The Three-Mile Island Syndrome

The Funding for this program is provided by this station and other public television stations. Additional funding is provided by grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation.

May 6, 1979. It was sent them a message time again in Washington DC. The question is, did Washington get the message? I'm Tony Baton and the next hour we're going to examine the fear that drove all those people to march on the capital. Fear that what happened recently at a nuclear reactor on Three Mile Island was just a preview of what might happen in the future. For that reason, they want this country to reconsider its commitment to nuclear power production. Correspondent Chris Koch was at the demonstration. They came from all over the country to the largest protest

demonstration that Washington DC has seen since the Vietnam War and they represented one of the broadest coalitions of Americans ever assembled around a single issue. The demand for a total reassessment of our nation's nuclear energy policy. Planning for the demonstration began three weeks after the nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The sponsors who called themselves the May 6 Coalition represented over 200 consumer, labor, environmental and political organizations including clergy and laity concerned, the fellowship of reconciliation, the association of farm workers, sane, the gray panthers, the gay liberation movement and women striked for peace. Protests against nuclear bomb production and testing began in the 1950s but it was

not until the end of the Vietnam War that nuclear energy became a focus for protest. Beginning as small actions against specific nuclear power plants or against plans to build them, nuclear protesters soon formed alliances like the clamshell, the Krab or the Abolony Alliance and began to coordinate regional demonstrations. A week before this demonstration in Washington, 12,000 anti- nuclear demonstrators marched in Rocky Flats, Colorado and a few weeks before that, 30,000 protesters gathered in San Francisco. But never before in such large numbers and never before in the doorstep of the policy makers in Washington. One of the first speakers was unannounced but to many in the crowd he needed no introduction. Dr. Benjamin Spock whose child rearing advice made its impact on a whole generation of Americans. Today the anti-nuclear power movement has gone national. This is a tremendous gathering. Our job is to keep the movement going and to keep the movement

growing. Don't let people tell you nothing does any good. The anti-Vietnam war movement eventually forced Lyndon Johnson out of office and that was no mean feat. Keep demonstrating, keep writing letters, keep engaged in political activities. And after we get rid of the nuclear power, let's get rid of nuclear weapons. The language of the speeches was almost universally militant. The chance had the ring of determined protest and as the marchers poured out of the ellipse behind the White House and moved down Pennsylvania Avenue and masked ranks. The specter of Fremile Island marched with them. The accident at Fremile Island has triggered a new national debate on nuclear

energy. The experts still don't know exactly what happened inside plant reactor number two. We know that the reactor began operating on December 30th two days before the end of last year and just in time to qualify its owners metropolitan Edison for $40 million in federal tax credits and write-offs. The reactor was soon plagued with problems however it was closed down for two weeks in January because of leaks in the cooling system. On March 28th the morning of the accident two pumps in the cooling system failed entirely and the backup pumps had been shut down for repairs a major violation of nuclear regulatory commission rules. The pressure in the reactive fell, the temperature rose and the core containing the fuel was damaged. Engineers later said that pandemonium

struck the ordinarily calm control room but was it really a crisis? John Herbine of metropolitan Edison said no. We didn't injure anybody through this accident. We didn't overexpose anybody and we certainly didn't kill a single soul. I think number one they're safe. I think number two and the extra radiation as you call it that they're getting is a certainly minuscule and it's the kind of extra radiation you get when you get a dental x-ray or a chest x-ray and four troubles. We had a mere fraction of that. Everyone has a situation is under control and yes we know what we're doing and shortly the plant will be in a more stable condition than it is now. Our goal is to keep on. Two days later Harold Denton of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission arrived on the scene and gave a clearer estimate of the problem. This is easily the most serious accident in the life in the reactive program.

Well I think we know what we're doing yes but we've never had such extensive fuel damage before in any life. The uneasy relationship between the NRC and Metropolitan Edison almost came apart when the company announced it had released invisible radioactive gas into the air without telling anybody. The NRC dispatched several crews to sample and test the air, soil and water around the plant. Residents were worried some even had their bodies scanned for traces of radioactive material. The situation grew more alarming with the appearance of a hydrogen bubble in the reactor. People thought that the bubble would burst, breaking the containment vessel and releasing radiation into the atmosphere or precipitating a meltdown. The most likely meltdown would not result in early fatalities, it would result in exposure to the public that caused latent cancers and land contamination and probably resulting in economic losses of a billion dollars.

