This book is based upon a symposium, “Nuclear Power and the Public,” which was held at the University of Minnesota on October 10 and 11, 1969. The meeting was a timely one, judging from the nationwide atten­tion it attracted and the continuing and lively public interest in the many issues raised and discussed. Yet, much of the material covered had already been of concern for decades. Certainly since the early days of the Manhat­tan Project, the dissemination of radioactivity into the environment from atomic energy activities has received considerable attention from plan­ners, administrators, and others responsible for the activities, all of whom had public safety in mind. In the mid-fifties, many scientists from outside the atomic energy field began to direct their attention to the potential ef­fects of dissemination of radioactivity into the environment, particularly as related to fallout from weapons testing. Then, in the sixties, the rising potential of nuclear energy as a power source began to start widespread concerns among many segments of the populace. This phase of develop­ment is a particularly intense one because it is reinforced by a general con­cern about many kinds of pollutants and by a serious questioning concern­ing the meaningfulness of new technologies to the lives of individuals and the effects of such technologies upon environmental quality.

In Minnesota, current public interest in the potential side effects of nuclear power is specifically focused on the first of a series of high mega­wattage nuclear power plants being built on the Mississippi at Monticello, about forty miles upstream from the Twin Cities.

About four years ago, officials of the principal power company in the region, Northern States Power, having just faced protracted public criti­cism concerning the environmental effects of a large fossil-fueled plant then being completed, made the decision to use nuclear fuel for their next major power plant. Company officials reasoned that a plant of this type would neither produce the soot, smoke, and noxious chemicals nor suffer the fuel transportation and storage problems of fossil-fueled plants; fur­thermore, its radioactive discharges would be only a small percentage of the levels permitted by the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, nsp appar­ently believed there would be little public criticism and concern. For a long time, there was little public reaction, but, bit by bit, more and more citizens’ groups began to express their concerns and fears about the plant whose construction had been approved by the aec.

Late in 1967, the governor appointed a new commission, the Minne­sota Pollution Control Agency (mpca), with powers to regulate the dis­charges of nuclear power plants. In May 1969, after numerous hearings attracting widespread and active public participation and after consulting an outside specialist, the mpca issued a waste discharge permit for the Monticello plant. Rather than settling the matter, this permit has attracted attention throughout the United States, and the issues at stake in Minne­sota have become the subject of a nationwide polemic sharply focusing on the benefits and risks associated with the use of nuclear energy, the roles of the aec in regulating and promoting the use of nuclear energy, the va­lidity and safety of the radiation standards promulgated by the aec and the Federal Radiation Council, the rights of states to set more stringent regulatory standards than the federal government relating to radioactive discharges, and, in fact, the whole gamut of the environmental question. That permit is the basis of a suit brought by the power company to test whether the mpca does, indeed, have the legal right to set emission stand­ards for radioactivity. The decision will be a landmark that will shape the development of nuclear technology throughout the nation.

It was in this milieu that the symposium was held. The symposium was conceived and planned to bring together competent scientists working in the field of radiation effects and recognized authorities in the many fields of endeavor that bear upon these problems to elucidate objectively the divisive points of view on nuclear power and face one another in a neu­tral forum to present sound and verifiable information and debate the is­sues. It was the hope of the planning committee that the academic atmos­phere would promote unfettered discussion wherein proponents of diverse views could face each other in a calm, reasoned manner appropriate to men who respect one another.

It can readily be demonstrated that the future and well-being of the people of the United States, for better or worse, is inextricably interrelated with the production and use of energy. With the consumption of electric power having doubled every ten years for the past three decades and the prospect of the rate of consumption accelerating even more, we face a

Editor’s Preface

conflict between society’s demand for electrical energy and the recognition of the detriment from ever-increasing levels of pollution resulting from production and use of that energy. It is to this conflict that the contribu­tors address themselves in this volume.

