The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The Soviet nuclear accident continued to dominate the news today. The Soviets said 18 of the injured are in serious condition and claimed radiation levels have dropped at the accident site. U.S. officials said the casualties are higher than the Soviets admit and warned of radiation damage to a major Soviet farm region. We will have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, we get U.S. and Soviet views on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster from Lee Thomas, leader of the U.S. government task force on the accident, and Soviet embassy official Vitaly Churkin. Then, with three experts, we analyze the possible radiation effects for people and the food supply. Next, Elizabeth Brackett has a documentary report on the U.S. military space program after recent setbacks. Finally, we have a special May Day essay by writer Studs Terkel. News Summary

LEHRER: There were two main events in the Soviet nuclear tragedy story today, both in Washington. U.S. officials held a briefing to tell one story of what was happening at the Chernobyl nuclear station; then a Soviet embassy official made an extraordinary appearance before a congressional committee to tell a very different one. The American story was one of danger continuing.

HAROLD DENTON, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Based on the activity that's been found in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, it's consistent with a major release of fission products from the core. The Russians have reported that the fire has been smothered. It's not clear to us whether the fire is out or not at this time.

LEHRER: From the Soviet official came a different view.

VITALY CHURKIN, Soviet Embassy: The radioactivity of the territory of the nuclear power station and the surrounding settlement dropped by 1.5 to two times. Work is under way to decontaminate the contaminated areas adjacent to the nuclear power plant territory. Medical assistance is administered to those affected, of whom 18 people are in a serious condition.

LEHRER: Swedish scientists said late today new satellite pictures show there are no more fires at the Chernobyl plant. A spokesman for them said the photos clearly show no more smoke spewing from the damaged reactor. Robin?

MacNEIL: The U.S. Agriculture Department said that shifting winds had carried the radioactive plume from Chernobyl to the southwest today, for the first time affecting some of the Soviets' richest cropland. Norton Strommen, chief meteorologist for the department's World Agricultural Outlook Board, said the new pattern would carry fallout over the western Ukraine into Romania, Hungary, eastern Czechoslovakia and Austria. He said the weather pattern looked stable for 24 to 48 hours.

LEHRER: Publicly today, attention in Moscow was more on the annual May Day celebration than on the nuclear disaster. I talked a short while ago about both with The Philadelphia Inquirer's Moscow correspondent, Donald Kimelman. I asked first how he read today's Soviet announcement on the reactor accident.

DONALD KIMELMAN, Philadelphia Inquirer: For one thing, I read it very quickly because there were only 75 words issued today in mid-afternoon. And again, you know, their impression is to -- the impression they're trying to give is that everything is under control and that merely what they're involved now is cleaning up and caring for the injured.

LEHRER: Is anything seeping out among the edges of those official statements, or is that essentially all the information that's coming from Moscow?

Mr. KIMELMAN: That is all the information that's coming from Moscow. And the only other news that we have here are these foreigners -- students and workers -- who are leaving Kiev and Minsk at the advice of their embassies or their companies. And a lot of them are kind of unhappy to go and a little confused, and kind of going along out of the sense of precaution.

LEHRER: All right. May Day celebration today. Any sign that there was a nuclear accident in Kiev 400 miles --

Mr. KIMELMAN: Absolutely not. Beautiful sunny weather in Red Square. The leadership beaming on top of the mausoleum. Thousands and thousands of people filing through with banners and balloons and propaganda slogans, as always. On television tonight, the first 55 minutes of the news was devoted to May Day parades all around the Soviet Union and in the East Bloc. And one of them, of course, was the May Day parade in Kiev, which is about 70 to 80 miles south of the reactor site and a place that foreigners are now leaving. There were again thousands of people -- men, women and children -- marching through the streets of Kiev.

LEHRER: And what did the -- what was said on state television about the accident in relationship to May Day? Anything at all?

Mr. KIMELMAN: Well, after they showed all of the May Day footage, then the announcer read the same communique that I spoke to you about, and this is essentially what they've done every night. They've had no independent reporting, and unlike last night, they didn't show any photographs or any kind of film footage.

LEHRER: Are you aware of the fact that an official of the Soviet embassy went before a congressional committee here in Washington today?

Mr. KIMELMAN: Yes, I was told that. I guess I nd it a little bit amusing that they're doing that. Of course, this man isn't an expert on what's going on. But they haven't provided anybody in Moscow to talk to the foreign press about it.

MacNEIL: The Soviet Union has turned down a U.S. government offer of help, but accepted a private offer from a bone marrow specialist. Dr. Robert Gale, chairman of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry in Los Angeles, said the Soviet embassy in Washington had accepted its offer of help. Gale said marrow transplants are the only way to treat otherwise fatal doses of radiation. The registry has access to lists of 50,000 to 100,000 people who have offered to donate bone marrow. Word of the refusal of U.S. government help came from Secretary of State Shultz with the President in Indonesia. Shultz spoke with reporters after President Reagan met with Philippines Vice President Salvador Laurel, his first meeting with the new Philippines administration. Before the meeting Laurel said it would "clear the cobwebs of doubt" over where Mr. Reagan's political sympathies lay. When reporters asked whether the cobwebs had been cleared for Laurel, Shultz replied sharply, "You'll have to ask him." In Manila today, police used clubs, tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of supporters of former President Ferdinand Marcos. The Marcos demonstrators had clashed with Aquino supporters during a May Day rally. Scores of people were injured in the street battles.

