age
Page 2 THE BATTALION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1977
•T.
frit*
J,S
Via)
_,ab
o s
Cex
OC
>il .
jipl
md
iTVt
s(JVl
is, ,t
cli^i
tal!
AS
tio
sit
m«
. E>
toi
he
pl
ic
c;
A:
at
■t\
it
k
c
ri
I
■ J
! T
Opinion/Commentary/Letters
si British nuclear caution urged
By BRYAN SILCOCK
LONDON — Foes of nuclear
energy here, unlike those in the
United States and elsewhere, have
made virtually no headway since the
first British atomic power plant was
built two decades ago. But now the
anti-nuclear lobby is receiving sup
port from an unexpected source —
the Royal Commission on Envi
ronmental Pollution.
Royal Commissions are govern
ment-appointed bodies created to
examine various fileds. And, as their
august title implies, they tend to be
composed of establishment figures
with conservative views. Thus it was
surprising that the report of the
Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution, recently
published after two years of investi
gation, should have reached rela
tively radical conclusions.
The Commission did not flatly
condemn nuclear energy, but reluc
tantly conceded that there may ul
timately be no alternative. Yet it
spelled out the dangers of atomic
power in terms that prompted
spokesmen for the nuclear industry
to charge that it expressed “exag
gerated fears.”
These fears do not include doubts
about reactor safety. On the con
trary, the Commission minimized
the risk of serious mishaps, saying
that their consequences would not
differ in scale or substance from
other industrial accidents. There
fore, the report stated, nuclear
power should not be abandoned for
this reason alone.
But the Commission emphasized
other concerns — the accumulation
of intensely radioactive waste that
will have to be stored for centuries,
the threat that terrorists might
hijack plutonium shipments and
manufacture crude atomic weapons,
and the prospect of nuclear prolifer
ation. It also voiced the hope, rather
forlornly, that another strategy
could be found to replace a large
nuclear program based on fast reac
tors.
This hope has touched a sensitive
nerve here, since the British gov
ernment is currently contemplating
the idea of moving forward with a
demonstration commercial fast
breeder reactor.
There are compelling economic
and technological motives for push
ing ahead with fast breeders. They
can extract about 60 times more
energy than a conventional reactor
from a given quantity of uranium.
With uranium prices already soar
ing — and with the prospect of
acute shortages rising if fast breed
ers are not developed — this is a
Battalion
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
editor or of the writer of the article and are not neces
sarily those of the University administration or the
Board of Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit, self-
supporting enterjjrise operated by students as a uni
versity and community newspaper. Editorial policy is
determined by the editor.
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words
and are subject to being cut to that length or less if
longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit
such letters and does not guarantee to publish any
letter. Each letter must be signed, show the address of
the writer and list a telephone number for verification.
Address correspondence to Letters to the Editor,
The Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building,
College Station, Texas 77843.
Represented nationally by National Educational
Advertising Services, Inc., New York City, Chicago
and Los Angeles.
Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester; $33.25
per school year; $35.00 per full year. All subscriptions
subject to 5% sales tax. Advertising rates furnished on
request. Address; The Battalion, Room 216, Reed
McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 77843.
United Press International is entitled exclusively to
the use for reproduction of all news dispatches cred
ited to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter
herein reserved. Second-Class postage paid at College
Station, Texas.
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Jerry Needham
Managing Editor James Aitken
Assignments Editor Rusty Cawley
Features Editor Lisa Junod
News Editor Debby Krenek
News Assistant Carol Meyer
Photography Director Kevin Venner
Sports Editor Paul Arnett
Copy Editor Steve Reis
Reporters George Maselli, Paul
McGrath, Lynn Rossi, John Tynes, Lee Roy Leschper
Jr., Mary Hesalroad, Jan Bailey
Asst. Photo Editors Tracie Nordheim,
Mike Willy
Aggie land Flower |
s
s
& Gift Shop
This week featuring
key consideration for a country like
Britain.
But a commitment to fast breed
ers means a commitment to
plutonium, one of the most toxic
substances known to man.
Can this material, which does not
occur in nature, be handled safely
on an industrial scale? Can it be
kept out of the wrong hands?