How far? For the most likely core meltdown not very far. Governor Thornberg urged everyone within a 10 mile radius to stay indoors. Then he asked some to leave their homes. I am advising those who may be particularly susceptible to the effects of any radiation, that is pregnant women and preschool age children, to leave the area within a five mile radius of the three mile island facility until further notice. Confusion spread through the communities around three mile island, phone lines jammed, reporters from around the world came to Central Pennsylvania and no one knew how potentially serious the situation really was. I figured if the governor and his wife were still here in air family it must not be too bad. I guess people are a little bit worried but it's really nothing to get upset about. You know I wasn't afraid for myself when they said about the children, you

know that kind of bother me. So when they say good I got. While thousands of residents left the area only 150 people came to this evacuation center in Hershey. After President and Mrs. Carter arrived on Sunday and toward the plant, Carter said there would be a thorough investigation of three mile island. On Sunday night there was good news. The hydrogen bubble began to shrink in the chances of a catastrophe diminished. Although the governor officially declared the crisis over 10 days later, some key questions still remain. Who is going to pay for the accident at three mile island? It is costing more than a million dollars a day to supply energy to the areas residents and that doesn't include cleanup at the plant. How should government agencies and utilities interact in the event of another nuclear accident? But most importantly, people want to know if anyone was hurt in the Pennsylvania accident and it may take years for anybody to answer that question. It was unquestionably the largest demonstration in Washington in years, but as

usual in protest actions the exact figures were disputed. The Capitol Police estimated the crowd at 65,000. The organizers said 125,000. The demonstrators were all ages. Many of them graduates of the protest of the 60s who were meeting old friends and making inevitable comparisons with the past. But at the Capitol itself the mood was young and festive. A lot of college kids with beer a few joints in Frisbee's. It was like the 60s but more like the teachings of the early years than the confrontations that marked the end of the era. The speakers covered the whole spectrum of the democratic left. They were there to

teach a new generation about their views on nuclear energy but also to pass along their faith in what they call the American movement. Bella Abzug is a former congresswoman from New York and a spokeswoman for women's rights. I'm so very pleased to see so many young people here because this is our world that we're depending upon you to build. Almost 18 years ago thousands of women gathered in public demonstrations with their children probably with some of you as we are doing here today. Women's rights for peace and other band of bomb groups succeeded in getting a partial nuclear test band in 1963 but the tests went underground and it was too late for many Americans. Research at the University of Utah Medical School shows that children exposed to fall out from the Nevada nuclear weapons tests got leukemia at more than twice the normal rate. When I was in the Congress of the United States those of us who

called for an end to nuclear tests for a stopping of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the arms race and a moratorium on the licensing of nuclear plants were also lied to. We were lied to by the Atomic Energy Commission as we are now being lied to by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and we now even learn and we now even learn that even presidents concealed the dangers of radiation in the states of Utah, Nevada and Colorado. Only one thing can stop nuclear power and nuclear death and that's your power, the power of the woman's movement, the power of the environmentalist movement, the power of the peace movement, the power of the civil rights movement, the power of the labor movement, and so we joined together today in a nationwide movement to shut down the

nuclear power death plants and to stop the nuclear arms race. No more nooks for the sake of our lives for the sake of our children and for the sake of our future and don't forget to tell them in there that they can't stay there and we outside unless they do what the people in this country say. Thank you very much. The fear of radiation poisoning was a major theme of the demonstration and speakers at both the capital and the ellipse drove the point home again and again. It's enough to know that even in the unlikely event that a nuclear plant operates as it's supposed to, people will be killed by the routine releases of radioactive material. A lot of people would like you to believe that it's all over with at three mile island, but it isn't. That goo that

glows in the dark is still coming out of that plant and it's going to be coming out for years, but pretty soon it's going to change so far it's been radioactive gas is coming out. If and when they try to clean that thing up, the sticky stuff is going to start coming out. The rhetoric of the demonstrators was dramatic, but the actual health hazards of nuclear energy production are a matter of considerable controversy. Everyone grants that massive doses of radiation are deadly, but there isn't much agreement about the consequences of exposure to low levels of radiation. Chris Scotch spoke with two radiation health experts in our studios. Tony with me are a Mr. Seymour Jablon on the staff of the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. Jablon, who's a statistician interested in public health, spent six years in Japan studying the effects of the atomic bomb attacks there. Also Dr. Thomas Najarian, a medical doctor who has studied the effects of radiation on workers at the Port Smith Naval Yard, where several