LEHRER: Back in Washington, the Federal Housing Administration said today it would probably be able to resume mortgage lending on Monday now that Congress has raised its credit ceiling. The FHA stopped accepting applications for government-guaranteed mortgages this week when it reached its permitted ceiling, as home buyers rushed to take advantage of lower interest rates. A bill raising the ceiling is to be delivered to President Reagan to sign in Southeast Asia.

MacNEIL: In Tucson, Arizona, six members of the Sanctuary movement were found guilty of conspiring to smuggle aliens into the United States. A jury in the U.S. District Court acquitted five other members of the movement. The Reverend John Fife III, one of the founders of the Sanctuary movement, was convicted. Another founder, James Corbett, was acquitted. The group included three clergymen, a nun and seven church members, all of whom were accused of smuggling Salvadorans and Guatemalans into the United States. They said they were helping people escape persecution in their home countries.

LEHRER: And finally in the news today, Agriculture Secretary Richard Lyng said the government's cattle buyout program will continue. A federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, yesterday ordered a cutback in the program to slaughter dairy cows as a way to reduce dairy surpluses. It was challenged in court by cattle raisers hit by dropping beef prices. The judge said no more than 7 of the national dairy herd can be slaughtered per year. Secretary Lyng said that does not shut us down. He said the department would just adjust the program accordingly.

MacNEIL: And that's our news summary. Coming up, Lee Thomas, head of the U.S. special task force, and Soviet embassy official Vitaly Churkin on the Soviet nuclear disaster. Then we analyze the possible radiation effects. We also have a documentary on the military's setbacks in space, and a May Day essay by Studs Terkel. Chernobyl: U.S. View

MacNEIL: The Soviet nuclear accident again occupies center stage, and the principal issue is the same one it's been from the beginning: getting at the truth of what happened and is still happening at the Chernobyl nuclear station. Up to now the world has been getting much of its information from the United States, principally from a government task force set up to coordinate U.S. response to the accident. That task force is headed by the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Thomas.

Mr. Thomas, reports are coming in tonight not only from the Soviets, but as Jim said in our news summary, from the Swedes, from a French commercial satellite, that the fire is now out at Chernobyl. Is that your information?

LEE THOMAS: We don't have information, Robin, that could confirm or deny that. We do know that the Soviets have indicated the fire is out. Our experts have indicated that that is plausible, that the fire could have been put out, as we had thought it could. But we can't confirm that it has been put out.

MacNEIL: As far as the U.S. is concerned, is radioactive material still being released into the atmosphere?

Mr. THOMAS: If the fire is continuing to burn, then there would continue to be radioactive material. If it is out, then that has stopped.

MacNEIL: I see. Secretary Shultz said today that the casualty figures were considerably more than the Soviets are saying. What is the U.S. basis for saying that?

Mr. THOMAS: Actually, we, I don't think, have enough good information -- and one of the major problems we have is the information base we're working from -- to try to draw firm conclusions. I think that there are a number of possibilities for increased casualty figures, but we just don't have the kind of data that hopefully we will be able to get over the next day or two, that would allow us to draw conclusions one way or the other about casualty figures.

MacNEIL: Would you be very surprised if the figures the Soviets have been giving turned out to be right?

Mr. THOMAS: Robin, I just don't feel that I have the information now to conclude a surprise or nonsurprise at how those figures would change.

MacNEIL: I see. What does it suggest to you that the Soviets have accepted help from this Bone Marrow Transplant Registry in Los Angeles?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, I think as you indicated, that is an indication that the Soviets request assistance and need assistance related to radioactive fallout and damage, medical damage, to individuals as a result of that, and bone marrow transplants obviously is a part of the medical assistance that would be needed.

MacNEIL: Is the U.S. still regarding this as a major nuclear accident, the worst nuclear accident in the peacetime uses of nuclear energy?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, we are. And finding out fully what has occurred there, the consequences of that, both for consequences for health and environmental issues internationally, domestically, as well as lessons to be learned internationally and domestically, is exactly what our task group is charged with. And we feel it is a major accident, that we will pursue that information.

MacNEIL: Do you feel that reports of it, as so many people have had necessarily to deal in speculation in the West, may have been exaggerated in the last couple of days?

Mr. THOMAS: It's difficult to say. There's been such scanty information that's been available as to exactly what occurred, what were the emissions, what readings from those emissions could we draw conclusions from. We know it was a major accident. We know that included major emissions. So until we get that information it's difficult to be solid in our conclusions. I think without it, it led to speculation, which was natural.

MacNEIL: Many experts are saying what damage is done through radioactivity will depend whether all of the material in the fuel cells actually was converted into gas and emitted from the plant. Is it the U.S. -- is it the supposition of your task force now that that is the case, that all of that fuel has been burned off and is in the atmosphere?

Mr. THOMAS: The experts who are working in our task group felt that a good portion of the volatile components of that fuel had burned off, but that as the fuel continued to burn there would be continued emissions until that fuel burned itself out, even though there would be diminished emissions.

MacNEIL: I see. What kind of pressure is the United States government putting on the Soviet Union, through whatever channels, to come up with more detailed information in the interests of other countries?

Mr. THOMAS: The State Department is coordinating and has made contact with the Soviet Union to request information. In response to some information, the State Department has requested additional information. We are continuing to work with the State Department to obtain the kind of detailed information that we think is necessary.