The case against the fast breeder,
consequently, is strong — and it is
being argued strenuously by Brit
ain’s anti-nuclear lobby.
My guess, however, is that it will
not deter the British government
from continuing to pursue an
energy policy whose main lines
were laid down more than 20 years
ago, when work began on a small,
experimental breeder reactor in
northern Scotland.
So, after a decent interval in
which additional funds are allocated
to research other ways of mobilizing
energy in accordance with the rec
ommendations of the Royal Com
mission, the project to construct the
fast breeder reactor will probably
get the green light.
Nevertheless, the anti-nuclear
lobby ought not to be written off. It
may lack the influence to halt the
fast breeder program, but its efforts
to alert the public to the hazards of
radioactive waste has triggered a re
sponse. After years of struggle,
therefore, the lobby is finally be
ginning to meet with success-
The anti-nuclear lobbyists are
also making some gains in their ef
forts to block a $1 billion project to
enlarge a major reprocessing plant
at Windscale, in northwest Britain.
Their cause was recently aided by
the discovery of radioactive leaks at
the plant.
The Royal Commission has indi
rectly aided the adversaries on nu
clear programs by warning that big
atomic projects should not be initi
ated before the means to deal safely
with radioactive waste are in place.
The fight between the partisans
and enemies of nuclear power is still
unresolved in Britain. But the de
bate so far has at least raised the
question of precautions — and that
is crucial, both here and elsewhere
in the world, if the development of
nuclear energy is going to move
forward.
(Silcock writes on science and
technology for the London Sunday
Times.)
Slouch
by Jim Earle ^partners unappreciat
Editor:
I was appalled to hear two women
in the Commons last Thursday af
ternoon complaining of the high
price of food and loudly blaming the
American farmer for the inflationary ^ [ni
spiral. Granted, everyone feels the try produce twice as effici f
wallet growing thin as they ap- the rest of the world combii
proach the grocery check-out aisle, 1 • ■'
were a nation of farmers
per cent of the population’^
soil as compared to the fivej
today. One farmer feeds 5;1
on ten per cent less acred
agricultural producers of td
but heavy criticism of the farmer is
inaccurate and shortsighted.
The truth is that your food is
amazingly cheap. Americans as a
whole spend only 20.7 per cent of
their income on food compared to
the Asians’ 85 per cent. If we
applied the same per cent of in
crease to the food prices of 1957 as
we have to the average hourly wage,
a pound of hamburger would cost
today over $2, a steak well over $3,
and a quart of milk would be unaf
fordable at a dollar a quart.
Consumers should be well aware
that when we began as a nation, we
lowing the U.S. to enjoy onJ
highest standards of livinj
world. Each of us is a par!I
massive agri-business compU
through direct consumpQ
one of the twenty AmeritJ
every hundred that working
dustry.
So the next time you rej
that pound of hamburger ori
potatoes, instead of cursisi
farmer, raise a toast i
his thankless production,
toast to the American
the agricultural productkJ
makes your choice of food p
—Mark G. Poi
“THE CAMPAIGN TO CONSERVE ENERGY DIDN’T
INCLUDE THIS KIND OF ENERGY!’’
P.E. signup system needs chang\
Is bureaucratic
inefficiency inherent?
By Martha D. Watts
During the week of registration I
came to the rude awakening that
everyone on campus spends seem
ingly endless hours just standing in
various lines. Waiting in one line for
30 minutes might be reasonable ex
cept once you reach the end you are
then instructed to proceed to
another location (usually across
campus) only to stand in another line
for at least the same amount of time
as the first.
Why does this system of infinite
paper work highly resemble all other
bureaucracies in that they take so
much of one’s valuable time and ap
pear to be extremely unorganized?
Unfortunately, for every piece of
relatively significant information
that is recorded on paper it must be
copied and sent to other locations for
future reference.
On the A&M campus if a student
decides to change majors he must
first obtain the records from the orig
inal major department and take
them to the department of his new
major. Then during the registration
RICHARD D. M0GLE, D.D.S
announces the relocation of his
office for the practice of
General Dentistry
to
1615 Barak Lane
period the card packet must be
sought out and taken to the new de
partment. However, after all of this
has taken place, the student may find
that he is still given the heading of
the old major on his tuition receipt.