atomic submarines were built and maintained. Let me begin by asking you, Mr. Jablon. A lot of the demonstrators who came to Washington on May 6, then many people in the public were frankly scared stiff by events at Three Mile Island. Did they have reason to be scared? Well, I think they had reason to be scared of what might have happened. I don't think they have reason to be scared of the results of what actually did happen. In effect, we were very lucky and the releases from the plant apparently were not very large. So in your estimation, the releases that did take place were of no real danger to the public. Well, I didn't say that and I don't believe that to be true. I think you have to put risks into context from the limited information that I have about the amount of the releases from the Three Mile Island plant. It seems credible to me that the population living within say five miles of the plant might during their

lifetimes suffer an extra one or two deaths from cancer. On the other hand, thousands of them are in any case going to die from cancer. So that as an addition to the risk that they face in any case, it's not large and yet one or two cancers are going to develop and you can't say that that's unimportant. Dr. Najarian? Well, I would agree with Dr. Jabban that the potential hazard was much greater during the time of the reactor accident. IFI had been living in that area. I certainly would not have waited to see what would happen. I would have at least gotten out until the plant had been cooled down to a cold shutdown. The emissions again, according to any figures that I have seen, what were released probably would not result depending on what data you take. The risk could very well be anywhere from one to 20 or 30 cancer deaths. I would say that

there's a possible upper limit based on some newer data. But again, it's still compared to the number of deaths that would nearly occur in the area that we're talking about. It's not a great excess. You have to consider that we have about 50,000 automobile accidents deaths per year and a million injuries per year and perhaps 350,000 deaths due to cigarette smoking per year and even the entire adult population doesn't smoke. However, there was a great potential risk of a tremendous release of radiation, which I have no way of assessing because I wasn't there. In addition to that, I'm not quite sure that I've seen any figures that are accurate as to how much radiation was released. I've seen quite a wide band to as little as a hundred and something man-rem up to more than 10,000 man-rems since Harold Denton had set on TV two days into the accident that there had been a 10,000 man-rem exposure up to that time. So depending on the amount of exposure, the risk would be for the number of deaths roughly what we say. You know, as a layman, it seems kind of astounding that we

don't really know how much radiation was released during that accident. Does that startle you either of you at all? It doesn't startle me, no, because as I understand it, most of the radiation that was released was in the form of radioactive krypton and xenon gases. These are noble gases. They got through the filters, which were employed to stop other radioactive substances. They're gases. They blow around in the air and they represent a difficult problem to measure. If we don't know exactly how much radiation was released, how can we make any realistic estimates about the health effects on the local population? Well, we don't know exactly how much radiation was released, but the fact is we're talking about a relatively small amount. And even if we were to say well, perhaps it was twice what we measure or four times what we measure, we're still not going to come up with a very large number of cancers. Dr. Nigerian was saying, I'm sorry, Nigerian, was saying before that there might have been

10,000 or 20,000 person realms. The population of the United States receives each year something like 20 million person realms from natural background radiation. So you have to put it against that context. On the one hand, I am not saying that it is negligible or unimportant or that we shouldn't be concerned about it, but on the other hand, I'm saying we should put it into context. It represents a small additional dose to the population above that, which they are getting anyhow. So looking at from the standpoint of the individual, any exposure to ionizing radiation could possibly be dangerous, but statistically the chances of being hurt by it are very low. Is that a summary? I would say that that's a good summary and also that it's pretty certain that

doses are roughly accumulated. In other words, if you receive a dose in one year from X-rays and you get another dose next year, it may not be strictly additive, the effects that it takes place, but over your lifetime you can get somewhat additive. Maybe I'm not sure exactly what fraction you take, but the dose that you get just simply accumulates in terms of the likelihood of something happening to bring out a mutation or a genetic change or a malignancy. Now, one other thing that I think has not been studied too well in animals or certainly in humans is a possible interaction of one cancer-causing agent with another. I've been somewhat interested in this lately as a theoretical model because there have been some studies including my own and I will be publishing shortly more information on the Portsmouth study. But there have been some studies which indicate that doses which are very low on the order of one to five rams seem to be causing some incidence of disease. Again, very, very small and because it's so small, it's very hard to detect statistically. You need very large populations of