MacNEIL: So what new did you learn today?

Mr. THOMAS: There really was significantly little new information that was available today. We, I think, probably will not get a lot of new information from our own monitoring from confirming reports of surrounding countries that would lead us to new conclusions in the next day or two. But I do think if we're provided more detailed information from the Soviets, that will certainly assist us in drawing more quickly to a conclusion on the issues.

MacNEIL: Do you think the need for your task force to remain inexistence remains?

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, it does, and I think it will for a period of time.

MacNEIL: Does that suggest that the U.S. government thinks there is some danger of some of this radioactivity reaching the United States?

Mr. THOMAS: We don't think there is any public health or any environmental concern from this radioactivity in the United States. We do think there's potential for this air mass and some of the radioactivity in it to reach the North American continent, but we think it would be so slight at this point that it would not present any kind of significant environmental or public health concern.

MacNEIL: Slight as compared to what in the radiation Americans normally receive?

Mr. THOMAS: Slight as compared to the kind of background levels that are normal in the United States. For instance, background levels on an annual basis of 90 to 100 millirem -- this kind of radiation far less than even one millirem as far as any kind of measurement is concerned. But we're at a point now where we really have such tentative information, it's hard to draw firm conclusions on it.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you, Mr. Thomas. Jim?

LEHRER: There was a most unusual House Energy Subcommittee hearing today. The star witness was a Soviet official, Vitaly Churkin, second secretary at the Soviet embassy in Washington.

Rep. EDWARD MARKEY, (D) Massachusetts: How could you have not warned Sweden, Norway, Poland, Finland, Austria and all the rest of those surrounding countries? The world is appalled, Mr. Churkin, and they want to know why you didn't warn them.

Mr. CHURKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that we're certainly well aware of our responsibilities as the member of the international community. At times we hope that the United States would be similarly aware of its responsibilities. What I'd like to say, though, that we have been very forthcoming and we have been contacting other countries on that accident. It is my understanding that no harm was done, I mean, real harm, in those countries which are adjacent to the Soviet Union, to the people who live there, and I would imagine, again, that first there was a desire to see what was really happening and what the consequences of that could be before you make any public announcements.

Rep. MARKEY: What about your own citizens? Had they been notified with regard to the effects of this accident at the early stages of it?

Mr. CHURKIN: Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that those people who are affected by those accidents are very well taken care of. And if they have any medical problems, they would not have even medical bills to pay.

Rep. MARKEY: Isn't it true, Mr. Churkin, in reality, that you -- should have been not celebrating May Day but rather radioing "mayday" to your citizens and to your neighbors with regard to the danger?

Mr. CHURKIN: Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would not be correct on my part to accept any advice coming from you, with all due respect, on what we should have or should have not done in our country, especially, those, things which do not affect in any way negatively the plight of those people who have been affected by this tragic accident.

LEHRER: Mr. Churkin is with us now.

Mr. Churkin, you also told the congressmen the accident is continuing. Continuing in what way?

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, it was a long hearing, and you can quote lots of things from a long hearing. What I'd like to say and what I'd like to make clear is that there is no nuclear fuel chain reaction going on. The three remaining unaffected by the accident power plants of that nuclear -- powerunits of that nuclear power plant have been disconnected; they are inoperational state and what we call operational reserve. They are not affected and the power unit which has been affected, is deadened. So to me -- I'm not an expert on those matters -- but to me it sounds like the accident itself is actually being on the wane. I referred to the continuation of the accident in terms of its consequences. Not all the consequences, obviously, have been taken care of. Things are continuing there; the people continue to be treated in the area. In the immediate area of that Chernobyl nuclear power plant there is decontamination efforts. They are very cautious in the general Kiev region. But the Council of Ministers of the Ukraine have reported that there is no problem in that general area, that the air basin is in acceptable state, the water is in an acceptable state. But of course the accident is continuing in that not all the consequences have been cleared up yet.

LEHRER: But there is no fire still burning in that reactor?

Mr. CHURKIN: You know, I'm a little cautious in answering those technical questions. What I can say is that there is no nuclear chain reaction, nuclear fuel chain reaction. I don't actually know what a fire means in that particular context.

LEHRER: But as far as you know, no radiation is still spewing out into the atmosphere from the plant?

Mr. CHURKIN: This is my understanding of the information we have in the embassy, that the reactor has been deadened, and other things have taken place which I have told you about. That means to me that the most dangerous part of the accident is over. But again, I have to emphasize that I am not a technical expert; I am only handling the information I have.

LEHRER: Okay. There were reports yesterday in this country that a second reactor -- there are four there, as you mentioned; one of them we know about -- but there may have been a fire and a meltdown in a second reactor. Is that true?

Mr. CHURKIN: The last information we had on the state of that nuclear power plant, I believe two days ago, was that the remaining three nuclear power plants or units had not been affected. Since that time we have not had any information on that specific point.

LEHRER: All right. You said today, you read to the congressmen -- we ran it in our news summary; it was also read on television in Moscow -- the official statement today said that 18 of the 197 people who are injured are in serious condition. What kind of injuries do they have?

Mr. CHURKIN: I'm not -- I don't have information on the precise nature of their illnesses or their condition. I would imagine that this is something which happens when there is radiation in the air.

LEHRER: Were they right there in the plant, these people?