The participants in the symposium were selected because of their rec­ognized expertise and their diverse points of view on the various aspects of the nuclear power controversy. The case for nuclear power as a solution to the “energy crisis” — both in its role for conserving the fossil fuel re­sources of the earth and its favorable situation with respect to environ­mental pollution vis-a-vis fossil fuels — is made by Commissioner Ramey and Congressman Hosmer. Basic information on boiling water reactors and the discussion of the multiple safeguards designed and built into the reactors are presented by Mr. Bray. Drs. Eisenbud and Stannard discuss the development of radiation exposure standards and emphasize the wide safety margin for the public which is built in by the conservative assump­tions and estimates made in setting up these standards. Dr. Auerbach re­views the research that has been done on the potential long-term effects on the environment resulting from low level radioactive discharges into wa­terways, and Mr. Lieberman and his co-authors devote their discussion to environmental monitoring and the actual findings that have been observed following long-term radioactive discharges. The consequences of thermal discharges into rivers and lakes and the effect on biota are the subject of Mr. Brungs’s contribution. Dr. Tamplin develops a position for the inade­quacy of current radiation standards for the protection of the public. Dr. Commoner makes a case for the right of the public to decide the cost — benefit question, as does Dr. Green in his discussion of the inadequacies of public hearings on the siting and construction of nuclear plants. Mr. Free­man and Dr. Hubbert discuss the “energy crisis,” with Hubbert presenting world fuel inventories for electrical power development and Freeman dis­cussing government policies with respect to these inventories.

Although it is readily apparent from the discussions, wherein the contributors had the opportunity to question one another and the audience also participated, that the symposium may not have allayed concern about nuclear power plants, the basic positions and the principal arguments are well delineated. In time, answers to many questions herein will be forth­coming. The conference and this book are key contributions to the histori­cal evolution of the nuclear power controversy.

As the current publicity and concern about environmental decay build toward their crescendo, more and more thought, efforts, and re­sources will be directed toward the solution of these problems. It is axio­matic that the costs for clean-up and the preservation of the environment

will be staggering. Because of that, the case can be made that, to a large extent, the success of such endeavors will depend upon cheap and abun­dant electric power. In view of the prime role of energy in the treatment and care of environmental decay, it is vital that we come to grips with the power production-pollution dilemma as quickly as possible. It is the be­lief of many that nuclear power, particularly for the future, is the answer. It may well turn out that pollution from electric energy production by nu­clear power is a wise trade-off for the gains made by providing energy cheaply and conveniently so the work of cleaning up the environment can proceed expeditiously.

As part of the introduction to this work, I am happy to include re­marks prepared by William G. Shepherd, Vice President for Academic Administration at the University of Minnesota, who officially expresses the support of the University for holding the symposium and for the pub­lication of this volume. Similarly, I am happy to include remarks prepared by Harold LeVander, governor of the State of Minnesota. “On Ecology” is evidence of his opinion of the importance of contributions to solutions of the environmental problems besetting this country.

The symposium in October 1969 was sponsored by the Center for Population Studies and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Members of the planning committee were Dean E. Abrahamson, Donald E. Barber, John R. Borchert, Harry Foreman, Herbert S. Isbin, and Lloyd L. Smith, all of whom are included in the List of Contributors and Participants on page 259. Among those whose sup­port made the symposium possible are the Minneapolis Chamber of Com­merce, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

The symposium was financed by generous donations from the Day­ton Corporation; the Farmers and Mechanics Savings Bank of Minneapo­lis; the First National Bank of Minneapolis; the First National Bank of St. Paul; General Mills, Inc.; the Knutson Companies, Inc.; Marquette National Bank; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; the Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Minneapolis; the Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, St. Paul; Northwestern National Bank; and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The United States Atomic Energy Commission was not asked to contribute funds until after the program had been set up; in addition to providing several speakers, the Commission contributed to the publication costs of this volume.

Harry Foreman, m. d.

June 1970