people. It's certainly much harder to risk to measure than say the risk from smoking cigarettes all your life, which we can measure in humans in a given population of a reasonable size. But if these effects are occurring at such low doses, then it could be that on top of other carcinogens, for example, on top of an asbestos exposure or on top of exposure to cigarettes or solvents like benzene, that if you then add radiation on top of that, that the given amount of the extra radiation may have a greater effect than it would have if it were none of these other agents were present. Would it be fair to say in summary that short of a major catastrophe at any plant that there are risks involved with the production of nuclear energy, but they aren't very great? I think that there are risks involved for the production of any source of energy. I think some of the risk to nuclear energy production have been greatly underestimated in the past. In particular, the risk to the workers who work in the plants, there's no one's talked too much, but the three mile island has a great deal of radioactivity in it that is going to have to be cleaned up. I don't really know

what the work of population exposure is up to now, but I imagine that ultimately it could be quite conceivable and quite likely that the total man-rems of exposure among the workers would be greater than it would be for the public who had received the discharges from the plant. Well, one last to come. I would just like to say that the risks from generation of electric power by nuclear methods is not probably not zero under normal operating conditions. I rule out a catastrophic accident because we just can't afford to operate these plants in such a way that there's any reasonable probability that might happen, but under normal operating conditions, the effects on the general public health from the nuclear generation of power are probably less and by a considerable amount than the risks to the public health from generating that same amount of electricity from coal from burning coal. Thank you both very much for coming in. To this day, the government still doesn't know how

much radiation was received by the people living around the three mile island plant and estimates continue to be revised upward. Recently, Secretary of H.E.W. Joseph California retracted his earlier statement that no death sore illnesses would result from the event. In fact, he said one to ten excess cancer deaths will result from a three mile island accident. Organization for the March began three weeks earlier with an ad hoc committee met in Washington shortly after the accident at three mile island. Sponsors included Robert Redford, Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, a handful of

congressmen and a few labor leaders. Governor Jerry Brown was there. Worldwide interest in nuclear power generated national and international press attention. According to the coalition, the protest cost about $120,000, but with the sale of t-shirts, posters and collections from the crowd, they say they broke even. According to the speakers at the rally, the same could not be said of the nuclear industry. And that was another of the major themes of the rally hammered home by William Winpith Singer, president of the Machinus Union. I think probably all of you remember as well as I do that candidate Jimmy Carter back in 1976 was running around our country promising the American people that he was going to break up this energy conspiracy. And I guess we all know now that we have president Jimmy Hoover that he was a double agent for the big energy combines. This nation needs and needs now a safe, practical, low-cost energy program that will serve our people rather than a few giant privately

owned, profiting energy and utility organizations. Now our president can never fully redeem himself to the American people for his energy follies. But before his hair falls out, he can partially make amends by asking Jim Slescher to resign and begin immediately implementing an energy conservation program that's based on sane and sound economics and proven safe scientific principles. People who are for nuclear energy say it's essential to maintain high employment and to keep the economy moving and growing. I take it you don't feel that way. Well it's a phony issue. There's no such there's no connection between the two. There's nothing that suggests to us that the economy of the future dies because we don't have nuclear energy. That's poppycock. The fact is that we have on-screen technology and the ability right here and now to create the energy of the future that will take care of the country, our defense, jobs,

and all of the social needs that we have. And we don't have it because government policy has retounded to the benefit of the profiteers in the nuclear arena. If we begin subsidizing other forms on the same basis and to the same magnitude that we've squandered billions on nuclear, we'd have it tomorrow. If any one man was spoken of as the driving force behind the march, it was consumer advocate, Ralph Nader. In March 1976, Jimmy Carter told a group in Florida the following, I quote, I need you, all of you, I need your advice, your criticism, your intimacy, and quote, let's give them our criticism. Let's give them our advice and our intimacy. Let's tell him that when he told the American people in 1976 that nuclear power would be a last resort and that the first