Mr. CHURKIN: I don't know where they were. What I can tell you is that there were two people who are dead. There were --

LEHRER: What caused their death, do you know?

Mr. CHURKIN: No, not exactly. There were 197 people hospitalized; 49 of them were released after a medical checkup. And as of May the first, that is, as of today in Moscow, 18 people, as you pointed out, are in serious condition.

LEHRER: But you don't know what specifically they're suffering from -- presumably from radiation injuries of some kind, is that correct?

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, I would not dispute that conclusion, but I cannot say that it is necessarily a correct conclusion.

LEHRER: We ran a small -- a portion of your answer, but specifically, Mr. Churkin, why did your government wait 'til Monday? Apparently this -- well, first of all,this accident occurred on Saturday, is that correct?

Mr. CHURKIN: On April the 26th. Was it Saturday? I think so, yeah.

LEHRER: Yeah, okay. There was no official announcement, no official word from the Soviet Union until Monday. Why the delay?

Mr. CHURKIN: I don't know the exact reasons for that. I would imagine that possiblyd8o figure out what was happening. It being a Saturday, maybe it was not immediately clear -- it was of course clear that there was an accident, but maybe they did not know that there was that release of a radioactive substance into atmosphere. But I don't have a precise official answer as to why the announcement came on Monday.

LEHRER: What do you say to many leaders of European countries, particularly in Scandinavia, who have accused the Soviet Union of withholding vital information to the safety of their citizens?

Mr. CHURKIN: We are talking to those countries. We have been trying to be as forthcoming on this matter as we can, to give them more information, we think, may be necessary for them. If they have any questions, we are in contact with them, we are discussing the situation.

LEHRER: What about the -- you told the committee today that there was still danger to Soviet citizens in the area. What did you mean?

Mr. CHURKIN: Again, I would not subscribe to that quotation out of context. But since there is -- in the immediate vicinity of the power plant, there is clearly some level of radiation which is not healthy for human beings. So people have been evacuated, and work is going on in that area. In those terms, of course, there is danger, as I understand it, for people who might be involved in the work, for example, for decontamination of the contaminated area. And they're watching very closely the situation around it, in the entire Kiev region, to see if there are no indications of any unusual phenomena there. So far fortunately there have been no abnormalities there in the state of the air basin and of the water basin in that region.

LEHRER: Mr. Churkin, have you been watching the U.S. coverage on television of this accident?

Mr. CHURKIN: Some of it.

LEHRER: Yeah. As you know, on this program and on other programs, members of the United States Senate and others have accused your government of telling blatant lies about this accident. How do you respond to that kind of charge?

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, personally I'm a little disturbed. I think that this is a very bad way to go from that point. I think that that accident should serve as a basis from which to work together to try to prevent any things of this kind from happening in the future in the Soviet Union or anywhere else, including the United States. When people try to posture instead of talking in a cooperative manner on those subjects, then I don't see how we can go from there. I think that as human beings, as people, we must learn from experiences, and learning is a calm process; there is no place for politics, in the bad sense of that word, in that particular case, I would say.

LEHRER: Mr. Churkin, it's unusual, to say the least, for an official of the Soviet government to appear before a committee of the House of Representatives of the United States. What caused you to do that today, sir?

Mr. CHURKIN: We were trying to be forthcoming. They asked us to, and --

LEHRER: In other words, they initiated the invitation?

Mr. CHURKIN: Yes, of course. They invited -- it is an unusual invitation, but they invited us, and --

LEHRER: When did you get the invitation?

Mr. CHURKIN: I heard about it about an hour before the hearings started. But since we had some information, and I said from the outset of the hearing that it was a sort of limited information -- after all, we are an embassy, we are not a ministry in charge of atomic energy. We are an embassy, we had some information; they were interested to have information; we gave them what we had.

LEHRER: And Moscow said it was all right?

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, personally, I am not sure we asked for instructions. We are courageous fellows.

LEHRER: To you, Mr. Thomas. Do you -- you're a courageous fellow, is that what you said? Okay. Mr. Thomas, what do you think about the Soviet approach to this? No news from Moscow, and yet Mr. Churkin appears before a congressional committee today and appears on this program tonight. What kind of -- do you have any specific piece of information that you would like to get from Mr. Churkin tonight that would help you unravel this mystery?

Mr. THOMAS: The State Department, as I indicated, is working with the Soviet embassy and Soviet government to request the specific information. We've been in communication with them. I think both the information on the immediate situation, as well as, as Mr. Churkin indicated, what we can both learn from this tragedy to prevent future occurrences, is exactly how we are working with the Soviet government and want to work with the Soviet government.

LEHRER: Mr. Thomas, is it possible that the Soviet Union has been telling the truth about this the whole time?

Mr. THOMAS: The conjecture on truth or not truth is not what we are trying to concentrate on. We're trying to concentrate on obtaining the information that is necessary for assessing the situation and the consequences of the situation.

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, let me say something. I think that at this point it may be too early to say what is the truth and what is not the truth. They give their version of what they think may have happened. I would not rule out that people who are investigating that thing are not sure now what actually has caused the accident. So, you know, when people come out and say that this is what has happened, but they are not saying that and accusing us of things, I don't think it's fair on their part.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this, Mr. Churkin. Can Mr. Thomas leave here tonight assured that one day soon the United States and the rest of the world is going to find out everything that happened in that accident and the kind of information that he and others would need to prevent it here and any other place in the world?

