Opinion
Tuesday, July 23,1991
The Battalion
Page 5
SSC poses threat
to environment
Helms' HIV disclosure law:
Why stop with doctors?
T
JL. he Department of En
ergy (DOE), which has already created
numerous Texas-sized radioactive
wastelands, is now hell-bent on cre
ating yet another — this one in Texas.
Two weeks ago, the Senate took $75
million appropriated for cleaning up
the nation's atomic weapons complex
and spent it on the Superconducting
Super Collider (SSC).
The SSC is a high-energy physics re
search project being built in Waxaha-
chie. In the SSC, two beams of protons
will be accelerated to 20 trillion electron
volts each, and then smashed into each
other to search for the sub-atomic
building blocks of matter.
The SSC design requires a 54-mile
circumference underground tunnel ten
feet in diameter. In selecting an appro
priate SSC site, however, the DOE has
bulldozed the truth around more than
it has earth and rock.
The DOE geological evaluation used
to determine an SSC site stated quite
falsely that the Austin Chalk in Ellis
County is impermeable and homoge
neous, when in fact, it's unstable, ex
tensively fractured and well watered.
Stephen Pierce, a geologist and Ellis
County resident, says an unstable
shale layer in the Chalk and other
faults and fractures make it nearly im
possible to predict how tunneling will
change the natural water flow.
The DOE's record at Fermilab, the
United State's largest existing accelera
tor, does not bode well for the SSC. At
Fermilab, hazardous spills are being
cleaned up, and two possible Super
fund sites are under investigation. The
SSC is 12 times larger and 20 times
more powerful than the Fermi accelera
tor, and even more importantly, is in
closer proximity to residents' homes
than Fermilab —directly under Mr.
Pierce's home in the current SSC lay
out.
Ionizing Hucleaf . radiation produced
by accelerators lik4.the SSC and Fermi
lab is a serious problem. Of particular
concern are tritium and sodium-22,
both of which are leachable from soils
and soluble in water.
At Fermilab, tritiated water was
found 22 feet below a supposedly "im
pervious" liner, and in surface water at
levels up to 6.4 times the allowable
limit. The DOE denies that the SSC
poses a radioactive threat, yet is con
demning 155 water wells near the SSC.
The DOE's radiation protection crite
ria specify that facilities be designed for
20 percent of the permissible radiation
level. For drinking water, the limit is
four millirems (a radiation unit) per
year. Twenty percent of four mrem/yr
is 0.8 mrem/year. Disturbingly, the
DOE is designing the SSC for the full
four mrem/yr, supporting residents'
fears that the SSC can't be built safely.
In addition to the SSC's radioactive
contamination of ground and surface
water, there is the problem of radioac
tive waste storage, euphemistically
called "disposal" or "management."
The DOE claims Fermilab's radiation
comes primarily from a fixed-target
program which the SSC will not have.
However, both the July 1990 SSC Site-
Specific Design report and an August
1990 SSC environmental report indicate
fixed-target programs as potential areas
for SSC expansion.
The radiation detectors at Fermilab
are inadequate for the large energy lev
Mlchael Worsham
Columnist
els and beam intensities to be used in
the SSC. The SSC's large number of ex
perimental magnets (over 10,000) and
beam definers dictate more beam losses
than occur at smaller accelerators. The
beam loss irradiates beam line compo
nents, electronic modules and tunnel
equipment, creating "low-level" radio
active waste.
Direct human evidence now strongly
supports the recognition that cancer
risk is probably more severe per dose-
unit at low doses than at moderate and
high doses. This means that radioactive
waste like that produced at the SSC
poses a serious health threat despite its
"low-level" radiation intensity. Distin
guished health physicist John Gofman
says, "Now that we know the hazard of
low-dose radiation, the crime is not ex
perimentation — it's murder."
However, it's not environmental im-
g act, but cost that will likely stop the
SC. About $1.7 billion of necessary
foreign funding is not materializing.
One magnet redesign has already in
creased the SSC's cost. The collider's
projected cost two years ago was $5.9
billion. The current official guestimate
is $8.3 billion, but DOE official Joseph
Cipriano admitted to Congress in May
that the SSC could cost $9.1 billion, and
one independent DOE estimate was
$11.8 billion.
U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert says
the DOE's cost estimates change "by
the hour, depending on whose talk
ing," and calls the DOE's responses to
his concerns "clever evasions, wishful
thinking, broken promises and out
right lies."
Rep. Joe Barton's behavior mirrors
the DOE's. Barton's recent June 1991
newsletter claims the "SSC is under
budget and ahead of schedule." This
taxpayer-financed promotional
material, which leads with an article
"BALANCED BUDGET AMEND
MENT: NOW IS THE TIME," does not
mention whether it's the $8.3 or $9.1 or
$11.8 billion SSC which is "under bud
get."
SSC boosters quickly point to the
positive technology spin-offs from SSC
magnet research. However, these can
be achieved without the enormous ex
pense of digging a huge hole in the
Austin Chalk, and mass-producing (it
self a technological challenge) and
aligning over 10,000 superconducting
magnets.
The SSC was inspired by a quest for
knowledge, but has been kept alive
only through power politics. Dozens of
SSC-related research grants have been
given to institutions all across the
United States to garner necessary con
gressional support. Potential Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) military appli
cations have captured President Bush's
support for tne not-so-scientifically
pure SSC.