resorts would be energy efficiency, solar power, and clean coal. Let us tell him that he has deceived us in the intervening two years. It's important to know that none of us, none of us like to contemplate the president of our country deceiving us. But when he appointed James Slesinger as head of his energy policy, he betrayed us. He refuses day after day to receive the evidence, the economic, the technical, the humanitarian evidence against nuclear power, an industry that is crumbling, technically, economically, from a health point of view. All over the country, he wants to prop it up with your tax dollars. It's not enough that you're paying the electric bill, which is sky high. He wants to prop it up with your tax dollars. What other energy I ask you? What other form

of energy jeopardizes our national security? Every nuclear plant is a national security risk. What other energy form jeopardizes our vulnerability to sabotage? What other energy form accelerates the spread of nuclear weapons all over the United States, like all over the world, like nuclear energy does? What other form of energy is used now and the payment later for generations of Americans 250,000 years? Can we let that time period sink in the minds of Jimmy Carter and James Slesinger? They are not just doing this to this generation of Americans. They're doing it to 250,000 years. For what? For 3% of our total energy supply, when we can replace nuclear energy immediately, when we have abundant opportunities to cut the 50% of our electric waste, can't we get 3% of nuclear electricity replaced by the 50%

of the electricity that is wasted in the factories, at the utilities, in the office buildings? Let me put it this way. If the corporation's government here does not become the people's government and stop atomic power, are you coming back in greater numbers? Again, again, again, until we stop nuclear power, again. As many speakers pointed out, the accident at Three Mile Island also raises a lot of questions about the financial risks of nuclear power. It was a very expensive accident. The Harrisburg Business Community lost millions of dollars during the crisis, the parent company of the disabled plant, general public utilities plans to lay off 600 workers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to make up for its own losses, and it's also costing more than a million dollars a day to replace the electrical power shut off by the accident. That cost probably will be passed on to Harrisburg consumers whose utility bills may soon rise by as much

as 20%. When officials from general public utilities testified recently before the Senate subcommittee on nuclear regulation, they said their customers, not their stockholders, should bear the financial risks of nuclear power. Standing 20 years ago, this industry was getting started about who would bear these risks. I think it was perceived that this would be a customer charge, but it would do no good. I don't believe to bankrupt GPU and destroy 177,000 stockholders. It doesn't agree, it's not very palatable to lay these costs on a million and a half customers, but the dollars aren't there any other way.

On the one hand in your testimony, you talk about the savings that nuclear power represents over oil fired plants or conventional generated plants. On the other hand, presumably that savings results in a benefit to the stockholder, the person who invests in the industry, that's passed on directly to the customer through our energy clauses which pass on fuel savings as they occur. As you changed or converted to nuclear power, your utility bills went down. We can't say they went down, Senator, we know that they went up less than they otherwise would have. As the hearings progressed, many members of Congress were coming to an unexpected conclusion. Nuclear power wasn't such a great financial bargain to begin with, and the economic consequences of accidents like Three Mile Island might price it right out of the energy market. You know nuclear, the great promise of nuclear was cheap electricity for all mankind.

It was abundant and cheap and you didn't have to have meters. Now the cost of nuclear has soared, used to be $200 a kilowatt for these new plants. It went to $400 to $800. They're talking about $12,500 a kilowatt for these new plants. And in many cases, given the economics, it's not even cheaper than coal or the alternative. The May 6th demonstrators welcomed the thought that their opposition to nuclear power might be economically as well as morally sound. This is what they were told by Charles Comenoff, a consultant to the New York State Consumer Protection Board and to the General Accounting Office. Nuclear power has gotten so expensive that it can't compete with other sources of energy. Since 1972, the cost to build and fuel nuclear power plants has gone up by 360 percent. That six times faster than the overall rate of inflation in this country.

Is that economical energy? Nuclear power is so expensive today that a nuclear plant today provides the heat equivalent, the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil for $100. In contrast, nuclear supporters say it takes too long to license new plants. Civil challenges cause further delays, while inflation runs away with construction costs. That's why they favor the President's bill to speed up the licensing process. As the President and the Secretary's messenger have said, each delay of one year for getting a nuclear plant in the line costs the ratepayers ultimately between $100,000,000 and $150,000. Now that bill, that licensing bill, would cut the lead time presumably from about 12 years to about eight years, without in any way reducing the environmental and public safety aspects of the licensing procedure.