Mr. CHURKIN: As has been pointed out correctly, we are talking. It is not our intention to prevent others from learning something about that accident that might prevent accidents of this kind in the future. We of course would like to prevent those accidents and we will be prepared to cooperate in preventing them in the future.

LEHRER: Does that sound like a deal, Mr. Thomas?

Mr. THOMAS: Absolutely. And that kind of working and cooperation and the kind of information that we need as soon as possible is exactly the kind of cooperation that is important for this event.

LEHRER: Thank you both very much for being with us tonight. Robin? Health Hazards?

MacNEIL: We turn now to the question of radioactive contamination. It's still a matter of speculation just how serious a problem the Soviet Union and perhaps other countries are facing. We get two views now, one from Kenneth Solomon, senior nuclear scientist for the Rand Corporation, a private think tank in Santa Monica, California. He joins us tonight from Los Angeles. And from Frank Parker, a professor of environmental engineering at Vanderbilt University. He heads the only government-funded training program for decontaminating nuclear plants. He joins us tonight from Nashville.

Starting with you, Mr. Solomon, let's discuss first any threat to this country. I don't know whether you heard him, but do you agree with Lee Thomas that any radiation which has been reported approaching this country's West Coast on the polar jet stream would be so minor or so minimal as to pose no health risk?

KENNETH SOLOMON: I agree with Mr. Thomas completely on that. It turns out that Mr. Thomas stated that the -- talked about background radiation in the United States as typically at about 100 millirems. We find that the average person may get exposed to about 200-300 millirems. The contribution that might come about to the average U.S. individual as a result of this accident is certainly less than one or two millirems. So in fact --

MacNEIL: What's that compared to in the normal radiation we get?

Dr. SOLOMON: Sure. The typical chest X-ray might be on the order of 50 millirems. For example, a dental X-ray might be five or 10 or 15; a cross-country flight from New York to Los Angeles round trip might be four millirems. So we're talking about a situation which is rather small in terms of the impact to the United States from this accident.

MacNEIL: Yeah. Do you agree with that, Dr. Parker?

FRANK PARKER: Yes, I do. I think that's exactly right.

MacNEIL: So Americans have nothing to fear from this particular accident greater than the equivalent of flying across the country in a jet airliner or something?

Dr. PARKER: From the information we have so far, I think that's correct.

MacNEIL: Now, I mentioned the polar jet stream. How high does radiation have to be expelled in an explosion from a factory to get into the jet stream?

Dr. PARKER: Well, I think you've asked a very good question. We have good information from previous atmospheric tests, weapons tests, and we know that it takes about a week to go around the Northern Hemisphere. It takes six months to a year to get down to the Southern Hemisphere. And we don't know the information that you've asked. How high did it go? What were the weather conditions? Were there inversions? What were the mixing depths? We don't have that information.

MacNEIL: There would have had to be an explosion for it to get pretty high, though, in other words.

Dr. PARKER: Oh, absolutely.

MacNEIL: Dr. Solomon, we talked to the Swedish experts today, the head of their nuclear office there. And they said in Sweden and Finland, the radiation was only at no higher than 2,000 meters. What does that say to you about the circulation of this radiation and how it got there?

Dr. SOLOMON: Well, it turns out that the actual location of the radiation and the fallout is strongly dependent on wind conditions, and I think that report references the fact that at least that particular segment of the radiation was dropping. And apparently they had sensors up to 2,000 meters, perhaps. They may have used airborne sensors, and determined that there was no radiation above that. That might suggest that some of it was deposing, was falling on the ground. Beyond that, I'm not sure we can infer much more.

MacNEIL: Let's talk about inside the Soviet Union now. What will the effect be, Mr. Parker, on crops and water and so on in the area of the plant, and how far away from it? Just describe what you think it's likely to be.

Dr. PARKER: Well, of course we still don't have very much information about the local conditions, but what we do know so far is that cesium and iodine are the two volatiles that have been released. Iodine has a relatively short half-life of eight days, and so within a short period of time that will decay away. The cesium will be absorbed in sediments very easily, and so we would expect that to fall to the bottom of the reservoirs and also to be taken up by the sediments near the plants. And except for the leafy vegetables themselves, which may or may not be out at this time of the year there, we should not expect too much problem with the foodstuffs, except for the milk products. The liquid milk products, of course, will have high iodine concentrations, if the information we've gotten is correct.

MacNEIL: Do you go along with that, Dr. Solomon?

Dr. SOLOMON: That's generally an agreement with that statement. There are probably some other gasborne, airborne particulates of concern, but of much lesser concern, so I do agree with Dr. Parker.

MacNEIL: Does it depend -- the subject we were discussing with Mr. Thomas earlier -- does it depend on whether all of the fuel in that nuclear reactor was converted into -- I'm not sure of the right term, but was converted into gases that were blown out of the plant, was burned up?

Dr. SOLOMON: Well, in fact what -- the proportion of the fuel that melted will really determine the total quantity of radionuclides that are released, and will probably not have anywhere near as an important impact on the distribution of those. So that in fact, even if a small portion or if a major portion of radionuclides were released, you would still primarily have the cesium and the iodine. So it's more or less independent of the total quantity of fuel melt. I also agree with Mr. Thomas that it's rather difficult to ascertain how much of the fuel melted, but it appears that at least a major portion of it appeared to have melted.