There's even more quark-barrel poli
tics behind the SSC boondoggle, like
the treatment of residents displaced by
the SSC. Clearly, though, we need to
pull the plug (powered by the shoddily
built Comanche Peak nuclear power
plant) on this costly and dangerous
proton subway.
Michael Worsham is a graduate student
in environmental engineering.
T
A. his past Thursday, the
U.S. Senate overwhelmingly adopted
an amendment that would force any
health-care worker afflicted with the
AIDS virus to disclose his illness to his
patients, otherwise risking a manda
tory prison term or a $10,000 fine.
North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms
sponsored the amendment in re
sponse to an angry letter from a young
woman who might have been infected
with the deadly virus by her dentist.
On its surface, this politically popu
lar legislation seems like an appropri
ate precaution. However, I do not feel
that the law goes far enough. Instead,
what we need are policies that protect
the general public from any person
with AIDS who treats us in any way.
Following the Senate's logic, I propose
that the federal government require all
hairdressers and barbers to inform
their customers if they become
stricken with the deadly syndrome.
Think about it. Do our hair care spe
cialists not wield sharp instruments
that occasionally nick unsuspecting
customers? And aren't a significant
proportion of male hairdressers gay?
With feminine names like Ramone
and Mario could they be anything but
gay? And as we all know, gay men are
most likely to be the ones infected
with the AIDS virus.
Just because we haven't docu
mented an AIDS-causing hairdresser
doesn't mean it hasn't happened. In
fact, it doesn't matter if we have or
not, because, the Senate passed its
strict regulations on doctors and den-
Trey Jacobson
Columnist
tists without any such definite evi
dence either.
And whereas medical surgical staffs
are thoroughly scrubbed, double-
gloved, wearing facial protection, pro
tective sanitized clothing and masks.
“Damn the notions of
privacy and civil liberties,
we’re worried about public
health! And while were at it,
damn the consequences! So
what if perfectly able-bodied
hairdressers lose their
livelihoods? The same thing
could happen to physicians
and nurses.”
our barbers don't use ANY protective
measures. Oh sure, they may clean
their scissors and razors, but do they
sanitize them in an autoclave?
P 1
L.Jven this columnist will admit that
the chance of a hairdresser transmit
ting the AIDS virus is slim, but it
doesn't matter. Helms offered the
amendment for physicians even
though it is extremely unlikely that
health-care workers will give their pa
tients AIDS. Of the 182,000 persons
known to be inflicted with the virus,
only five are even suspected of acquir
ing the disease from a single dentist.
In percentage terms, only three thou
sandths of one percent of all known
AIDS patients could have gotten the
virus from a health-care professional.
I suppose it would be necessary to
force all beauticians to submit for
AIDS testing because disclosure re
quirements might induce some to
avoid any bad news. Damn the no
tions of privacy and civil liberties,
we're worried about public health!
And while were at it, damn the conse
quences! So what if perfectly able-bod
ied hairdressers lose their livelihoods?
Who cares if they can't find work? The
same thing could happen to physi
cians and nurses. Buck up Mario!
Just to be sure, it would be helpful if
the coiffeurs could test their customers
for AIDS so that they could protect
themselves, and their customers. But
nurses and paramedics can't do it,
why should we let grandma's hair
dresser get a special break?
We are so lucky to have senators
like Helms to protect us. In their infi
nite wisdom they have created legis
lation that will surely solve the AIDS
crisis in this country. If they would
only introduce my idea on the Senate
floor, I know it would sail right
through to a vote without debate.
Why would anyone vote against such
a pragmatic piece of legislation?
If this idea flies. I've got another
great idea to solve a major public prob
lem. It begins with testing the intelli
gence levels of our congressmen ...
Trey Jacobson is a graduate student in
public administration.
Milk
Cartons
of the’SOS:
(Courtesy of
the FBI')
<£>m\ Tue
Milk
Cartons
of the’90 S:
(Courtesy of
U.S. Census
Bureau)
MISSING
MISSING
Mail Call
The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers and welcomes all letters to the
editor. Please include name, classification, address and phone number on all letters.
The editor reserves the right to edit letters for style and length. There is no guarantee
letters will appear. Letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, sent to Campus
Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to 845-5408.
Worsham's views shared
EDITOR:
I am a recently hired faculty member, and I picked up a Battalion today
for the first time. I would like to respond to Gary P. Carroll's letter to the
editor which addresses Battalion columnist Michael Worhsam. At the close
of his letter, Carroll intimates that Worsham's views will be shared by, or
be meaningful to, few in the A&M community: "It is admirable, but I think
your words may be falling upon deaf ears. Preach your ideals to those who
will listen and with action, and a lot of luck, you may see results. But put
them in The Battalion, and you will see opposition."
I disagree. Although I have read only one of Mr. Worhsam's columns
("Aggies should seek out other media" July 17, 1991), and the response to
an earlier column which outlines his views, from this evidence I feel he is
an alternative voice in The Battalion and on the A&M campus.
I look forward to reading subsequent columns by Mr. Worsham and of
fer my continued readership as one indication of support in the A&M com
munity for his views.
Lynne Vallone