In the business world people may
find the same degree of difficulty in
correcting an account which was
Readers’
Forum
fouled up by a central company
computer. This could, however,
take even more time due to the fact
that there are so many people who
handle one account for various dif
ferent reasons. Therefore, lines of
communication stand a much
greater chance for becoming
crossed.
Is there an answer in sight to this
omnipresent problem? Currently a
committee has been formed and
given one year in which to devise a
plan for easing some of the problems
faced by A&M students from the
time they first enroll to the time they
graduate. This is a step in the right
direction and hopefully other
bureaucratic systems will also be de
veloping ways to clear up their red
tape.
Editor:
The system of signing up for
Physical Education is in dire need of
improvement.
I am a transfer student and have
just experienced for the first time
the confusion, inconvenience, and
disappointment that characterizes
P.E. registration.
After standing in a seemingly
endless line to get my “little orange
cards,” I had to stand in another line
only to find the activity I wanted
had only two sections. One of the
times was in conflict with my
schedule, so I took the only section
left.
I didn’t like the time 4
with. However, the possibtl
another activity were woisj
would also mean another l
stand in.
Why can’t the P.E. Dept
list particular activities andsi
in the schedule of classes? A
then the students might L
chance of getting a convenient!
The college I transferredi
this. It worked very smooflill
with a large number of stude|
quired to take P.E.
—Julie Speipi
Upperclassmen want dorm spaa
Editor:
After having read the letters from
your Jan. 27 issue, we would also
like to express our opinion concern
ing the new dormitory policy at
Texas A&M.
It is ridiculous to allot any dor
mitory space to the Freshmen of
1977 before giving rooms to those
who are now students at the Uni
versity and have been waiting pa
tiently for months to get a dorm as
signment and end the hassles of
off-campus life. These hassles in
clude the following: (1) often having
to wait for long periods of time in
terrible weather to get to school due
to inefficient shuttle bus service, (2)
having to spend time each day fixing
one’s own food instead of studying,
(3) being away from all on-campus
activities, and (4) paying outrageous
sums for rent at local apartment
complexes.
The enrollment at Texas A&M
has far outgrown the University’s
housing capacity, causing a tremen
dous demand for the limited dor
mitory space made availabll
year. Yet giving such priorit)|
coming Fish is a grossly:
of distributing these facilities ]
humiliate those of us whoi
waiting to move into a dora
—Tommy A
—Edl)
—Colleen 0
—Christine (|
—Ana(
—Debbie (|
—Wayne?
Readers’ for
Guest viewpoints, in addii
Letters to the Editor, arewel]
All pieces submitted to
forum should be:
• Typed triple space
• Limited to 60 characters p
• Limited to 100 lines
Submit articles to
McDonald 217, College S
Texas, 77843. Author’s nar
phone number must accomps
submissions.
FARRAH
IS HERE!
fDWL9
WELCOME TO THE
ROOT BEER AND BURGER
CAPITAL OF THE WORLD!
This Size Cup of Root
Beer Only 15c
Good 365 days a year
NOW OPEN LATE
UNTIL 2 A M. EVERY NIGHT
100% BEEF — QUALITY FOOD
TRY AND COMPARE!
OWNED BY ROB SCHLE1DER. CLASS OF ’74
AND JAMES OTIS CARTER
Also locations in Caldwell & Madisonville
PHONE AHEAD: 693-9515
LOCATED AT TEXAS AVE. AT
HWY. 30 INTERSECTION
Across from Safeway in College Station ^
The Shape of Things
YOUR FULL SERVICE SALON
of
HAIRCUTTING AND BEAUTY CULTURE
331 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION
Call For An Appointment or Just Drop In
846-7614
UPSTAIRS ABOVE THE FARMER'S MARKET II
SENIORS & GRADUATI
STUDENTS
Your Yearbook Photos For The 19
Aggieland Will Be Taken Through
Feb. 11 Only — Feb. 11 Is The Fin?
Day.
Junior Yearbook Photos Will Be Take
Beginning Feb. 14
university studio
115 college, pl
846-« r