This means you'd be saving almost a half a billion dollars in the cost of a plant. I think it's important for the people to understand that half the cost of a nuclear plant is on interest rates and lawyers' fees. What would happen if we did shut them all down, and just how dependent are we on nuclear power? 12.5% of the nation's electricity is generated by nuclear reactors. That means about 4% of all the energy we consume is supplied by 72 nuclear plants, although seven are currently shut down. Another 94 plants are under construction, and 39 more are planned for a total of 205 by the year 2000. The East is the most dependent on atomic energy, but such diverse states as Maine, Vermont, Illinois, and Nebraska depend on it for at least half of their electrical power. Can we shut them all down right now? Even those who support moratoriums on new plants say no, the best we can do is phase them

out, but nuclear power may be phasing itself out. Demand for electricity, the only kind of power produced by nuclear reactors, is much lower than anticipated 20 years ago. Even construction costs and the crippling expense of shutdowns are making nuclear plants a risky financial investment. As a result, new orders for reactors are dropping steadily, and many orders are even being canceled. But phasing out nuclear means phasing in coal, because coal represents 90% of our national energy reserve. That's the conclusion of a new report by a little known congressional agency, the Office of Technology Assessment. It is our best direct substitute for electricity in the short term. And therefore, one that we can rely on in the short term in very large quantities. That's going from like 600 million tons of coal to, on the order of two billion tons of coal, a year to be consumed to meet that demand.

coal is presently competitive with nuclear, probably favorable, both in terms of construction and in terms of operation. But I'd like to point out that with coal, you also have penalties to pay. It has its environmental difficulties. They are different in the eyes of many less severe than those that are associated with a catastrophic nuclear accident. On the other hand, there are thousands of deaths related to coal annually in the United States, and those numbers would surely increase. But if coal is only a short term solution, where do we go in the long run? Our natural gas is in short supply. Most of our hydropower is already being used, and we all know there's an oil crisis. This defeated nationwide rationing again, but there is rationing in California. Solar energy and conservation may be the answer, but the president wants more nuclear power.

Neither he nor Congress increased funding for solar energy this year, and we, the people aren't buying conservation yet. And a big yellow touchy coming to go in my old man again, won't it always seem to go? You don't know what you've got talent's gone. They may paradise and they put up a parking lot. They may paradise and they put up a parking lot. They may paradise and they put up a nuclear hotspot. They may paradise and they put up a nuclear hotspot. They may paradise and they put up a nuclear hotspot. everywhere, and much of the music in many faces

recalled the Woodstock generation and the politics of protest. The May 6 Coalition organizers hope that after almost a decade of relative silence, the movement has found a new cause. Tom Hayden was there with his wife, Jane Fonda, calling for a new politics of the future. And California Governor Jerry Brown sounded like he hoped to be the new politician. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It's nice to be here again. I want to just say a few words about the China Syndrome, my movie, The China Syndrome, because the fact that the opening of the movie was followed so quickly afterwards with the disaster at Three Mile Island has led a lot of people and the press to say that this is an example of fiction anticipating reality. The exact opposite is true. The fiction has been the nuclear industry's decades of assurances that nuclear power is safe and necessary. The film The China Syndrome is a reflection of a reality

which surfaced most dramatically at Three Mile Island, but which has existed in plants throughout this country for years. The stock valves, the corroded pipes, the falsified radiographs, major construction problems, human error, workers being fired if they speak out, narrowly diverted disasters. All of these things are not rare occurrences, but have happened in plants all over this country for years. The problem is that they have been hidden from us by the nuclear industry and its friends on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and by a succession of presidents including Jimmy Carter. That is fact, not fiction. Many people seem astounded by the scene in the film China Syndrome in which a scientist in describing a major nuclear accident says, and I quote, it would render a state the size of Pennsylvania

permanently uninhabitable. The fact is that that sentence comes directly from a little known hidden government study called Wash 740, which was prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1965. That is fact. What is fiction is the Atomic Energy Commission telling us that they are protecting us when, in fact, they hide from us the information that they have. But mostly, I just want to say that I'm very, very happy to be here. I'm happy to be with you. You are fact. You are real, and I love you for being here. Thank you. We need an alternative president, but we also know from our long history in many movements that many of us have found bringing ourselves

to Washington in past decades that more than people in office, we need an alternative vision, an alternative program, and real answers that can make even the best of our politicians realize that they have to get in line with the people and catch up with where history is going. The anti-nuclear movement, like the anti-vietnam movement, has reached a stage when it has gone from a handful of dedicated demonstrators to a vast majority of skeptical and questioning Americans. And this gives us the opportunity for great change. APPLAUSE Nuclear power. Nuclear power is a health issue. It's an environmental issue. But fundamentally, it is a political issue. It will affect the fabric of our democratic way of life. And political it is.