MacNEIL: Dr. Parker, am I understanding you correctly -- are you saying that the food and water contamination around the area of the plant is not going to be a big problem?

Dr. PARKER: That would be my estimate, simply 'cause the iodine will decay in such a short period of time. In 80 days it'll be down to one tenth of 1 of the amount that falls on it right now.

MacNEIL: So they can go ahead and plant crops there, you mean? How far away from the plant could they do that?

Dr. PARKER: Well, we don't know the level at which it was released. We don't know the wind patterns. We don't know how much local fallout. I think that's very difficult to answer at this time.

MacNEIL: But theoretically? I mean, suppose --

Dr. PARKER: Without that information I don't think we can say. If it were a very high-energy release and so it shot high into the atmosphere, then actually the local people would not be getting very much; it would be transported further away.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, what about the report today that the wind changed direction and is think that's very difficult to answer at this time.

MacNEIL: But theoretically? I mean, suppose --

Dr. PARKER: Without that information I don't think we can say. If it were a very high-energy release and so it shot high into the atmosphere, then actually the local people would not be getting very much; it would be transported further away.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, what about the report today that the wind changed direction and iscarrying it down across -- this plume down across the southwest Ukraine and heading towards Romania and that part of Eastern Europe? Does that mean that they are -- and the U.S. Agriculture report referred specifically to rich agricultural areas in the Ukraine. Does that mean that there is not a danger to those crops or food supply there?

MacNEIL: So, Dr. Solomon, are you both in agreement that it is very easy to overstate the amount of danger to the food and water supply from this incident?

Dr. SOLOMON: Well, perhaps I'm a little less optimistic. I feel that certainly what Dr. Parker is saying is in many ways quite true, that the iodine does decay readily and the cesium in water is not a problem. But I think there are other radioisotopes, the many, many other radioisotopes as particulate form that could find their way into the food chain. I also argue strongly that a lot of this will be determined, a lot of what area is affected and the extent of the effect, will be determined really as a function of what we know about the wind patterns and the weather. Because it could in fact be a relatively small area or relatively large area, depending on really what the wind patterns look like. The bottom line, though, is there may be some damage to food crop over a fair area.

MacNEIL: Okay, thank you, gentlemen, both. Jim?

LEHRER: A medical update on the situation now from Dr. Henry Wagner, professor of radiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore and head of its Center for Radiation Education and Research.

Dr. Wagner, you've been talking to your colleagues in Europe about this. Is there any information you can add as far as the medical problems involving the victims?

Dr. HENRY WAGNER: Yes, we have continued to monitor the situation, and we can say that there is no present public health hazard in those areas. But the main thing that is --

LEHRER: In what areas?

Dr. WAGNER: In Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany. The key thing that is missing, however, is information. The way to treat this type of problem is to have the maximum amount of information about the spread of the radiation patterns, the levels of the radiation patterns, so that one can put into operation all the things that are available to handle these accidents. All of these problems are treatable; many of them are preventable by removing radioactivity. My colleagues that I contacted in Sweden and Denmark are very distressed about the amount of information that they have been able to get from the Soviet Union. They have made offers to go to make their own measurements; these were refused. So that basically we have a situation where you have to wait until the last minute when the measurements are made and then make the judgments at that time.

LEHRER: What about the people who the Soviet Union has acknowledged -- two of them have died, there have been 197 injuries, 18 of those serious. Any word crept in about what these people are suffering from or what they died of?

Dr. WAGNER: The only hint we have is this statement, which I think requires confirmation, that the Soviets have accepted the invitation of a bone marrow transplant expert to go to the Soviet Union. That's an extreme measure that's required only when there is very, very extensive radiation injury. I think that should be confirmed.

LEHRER: Is that right? Well, tell me about that. How does radiation affect the bone marrow?

Dr. WAGNER: Well, radiation affects the bone marrow either by direct radiation from exposure from fallout that would come from radiation in large doses coming from the plant, or it would come from ingestion of very large amounts of materials. It's an indication, if that's confirmed -- and I would take a grain of salt with whether that really is true that the Soviets have accepted that invitation -- it means that they have skipped all the other steps, such as making sure that people are informed about what the radiation levels are so that proper decisions can be made with respect to evacuation, with respect to remaining indoors so that one is not exposed to fallout; whether one has the radiation level so that a decision can be made as to whether stable iodine should be given to prevent the uptake of iodine by the thyroid gland. In Poland, for example, we all saw the pictures of women and children who were under considerable stress.

LEHRER: Is that a smart thing to do? Is that smart?

Dr. WAGNER: No. I think -- there's no evidence at the present time outside of the Soviet Union that the levels of iodine in air or water are sufficient that one should administer stable iodine. But if we had very good data, then the Poles could make the decision that it's not necessary and avoid this tremendous stress that comes from fighting to try to get the stable iodine. That's the sort of situation, the perception of the risk, the psychological stress, is frequently as important as the actual medical risk, which has been negligible outside of the Soviet Union.

Dr. WAGNER: In Austria, for instance, where the parents kept their children inside, that was also kind of a wasted gesture in your opinion?

Dr. WAGNER: Yes. And potentially stressful psychologically to the children.

LEHRER: Yeah. So at this point, to sum up, no danger to anybody outside the Soviet Union, uncertain what the medical danger for those right in the area is because you don't have enough information.

