]]]]]]]]]]]]]]    EXTRA CHARGE FOR LESS SAFETY      [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 
              By [Freeman] Prof. Howard J. Hayden,         (8/15/88)
             Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Connecticut
                        Storrs, CT 06268

Published in the HARTFORD COURANT, Conn., 8.14.88                                                
Pub'd 8/14/88

Gentle Folks,

     It is usual to pay extra for safety.  For example, a limited 
access highway costs more than a narrow road, but is far safer. More 
money spent means fewer lives lost.
     With  regard  to  production  of electricity, all scientific 
studies  point  to  nuclear  generation  as  the  safest; until 
recently, it was also the cheapest.  The increase in costs has come 
from  a plethora  of regulations  of minute  environmental consequence 
but vast expenditure.
     It would be irrational in the extreme to pay a lot of money to 
convert a  wide, safe highway  into a narrow  dangerous one. It is 
just as irrational to dismantle a nuclear power plant (as at Shoreham)  
in favor  of more  dangerous means  of electrical generation.   It is  
similarly irrational  to consider spending $2.3 billion  to convert  
Seabrook from  nuclear to non-nuclear generation.  It would be spend-
ing more money so that more lives would be lost.
     Yet that is exactly what the editorial staff at the Courant is 
advocating (8/8/88).  They  laud the extortionist sale of a $5 billion 
plant (Shoreham) to NYC for $1 (1 dollar) so that it can be dis-
mantled, and  they advocate  converting the nuclear Seabrook into a 
less safe alternative.

         Best regards,
         Howard Hayden
         (203) 486-3766

Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page