Stop Seabrook

TODAY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE will pour into Seabrook, N.H., to occupy its now famous nuclear reactor site in an attempt to halt further construction of the plant. Only an hour's drive from Cambridge, the plant deserves the attention of the Harvard community. Even more directly concerned are the residents of Seabrook, who have tried to stop construction, twice voting against the plant in town meetings and filing numerous lawsuits--all to no avail.

The legal means of stopping construction have now been exhausted. We support the peaceful occupation of Seabrook as the only recourse left. The plant is unnecessary, uneconomic and, when completed, it will be unsafe. As with nuclear power plants all over the country, the price tag for Seabrook has more than doubled from $973 million to more than $2 billion since its conception. If we continue pouring money down the nuclear drain, we will not have the resources or the will to invest in other energy sources. The final cost of Seabrook alone is more than twice the federal government's total annual investment in solar research and development.

A large portion of the increased cost of building Seabrook is the result of stricter safety and environmental standards, made necessary by the public's greater awareness of nuclear power's potential hazards. The danger of a nuclear accident or core meltdown is one which takes on an ominous importance in light of Seabrook's proximity to Boston. The near-disaster at Three Mile Island has exploded the myth of a fail-safe nuclear plant.

We should now know that we cannot entrust our safety to a private industry that neglects safety measures in pursuit of its own profit. The House Interior Committee has uncovered unconscionable negligence on the part of both the plant owner, Babcock & Wilcox, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Three Mile Island incident. Both ignored the detailed warning of the Tennessee Valley Authority's chief nuclear safety expert. He told them in 1977--two years before the accident--that the plant's method of measuring cooling water levels was faulty, yet nothing was done.

In addition to the danger of catastrophic accident, no safe method of storing nuclear wastes has been found, nor have questions about the effects of low-level radiation on the human body been satisfactorily answered. And, in the case of the Seabrook plant, located on the coast, there are questions of how the billion gallons of water Seabrook sucks in and spews out at hotter temperatures will affect marine life.

TO JUSTIFY SUPPORTING the occupation of Seabrook, it is not enough to catalog the disadvantages of nuclear power. There must also be a better alternative. To meet the nation's future energy demands, as well as New England's--which have actually grown more slowly than expected--we should put our efforts into energy conservation and solar power.

The conservation technology exists. The National Academy of Science has studied the possibilities of conservation and reports that by the year 2010 we could be using 20 per cent less energy than we do now, while maintaining virtually the same standard of living--through conservation measures alone. And despite popular misconceptions, we have the solar technology as well--now. The Harvard Business School Energy Project estimates that another 20 per cent of our energy could come from the sun by the year 2000 if the government gives it the high priority it deserves. Both conservation and solar power can be more speedily implemented than a nuclear power plant, which takes at least a decade to plan and build.

IN THE COMING WEEK at Seabrook, the sanctity of private property rights must yield to the sanctity of human life. The occupiers will be unarmed and trained in nonviolence. We hope that the police will refrain from using their water hoses and attack dogs. And we hope a successful occupation will convince America to turn to a safer, saner energy future, one free of nuclear power.