Dr. WAGNER: And perhaps unnecessary administration of stable iodine in countries such as Poland.

LEHRER: Yeah, okay. Dr. Wagner, thank you. Military Setback

LEHRER: The first space launch since the Challenger disaster was scheduled for today, but it didn't make it. NASA officials delayed the Cape Canaveral launch of an unmanned Delta rocket for at least 48 hours because of a leak in a fuel valve. The rocket will carry a weather satellite into space when it does finally go. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett has a report on what other troubles already ail the U.S. effort to get new satellites into space.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: The fireworks were spectacular. The implications of this display of rocket power gone awry were more sobering. This was the second explosion of a Titan 34-D in nine months at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Last August another Titan 34-D blew up shortly after liftoff. And this accident, coming only three months after the Challenger accident, has severely limited the American military's access to space. That's what Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger told a House subcommittee several days after the Titan explosion.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: Well, we've also had a very unfortunate loss with the 34-D last week. I'd be glad to go into more detail with you in closed hearings, but I think it would be less than candid to tell you that it was not a serious loss in every way.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Paul Stares, defense and intelligence analyst for the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., agrees.

PAUL STARES, Brookings Institution: Until the Titan 34-D becomes operational, no -- and the shuttle becomes operational, the U.S. doesn't have the means of launching heavy military payloads into space.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Right now the military is unable to launch at least four of its critical satellite systems: photo-intelligence satellites, electronic listening satellites, key communications satellites and early-warning satellites. Since the three accidents the Pentagon has tried to play down the seriousness of the situation, pointing out that most of their satellites have several years left in orbit. The Pentagon will not discuss the specifics of any of the 35 to 40 military satellites now in operation. But the former undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, Richard DeLauer, says the military is concerned.

RICHARD DeLAUER, former Undersecretary of Defense: It's serious because you always like to have the capability in case of a crisis. There's no crisis now. Most of the space assets are functioning well. We're getting the information. We may not be getting the extent of the information or the volume of the information that we'd like to have in certain instances. So, you know, it's not a flood, it's not an earthquake, it's not even a big fire. But it's something they're concerned about.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Most defense analysts agree that the area where there is the most concern is in the area of photo reconnaissance. The most sophisticated photo reconnaissance is done by the KH-11 satellite. Currently the U.S. has only one KH-11 in orbit, though the satellites were designed to work in pairs. Using TV cameras, the KH-11 bounces digital signals to a communications relay satellite. The signals are then beamed here to Fort Belvoir outside of Washington, D.C. The information the U.S. has obtained of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl has come primarily from KH-11 photographs. These photos of Chernobyl are from a commercial observation satellite. The military will not release KH-11 photos, but the detail is much greater, as seen in this photo of a Russian naval yard. This KH-11 photo was passed to a British defense weekly two years ago. Jeffrey Richelson of American University is the author of a recent book on the U.S. intelligence community. He says the KH-11 is a vital part of the nation's intelligence-gathering system.

JEFFREY RICHELSON, American University: It's one of the most significant components. It provides us with very hard data on what the Soviet Union and other countries are doing. It provides us with information about what's going on in the battlefield in the Middle East with regard to the Iran-Iraq war. It gives us information concerning Central America or Cuba and so forth. It's extremely important in terms of arms control; it's a primary means of monitoring Soviet compliance with arms control treaties.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Richelson and other defense analysts believe the Titan 34-D that exploded in August was carrying a KH-11. They also think, despite published reports to the contrary, that a KH-11 or perhaps the earlier version, the KH-9, was on board the Titan that blew up two weeks ago. Paul Stares, who can track the orbits of both U.S. and Russian reconnaissance satellites, says what is clear is that the U.S. has only one KH-11 in orbit now, with no clear launch date for the second.

Mr. STARES: It leaves us in a very vulnerable position, inasmuch as if that satellite fails for whatever reason, or it runs out before a replacement can be found, then the U.S. would be without photo intelligence of the Soviet Union.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: And he says it is a situation no one could have foreseen.

Mr. STARES: I don't think anybody could have predicted at the time that these particular reconnaissance programs were reaching the end of their lifetime, that you'd lose the space shuttle and also lose the alternative heavy-lift vehicle. It's just a perverse run of luck.

BRACKETT: With the Titan and the shuttle unable to launch for close to a year, the military will have at least 10 satellites waiting to go when launches resume. That backup, plus the launches needed for the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, research, will mean a very different ratio between military and civilian payloads for NASA.

[voice-over] John Pike is a military space analyst for the Federation of American Scientists.

JOHN PIKE, American Federation of Scientists: It's an incredible shift. Originally the idea was that the military would be flying about a third of the flights on the shuttle. Now they're talking about two-thirds of the flights on the shuttle or perhaps even more.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Even before the Titan blowup, the acting secretary of the Air Force, Edward Aldridge, told a Senate subcommittee that unless ways are found to ease the backup, "In about two or three years after we start flying, it will be the Department of Defense flying the shuttle all by itself to meet our demands." Senator Albert Gore is a member of the Senate subcommittee that heard Aldridge's testimony, and he is worried about the implications.

