Is nuclear energy acceptable?

Nuclear hazards are assessed as being unique only in the sense of their unfamiliarity, with future development of nuclear energy dependent on overcoming public fears. Economics is clearly in favor of properly operated nuclear energy facilities for long-term power generation. Risks arise over the potential for human error to permit improper operation and for an industry shutdown because of a reactor accident. Attempts to ascertain accident probabilities have revealed that emergency core cooling systems and containment are not simply parallel, but operate in series and provide more safety than was thought. Insurance liability, resting on the small probability of very costly damage, is felt to be best placed on the utility with the government providing ultimate protection in the event of a potentially bankrupting accident. Problems of nuclear waste handling and low-level release are felt to be solvable with present technology. Proliferation is felt to be a political problem that is incidental to power plants. Public concern is blamed on possible diversion of materials for weapons, unfamiliarity with radiation, and the demand for meticulous handling of materials and operations. Burner reactors are projected to phase out and be replaced by breeder reactors that are operated in physical isolation under strictmore » security by a professional cadre aware of its responsibility. A restructuring of the nuclear industry is called for so that the generation of power can be insulated from the distribution and marketing functions. (13 references). (DCK)« less