Washington pundits are calling this a full-fledged presidential issue. Congress has responded in the way it knows best by scheduling hearings, literally dozens of them. It's likely to be the most exhaustive probe of the nuclear power industry in its 25-year history. Undeclared as a presidential contender, but out front in the polls, Senator Edward Kennedy strategically moved into the fray. As chairman of the Health Subcommittee, he scheduled the first Senate hearings on Three Mile Island. Purpose of this hearing is to the best of our ability to put the facts on the table and to answer the questions and to address the fears. When we are done, Americans will know what the health experts know. They will know what remains unknown. Part of the fear, concern, and suspicion American share about this accident, and its reported health implications, stems from the poor track record of the federal government and leveling with the American people about the health effects of low-level radiation. The senators tried to sort out the genuine mystery

surrounding Three Mile Island, but the answers were scarce. That led to some outbursts of frustration. Well, is there a safe level of low-level radiation exposure or does each additional exposure involve added risk? Mr. Chairman, we don't know. So, Dr. Henry, on the radioactive water release, I was at the site Thursday afternoon. I was briefed by the top executives on the scene, and we weren't told one thing about any radioactive water being released in the Cessco Hanna. When did you know about radioactive water being released in the Cessco Hanna or blew it water? I don't have it at hand, but it seems to me it was about Thursday afternoon or something of that order. But when were you informed? Were you informed before it happened or not? As I remember it, I asked them to stop it, so I assume it would have been going on, Senator. Now, let's talk about what this water is.

Well, wait. It's the industrial water, the toilet flushings, and the normal steam plant dripping from the thing, so. Well, but were you informed or not that the utility was releasing? They wanted to release 400,000 gallons of radioactive water. Were you informed before they did it? Nope. And is it not true that you ordered them to stop it after they had started it? Absolutely. And how many gallons went in before you ordered them to stop it? I really don't know, Senator. Who's in control of a situation like that, Dr. Henry? Obviously, you folks weren't. The accident at Three Mile Island came in a awkward time for the president. Mr. Carter was preparing a major energy address to the nation in the face of growing oil shortages and deepening inflation. Instead of being able to extoll the virtues of the nuclear alternative, the president announced he was creating a blue ribbon panel to examine the industry he has long supported. I directed the establishment

of an independent presidential commission of experts to investigate the causes of this accident and to make recommendations on how we can improve the safety of nuclear power plants. You deserve a full accounting, and you will get it. In a subsequent news conference, President Carter, a former nuclear engineer in the Navy, pushed his plan to speed up licensing of nuclear power plants. There is no way for us to abandon the nuclear supply of energy in our country in the foreseeable future. I think it does not contribute to safety, to have a bureaucratic nightmare or maze of a red tape as licensing and citing decisions are made. The nuclear crisis energize President Carter's political nemesis, California Governor Jerry Brown. A long time nuclear opponent, Brown, has stumped the country trying to make political headway on the issue.

He doesn't quite say I told you so, but he comes close. In California, I signed the first law, and it is still the only law on the nation that has imposed a moratorium on the construction of new plants because the federal government has not found a way to permanently dispose of the waste. Now, in light of three-mile island, I've asked for a moratorium on the Diablo nuclear canyon licensing process. As for the future, I say no more nuclear plants. As for those that are now operating, those that are in the licensing process, a very careful, ad hoc review of each one based on the findings that should come out of the three-mile island review and the other research and degenerate problems of nuclear power now commissioned by the NRC. Attempting to cut political losses, Carter quickly went to the first primary state, New Hampshire, where the Seabrook nuclear facility has been a source of controversy. The president addressed the issue head-on in a town meeting in Portsmouth just a few miles from the plant. I believe that we will benefit tremendously

from the aroused American interest in the subject. You probably see the public opinion polls where substantial majority of American people still think that we should depend to some degree on atomic power plants for energy. We have proposed to the Congress legislation for the first time in 35 years concerning waste disposal, and it's before the Congress now for consideration. We've also proposed to the Congress kind of partner legislation, parallel legislation, for the storage of spent fuel rides, two separate pieces of legislation. I think the lo-morel that exists not only in the designers, builders, operators of atomic power plants, but those who live around them and who fear for their own safety will all be aided by a frank, honest, competent report