Sen. ALBERT GORE, (D) Tennessee: We've never had a period in space policy like this one. A great deal of momentous -- a great many momentous decisions are going to have to be made in a short period of time. Throughout it all I hope very much that NASA can be kept as a separate, independent, civilian-dominated agency that is devoted to the exploration of space. That's now in jeopardy, but I think if we make the right decisions we can keep that focus and rebuild it.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The tension between the military and civilian needs of America's space program has been a part of the program from the beginning. But when President Eisenhower, the former five-star general, presided over the creation of NASA in 1958, he made it clear that NASA would be a civilian agency. All the original astronauts were military men, and the military filled other key slots at NASA. But space exploration to the Apollo moon landing program was clearly a civilian-run effort. Former Defense Department Undersecretary DeLauer says after Apollo a different relationship between NASA and the military began.

Sec. DeLAUER: It changed partially with the shuttle, because of the need at the time to rationalize, justify -- use whatever term you want -- the economics of the shuttle by having as many payloads as you could on it. And that's when the decision was made that, by George, the military was going to use it.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: There are some who say it is now time for civilians to leave the space program entirely to the military. Surprisingly, one of those people is retired Navy Admiral Gene LaRocque. LaRocque heads the Center for Defense Information, a group that more often opposes expansion of the role of the military.

GENE LaROCQUE, Center for Defense Information: At this juncture, it would be very important to give NASA lock, stock and barrel to the command of the United States Air Force. Put a four-star general or admiral in charge of that space program; then you'd have some responsibility, you'd have some accountability, you'd have a structure of a chain of command.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: It is not a suggestion that sits well with Tennessee's Senator Gore.

Sen. GORE: I think that NASA should remain principally a civilian agency, simply because our thrust into space shouldn't be mainly military. I mean, this is part of the great drama of the human story: we're leaving this planet, exploring space. And to think that that's going to be virtually all for military purposes is a kind of thought that most Americans reject.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Ironically, at a time when the military is playing a much larger role at NASA, the Soviet Union, whose space program has always been run by the military, has juQyst announced the creation of a civilian space agency, Glavkosmos. The new agency is responsible for the space station launched shortly after the Challenger disaster. So as this country begins to put its space program back together, the question of military versus civilian control may be one of the most critical to be answered. Forgotten Battle

MacNEIL: That report by Elizabeth Brackett. Finally tonight, we have an essay to mark May Day. Although it's now mostly celebrated in other countries, particularly in the socialist world, Chicago radio interviewer and writer Studs Terkel reminds us that as a labor holiday, May Day has an American origin. Terkel speaks to us from the Chicago Historical Society.

STUDS TERKEL: "History is bunk," Henry Ford so proclaimed some 70 years ago. Today it appears to be our prevailing credo. Ours, the richest country in the world, may be the poorest in memory. Especially is this so in our ignorance of the American labor movement, the story of our trade unions -- how and why they came to be.

Unions are having it rough today, rougher than at any time within recent memory. When the air traffic controllers' union was broken in the summer of 1981, it was applauded by the overwhelming number of Americans. It set off a climate of union busting unparalleled in this century. Let's face it: unions themselves have been far from blameless. We know about the Teamsters, Longshoremen, the role of organized crime. We know about stodgy labor leaders entrenched in cushy jobs, union meetings barely attended. Hardly representative of participatory democracy. Yet we should also know of challenges to them going on at this moment. Today we're celebrating a centennial, the 100th anniversary of one of the most traumatic moments in American labor history: the Haymarket tragedy, more often remembered as the Haymarket riot.

On May 1st, 1886, here in Chicago, a strike began against McCormick Harvesting. A number of workers were severely beaten up by the police. Three days later, thousands gathered at the plant. As the meeting was breaking up uneventfully, somebody threw a bomb. To this day, nobody knows who really did it. Several policemen and civilians were killed. In the hysteria that followed, four of the speakers at the rally were convicted and hanged. Seven years later, the new governor of Illinois, John Peter Altgeld, pardoned the three survivors. In an 18,000-word report, he condemned the trial as a frameup.

Do you know what it was all about, Haymarket? The fight for the eight-hour day. Today, when a young stenographer or computer programmer or any service employee bad-mouths unions, and yet accepts the eight-hour day as a matter of course, does he, she know how it came about, how many blacklistings, how many busted heads, how many busted lives did it take? The eight-hour day and whatever other benefits American working people have today didn't come about through the big-heartedness of those who employed them. They were hard-fought gains through hard-fought battles. In many cases the American public honored the picket lines as in the Pullman railroad strike of 1894. And so too during the 1930s when the CIO was formed and the Wagner Act was passed, creating the right of collective bargaining.

Do young people of today know ordo their elders remember the 1937 sitdown strike in Flint, Michigan, that lasted 44 days and 44 nights? Four days and four nights longer than Noah's flood, it helped create the United Auto Workers of America. Or the Memorial Day massacre that same year, in which 10 working people were shot in the back and killed at a picnic near the Republic Steel plant in South Chicago? That helped set up the United Steelworkers of America. And so today as we commemorate the 100th anniversary of something that happened in Chicago with reverberations throughout the world, initiating what was once known as a labor holiday, May 1st, May Day, we've got to ask the question: did it really happen? Is there such a thing as history? Does it mean anything, or is it all bunk?

LEHRER: Again, the major story of the day remained the Soviet nuclear accident. The Soviets said radiation levels are decreasing, 18 of 197 injured are in serious condition, but stuck with the death toll of two. U.S. Secretary of State Shultz said there was evidence casualties were higher by a good measure than the Soviets have acknowledged.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.