malicious.
In either case, it is unworthy of
its creators and the school they
represent.
The body of tne question-
naire, however, shows serious
intent and consideration, and I
think the idea of departmental
assessments has merit. But just
as students do not evaluate
courses they never took, they
should not evaluate depart-
ments they know little or
nothing about. Instead, have
each department judged by
those who know it best —
juniors and seniors who have
majors in its subject. Then
departmental weaknesses can
be uncovered, perhaps, without
giving any one department a
public slap in its collective face.
Toni Mack
Editor's Note: This award is in
no way sponsored by The
Thresher. Sponsorship is by a
group of independent students
who submitted last week's
article in The Thresher. We are
only responsible for printing
copy which is considered
important enough to print.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Heard, Michelle Leigh. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 66, No. 32, Ed. 1 Tuesday, April 10, 1979, newspaper, April 10, 1979; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245404/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.