to the American people about the status of nuclear power and its degree of safety, and what can be done to make nuclear power plants safer in the future. I see President Carter in serious trouble unless he takes them more. Producer Greg Ramshaw talked with Congressman Mike McCormick. The President waits to initiate aggressive programs to for the production of energy from domestic sources, and that means coal and nuclear. The more hazard he gets into is for us and the next election is concerned. The President is faced with satisfying proponents like McCormick while appeasing the growing number of nuclear foes. A recent New York Times CBS News poll showed support for nuclear power dropping from 69 percent just two years ago to only 46 percent this year. However, even the posters are uncertain about where the public stands and ABC News Lou Harris survey show 63 percent accepting the need for nuclear power

in the future. What do you see as the political fall out from the three mile island accident? It depends on whether or not we have rational, responsible leadership in this country. If the peddlers are frightened, the hysteria people and the anti-nuclear cultists get control of the emotions that people in this country, then it could be very damaging. Opponents of nuclear energy say they're now coalescing the new politics of the 80s based on the activism of the 1960s. Do you buy that? I'm not sure the potential is there for the kind of further and dedication and growth of a movement that we had in Vietnam. It may be, but I don't see it as developing with that kind of intensity or broad-based support. But clearly, there's an anti-nuclear force in this country it's going to be reckoned with. Ultimately, Congress will have to decide how to reconcile the public's fears about nuclear power with the nation's other energy problems.

For the time being, the tide seems to be running in favor of tighter government restrictions on the nuclear industry. In the week following the May 6th demonstration, two separate congressional committees proposed legislation that would either shut down or delay the construction of many nuclear power plants across the country. That doesn't necessarily mean the nuclear issue will dominate the politics of the 80s, and it certainly won't be enough to satisfy some of the people who brought their cause to Washington. What we're doing here today is more important than the Vietnamese war. Is more important than dealing with racism than dealing with sexism, than dealing with hunger, because I can feel hunger, I can see war, I can feel racism, I can feel sexism, I cannot see radiation, I cannot smell radiation, I cannot hear radiation, I look around one day and I am dead somewhere.

You have to, somewhere, you have to. So I say to you today, I say to you today, when you leave here, you have to give radiation a odor, you have to give radiation a sound, you have to give radiation a smell, so go back into your communities, and be willing to go to jail if it comes to that, because I'd rather see you in jail with the jail field up than the graveyards running over. We have a choice. About 10 years ago in California, I stood in front of a crowd like this, and I knew that you had the power to end that war in Vietnam. And so I vowed 10 years ago that I would not eat any more solid food until the war was over in Vietnam and a lot of folks thought I was gonna die,

but I knew how much power you had. Well, I vowed to you today that I will not eat no more solid food, and I will fast until every nuclear plant is closed down, and I know you have the power to do that. God bless you, peace be with you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Cheers. Gee, I've waited a long time for this day. Always confident it would come, but you know, I'm getting to be an old guy and a little impatient. So he, you are, and you know what this means. You know, looking out over this incredible mass of people. What this means is that the movement has started again. And listen to me, you young people here in thank heavens, you're mostly young people.

It's forever. It's for your lives, and if we can only keep the show on the road, it's for your kids' lives and their kids' lives. You know, that beautiful guy Phil Oaks made a beautiful song I ain't marching anymore. I want to tell you a fine song, but a poor principle. When you stop marching, you're nothing. You march through your whole life, teach your kids early to march through their lives. The moment you stop, you're under attack. In the last few months, I hadn't planned it that way, but that's the way it is. I've been all over what we call optimistically, the free world, and everywhere I go, there is the anti-nuclear power movement, all over the countries of Europe, Australia, Japan, wherever you go. There's the anti-nuclear power movement.

The graffiti on the walls, the graffiti of the anti-nuclear power movement, and I've asked myself in all those places, what are these people trying to say? And I think in all those places, they're trying to say the same thing. And that is, this country is our home, not your business. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. This program was produced by WETA,

which is solely responsible for its content. Funding for this program was provided by this station and other public television stations. Additional funding was provided by grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation.