                                  T H E

                               Z E P H Y R

                      __     M A G A Z I N E
                     {__]++++++++++++++++++++++++++[]
                     Issue #18                6-7-86

                A weekly electronic magazine for users of
                            THE ZEPHYR II BBS
                        (Mesa, AZ - 602-894-6526)
                    owned and operated by T. H. Smith

                        Editor - Gene B. Williams

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . You may share this magazine with your friends under the   .
     . condition that the magazine remain complete and intact,   .
     . with no editing, revisions or modifications of any kind,  .
     . and including this opening section and statement.         .
     . If you like the magazine, our Sysop and I would appreciate.
     . it if you would let your friends know where they can log  .
     . in to find the magazine (and incidentally one of the      .
     . one of the finest BBSs in the country!).                  .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                (c) 1986

    THIS ISSUE:

       Ahhh. It's 6-7-8 (if you forget the final 6).
       I have no idea what that's supposed to mean or how it ties in
    with this week's issue, but . . .

       This week we have a guest article from Jim Lippard. And what
    perfect timing! All week long it seems that the major topic of
    discussion on Winds of Thought has been nuclear power, and the
    relative safety, or lack of safety, of this power generating
    method.

                              NUCLEAR POWER

                             by Jim Lippard

      What is nuclear energy?
      To understand that question, it's important that you understand how
    electricity is generated. There's nothing magical about it.
      The most common way of generating electricity is to move a conductor
    through a magnetic field. Hook a voltmeter to a coil of wire and
    you'll get no reading. Move a magnet by that coil and the meter needle
    will jump, showing the voltage generating by the combination of a
    conductor (the coil of wire), a magnet (which generates a magnetic
    field) and motion.
      Electrical generators work from the same principle. Get some coils
    of wire, rotate a magentic field by the coils, and electricity is
    made.
      A commercial generator will produce electricity as the shaft of the
    generator is turned. This turning is done by a turbine connected to
    the shaft. If the idea of "turbine" seems confusing, just think of
    the child's toy called a pinwheel. Blow on it and the blades of the
    pinwheel cause it to spin. That's really all there is to a turbine.
    Blades get pushed by some force or another. When the spinning motion
    moves a coil around a magnet (or a magnet around a coil) the whole
    arrangement is known as a turbogenerator.
      Turbines may be turned by wind blowing across propellors, by water
    rushing through a dam, or by any number of other means. But most
    power plants are thermal in nature. Their turbines are either steam
    or gas. The turbine is turned by hot (and expanding) gases resulting
    directly from the combustion of fuel, or by the fuel heating water
    to become steam (another hot and expanding gas)
      Many turbines recycle the expanded gas. In a steam generator, for
    example, the steam runs through a condenser, which cools the steam
    and turns it back into water again, and thus back to the beginning
    of the cycle. (The condenser in this case is a set of tubes filled
    with a separate circuit of cooler water. The condenser's cooling water
    is sometimes taken from a nearby river and is later returned to that
    river after the water has passed through the cycle.
      This may warm up the river by a few degrees near the plant. This
    warming is sometimes referred to as "thermal pollution". While it
    does drive out some species of life, it also provides a habitat for
    other species for which the water had previously been too cold.
      Due to environmental pressure, cooling towers are becoming more
    common. The water drips down from the top of the cooling tower, where
    it gives up its heat to air drawn through the tower by natural draft
    or by fans. Cooling towers often have a white plume of "smoke" coming
    out of them. This is pointed to as being pollution by some uneducated
    "environmentalists" but is actually nothing more than water vapor -
    the same that results when you breathe out on a cold day.

      The only difference between a nuclear plant and a "conventional"
    plant is the manner in which the water that drives the turbines is
    heated.
      In a conventional plant, coal, oil or some other burnable fuel
    is used to bring the water to a boil. In a nuclear plant, the water
    is brought to a boil by the heat of a nuclear reaction.
      To understand how a nuclear reactor works, it is first necessary
    to know a little something about atoms. An atom is composed of
    a positively charged nucleus (made up of protons which carry a
    positive charge, and neutrons which carry a neutral charge) surrounded
    by negatively charged electrons. The number of electrons in a stable
    atom is the same as the number of protons in the nucleus. All this
    determines what element it is, and gives that element its atomic
    number.
      "Splitting the atom" is no big deal. The tough part is splitting
    the nucleus. If it were possible to split iron atoms (atomic number
    26) in half in such a way that the new atoms each had 13 protons and
    electrons, the new atoms would be aluminum (atomic number 13).
      The atomic number is unaffected by the neutrons.  Chemically, the
    number of neutrons in an atom is irrelevant. What -is- affected,
    however, is the mass number of the atom - its atomic weight. Neutrons
    do have weight.
      An isotope is an atom of an element that has a different atomic
    weight than normal - too many or too few neutrons. For example, hydrogen
    normally consists of 1 proton and 1 electron, and has a mass number 1.
    An isotope of hydrogen (called deuterium) has the same proton and electron
    but also has a neutron, giving it a mass number of 2. Then there is
    tritium - 1 proton, 1 electron, 2 neutrons, and a mass number of 3.
      The isotopes of other elements do not have distinct names. They are
    specified by following the name of the element with its mass number
    (e.g.  carbon-12, carbon-14).
      Different isotopes of the same element are chemically indistinguish-
    able.  What do vary, though, are the element's nuclear properties,
    such as whether it is stable or radioactive, and whether or not it is
    fissionable. (Fission is the action of splitting an atom. Fusion is
    the action of joining two atoms to become a single new atom.)
      Radioactivity is radiation of various types that is emitted when
    a nucleus decays or disintegrates. This can happen in any number of
    ways. To purpose cause this disintegration, you merely have to "shoot"
    a neutron into the nucleus, thus causing it to become unstable and
    causing it to fall apart.
      When a nucleus splits, it may emit one or more of its neutrons.  If
    these neutrons are then absorbed by other nuclei, they in turn will
    split and send off even more neutrons, which affect more nuclei, which
    send out even more neutrons, and so on. This is a chain reaction.
      And along with all those flying neutrons is energy. In a controlled
    chain reaction, that energy is well harnassed. In a run-away chain
    reaction the result is a release of that energy VERY quickly. We call
    it an atomic bomb. This is what causes a lot of problems with the
    way people understand - or rather DON'T understand - nuclear power.
      Since both are chain reactions, there is the common misbelief that
    a nuclear power presents a danger of explosion. However, the two really
    have nothing in common. Just as the second by its nature is not
    controlled, the first by nature is always under control and cannot
    explode. Both are fission - but napalm and a candle are both burning.
      There are four types of nuclei that are fissionable, and only one
    of them occurs naturally in significant quantities - uranium-235.
    The average number of neutrons available for causing further fissions
    of a U-235 nucleus is between 2 and 3. In practice, the 2 or 3 neutrons
    emitted do not both cause another fission, even if it were possible
    to have a substance which was entirely pure U-235. A neutron can fly
    out of the volume of the substance altogether.
      To get a nuclear bomb, the fissionable material is enriched to more
    than 90% U-235.  In natural uranium ore, almost all of the uranium is
    U-238, which is not fissionable. In other words, U-238 cannot explode.
    It contains only about 0.7% U-235. To get a chain reaction, the
    average number of neutrons absorbed by other nuclei per fission of
    a nucleus must be greater than one. This is achieved by holding
    together pieces of a sphere of enriched U-235 for long enough to get
    a chain reaction (about a millionth of a second), which is done in
    bombs by firing smaller pieces into a sphere using high explosives.
      As mentioned, such a chain reaction in a nuclear power plant is simply
    not possible due to the laws of physics. First, reactor fuel contains
    only 3.5% U-235. 100 fissions in a nuclear reactor can cause no more
    than 101 fissions in the resulting next generation, which takes place
    over a period of time more than 100,000 times longer than in a
    nuclear explosion.
      A U-235 nucleus is more likely to absorb a slow-moving neutron
    than a fast one. For this reason, a reactor uses a material called
    a moderator which does not absorb neutrons but bumps them back into
    the uranium at a slower speed. Among good moderators are many
    hydrocarbons, beryllium, carbon (including graphite), and, best of
    all, water.
      The moderator is heated up by bombardment of the neutrons and is
    used to heat water in a boiler. The rate of heat production is
    controlled by controlling the number of neutrons which are allowed
    to produce the next generation of fissions. This is done by using
    material which absorbs neutrons, such as boron, cadmium, or hafnium.
      The reactors most commonly used in the U.S. are Boiling Water
    Reactors (BWR) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). Both use water
    as a moderator and as coolant. (Another type of reactor is the
    High-Temperature Gas reactor, which uses a gas (such as helium)
    as a coolant.)
       In a BWR, the water in the core is converted to steam and is used
    to power the turbines directly. In a PWR, the water in the core
    transfers its heat through a heat exchanger to a separate circuit of
    water which drives the turbines.
      What is radiation?
      Radiation comes in four forms: alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron.
      Alpha radiation is caused when an atom releases two protons and
    two neutrons (a helium nucleus). Such radiation does not travel very
    far, perhaps a few inches through air, and may be stopped by a
    piece of paper. The danger of alpha-emitting substances (such as
    plutonium) comes when they are inhaled or ingested.
      Beta radiation is caused when an electron is released from an atom.
    Beta particles travel slightly farther than alpha particles - perhaps
    a few feet through air.
      A gamma ray is a burst of electromagnetic radiation (either a high
    energy photon or a quantum of light of extremely short wavelength,
    such as an X-ray). And you already know what neutrons are.
      Only gamma rays and neutrons travel any significant distance through
    matter before they are stopped. It takes many feet of earth or several
    feet of concrete to reduce their intensity to something approaching
    zero.

      A radioactive element can give off any of these types of radiation,
    but a given isotope will always radiate the same type or types.
      The timing of when a particular atom's nucleus will disintegrate
    and give off radiation is random and impossible to predict, though
    the probability is known. Given an amount of radioactive substance,
    it is possible to know exactly how long it will take for half of that
    amount to disintegrate. This is known as its halflife.
      For a given substance, the intensity of its radioactivity is smaller
    the longer its halflife. Plutonium, with a halflife of some 23,900
    years, is not very radioactive. Polonium, with a halflife of 4
    millionths of a second, is highly radioactive.
      Stable elements, which are not radioactive at all, have nearly
    infinite halflives.
      Radiation may be measured in rads, roentgens, or, for our purposes,
    rems. "Rem" stands for "roentgen equivalent man." It is a measure of
    biological damage caused by radiation.
      Everyone is constantly being exposed to natural background radiation,
    caused by the sun, by radioactive elements in the earth, etc. Each
    year, the average person gets about 35 millirems (35 mrems - or
    35/1000ths of a rem) from cosmic rays, 5 mrems from the air, 34 mrems
    from building materials, 25 mrems from food, and 11 mrems from the
    ground. Add it up and it comes to a dose of a little more than a
    tenth of a rem.
      The natural background radiation, or NBR, varies from place to place.
    In Dallas, the average person gets 53 mrems a year; in Denver, between
    107 and 157 mrems, due to elevation and the rocks in the ground.
      In addition to NBR there are man-made sources of radiation. A
    coast-to-coast jet flight will give you a dose of about 5mrems. A
    typical television viewer gets 1 mrem/year. One chest x-ray gives you
    50 mrems.
      Yet, the dose is a mere 0.01 mrems/year from living within a 50-mile
    radius of a nuclear power plant.
      To get some idea of what this means, the International Commission
    on Radiological Protection has set 500 mrems as the maximum annual
    dose a person should receive. Even so, there are areas in Brazil and
    India where the inhabitants get 1500 mrems/year NBR with no unusual
    effects.
      Statistics show that for each rem of exposure over 1 rem, it is
    estimated that the exposed person's risk of dying from cancer increases
    between 16.8% and 16.818%. Radiation sickness results from exposures
    of more than 100 rems. Victims die within a few weeks after exposure
    or recover, with all symptoms disappearing. At 450 rems, half of the
    exposed victims die. Death is most often due to failure of the bone
    marrow to produce white blood cells.
      Oddly enough , low levels of radiation (below a rem or so) have
    actually been found to -reduce- risk of cancer. This effect is known
    as radiation hormesis.
      What this comes down to is that living with a 50-mile radius of
    a nuclear power plant gives a dose that is 1/100th that of the average
    television viewer. (You'd have to be that average TV viewer for
    100 years to equal the dose from the nuclear power plant for just
    1 year.) In actual fact, you get a considerably larger dose of
    radiation from the CRT of your computer than you would from living
    near to a nuclear generating station.
      The problem comes during a nuclear accident - when abnormal levels
    of radioactivity are released.
      What are the safety features of U.S. reactors? The primary safety
    defense in a U.S. reactor is that they are designed such that the
    laws of physics give a great deal of natural protection. The use of
    water moderation and coolant is so that of a loss of coolant accident
    (LOCA) occurs, the moderator is also lost, which means that the
    reaction stops.  The control rods, which are made of a neutron-absorbing
    substance such as boron, are supported above the reactor by an
    electromagnet which is powered by the reactor itself.
      The philosophy is not that things go into action when something
    goes wrong, but that the safety mechanisms are kept from acting only
    when things are going right.
      The reactor vessel (with walls 6 to 11 inches thick) contains no
    combustible materials. The major problem at Chernobyl was the burning
    graphite, which in turn pumped radioactive materials into the
    atmosphere directly from the reactor core.
      No such fire is possible in a U.S. reactor. (Try to light a gas of
    water on fire!)
      In addition, the power density of the reaction is kept low at U.S.
    reactors, which means the temperature would not be high enough to
    ignite graphite even if it was in use.
      U.S. reactors have primary and secondary cooling systems, an
    Emergency Core Cooling System, water sprayers within the containment
    building, and so forth. The containment building itself is made of
    six layers of thick reinforcing bars over a steel structure which is
    then covered by 3.5 feet of concrete. The containment building is
    required to be able to withstand a crash from a 727 at full landing
    speed.
      All this gets to be rather expensive, which is why nuclear stations
    in America cost so much. It's also why they are safer than literally
    any other form of power generation.
      But what is the worst case accident? Considering the various
    safe guards built into U.S. nuclear power plants, how BAD can an
    accident be?
      A worst case accident would involve loss of coolant, failure of
    all backups, a meltdown, breach of the reactor vessel, breach of
    containment (release of radioactive gases into the air), a
    temperature inversion to keep the gases from dissipating, and wind
    blowing into a heavily populated area. Even if all this took place,
    the accident would be less severe than the Chernobyl accident.
      In a meltdown, the melted fuel sinks a few inches into the floor
    of the containment building before cooling. The radiation is released
    in a short burst. There is no fire pumping particles into the air. In
    addition, the containment building is such that a breach would result
    in release of noble (stable and inert) gases rather than particles
    (which are the more serious problem).
      There is a new reactor design which has just been developed for which
    it is claimed that a meltdown is a physical impossibility. If this is
    true, this new type of reactor is almost ideal.

      How do the risks and benefits of nuclear energy compare to other forms
    of energy production?
      The primary benefit of nuclear energy is its cost. The capital cost is
    more, but the savings from fuel and operation and maintenance is
    considerable. The cost of nuclear power is about $2.47 per kilowatt/hour,
    compared to $3.32/kWh for coal and $4.26/kWh for oil. (Solar currently
    costs about $1500/kW in investment costs as of 1979.)
      In addition, the health risks of nuclear energy are minimal compared
    to other forms of mass energy production.
      4,300 people a year die producing and transporting coal, not counting
    Black Lung deaths. Per billion MWh (megawatt/hours) of electrical
    energy consumed, there are 1,000 Black Lung deaths among coal miners
    compared to 20 deaths by lung cancers among uranium miners. For the
    same amount of energy, the cost in fatal mining accidents is 189
    lives mining coal, and only 18 lives mining uranium. Per million MWh
    of electrical energy consumed, injuries cost 1545 disability days
    among coal miners and 157 disability days among uranium miners. Every
    year, the estimated excess deaths due to lung diseases caused by
    pollution from coal-fired power plants is between 10,000 and 50,000.
      In addition, coal fuel to power a 1000 MWplant fills 38,000
    railcars. To get the same amount of energy from a nuclear plant requires
    6 truckloads of fuel.
      An oil-fired plant burns 40,000 barrels of oil a day, and usually keeps
    six weeks' supply on hand, or 2 million barrels of oil. A fire there
    would produce smoke far thicker than the air pollution in London in
    December 1952 which resulted in 3,900 excess deaths.
      On January 3, 1976, a 90,000 barrel oil-storage complex caught fire
    in South Brooklyn, burning out of control for four days. Fortunately,
    the wind had been blowing out to sea. The probability of such an oil
    fire killing the same number of people as a nuclear accident is tens
    of thousands of times higher than an equivalent nuclear accident.
      Natural gas, usually stored in liquid form, is even more dangerous.
    The cost of moving LNG storage tanks out of cities (there are about 75
    in U.S. cities now) would amount to about $1,000 per life saved (based
    on past accidents).
      The probability of a dam break killing people is about 10,000 times
    greater than an equivalent accident at a nuclear plant. A recent study
    at UCLA revealed that failure of certain dams in the U.S. could cause
    tens of thousands of deaths, and one of them could cause between
    125,000 and 200,000 deaths.
      Solar power is simply not practical for mass energy production. The
    maximum possible energy obtainable from a solar collector is 1 kW per
    square meter. With 10% efficiency and 50% spacing between collectors,
    this works out to a 50 square mile area to produce 1000 MW. There aren't
    many places where this is practical, and transporting electricity long
    distances is extremely uneconomical.
      So then it is proposed that a solar plant produce hydrogen by
    electrolysis of water. Transportation of hydrogen in large quantities
    means accidents in large quantities. Hydrogen alone is flammable, and
    mixed with oxygen (i.e. air), it is explosive. Like methane, it is
    liquefied for storage and transportation, which brings us back to
    the dangers of LNG and natural gas in general.
      Solar panels also need to be kept clean of dust or snow for maximum
    efficiency.
      The number two accidental killer (after automobile accidents), at
    16,500 deaths a year, is accidental falls. If people are climbing on
    their roofs to install and maintain personal solar panels, they are
    risking their lives for 5-10 kW of power.
      Compared to the death rate per billion MWh of nuclear generated power,
    you can count on more deaths with solar generation, no matter how you
    look at it. And this is not even looking at accidents with solar storage
    cells - sulfuric acid in batteries, explosive hydrogen-oxygen mixture
    which arises in charging them, etc.
      What about the problem of nuclear waste?
      The high level waste (spent fuel rods) from all the nuclear plants
    in the country up to the year 2000, with fuel reprocessing, would make
    a cube 70 feet on a side (343,000 cu. ft.).
      Within 10 years, more than 99.9% of the high level waste's radio-
    activity disappears by natural decay, and the majority of the
    remaining portion has a halflife of 30 years. The parts with a
    higher halflifeare, as we have already seen, are much less radio-
    active.
      So, of that 343,000 cu. ft., after 10 years only 343 cu. ft. will
    remain radioactive (representing a cube of just 7' per side), and
    this will be radioactivity of an ever decreasing level. After 30
    years, just a few cubic feet will be left and of such a low level
    of radioactivity that you could approach it quite closely without
    any appreciable protective clothing required.
      (The plans for nuclear waste disposal are to encase it in glass
    and then to bury it deep in the ground where it is kept solidly
    in place and will be continuously monitored.)
      Coal ash, on the other hand, must be carted out after use (36,500
    truckloads per 1000 MW plant per year) and dumped in landfills. No
    precautions are taken to keep its poisons from being leached out by
    rainwater. (Just the radioactivity of the radium and thorium
    isotopes in coal ash would violate NRC [Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission] standards if the NRC were responsible for coal-fired
    plants - not to mention a large variety of other toxins present
    in the ash.)
      In addition, coal-fired plants which use scrubbers (to reduce
    some of the poisonous fumes of burning coal that enter the
    atmosphere) produce a huge quantity of sludge. If all coal plants
    were brought into conformance with EPA pollution standards, in 20
    years the amount of sludge produced would cover 240,000 acres to a
    depth of 4 feet.
      (If you thought that the 343,000 cu. ft. of nuclear waste was
    large, compare that to the sludge alone - a total of 41,817,600,000
    cu. ft., or more than a million times the quantity. And that's
    just the sludge, and doesn't include the quantity of ash that
    has to be disposed of.)

       The production of large quantities of energy to meet this
    country's needs is inherently dangerous, no matter what the
    method of production.
      But by looking at the facts it is obvious that the safest and
    most effective way to do it today is by using nuclear power.

    Recommended reading:
    Petr Beckmann, "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," 1979,
    Golem Press, Boulder, CO
    "Access to Energy," Box 2298-H, Boulder, CO 80306 ($22/year or$1/year
    in pre-1965 U.S.  silver coins, 12 issues)
    Patrick M. Hurley, "Living With Nuclear Radiation"

    NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

      Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that nuclear power is the
    complete solution. However, it is my own opinion that it is
    just about the only viable solution for the present. Jim presented
    some interesting statistics to show this - statistics that most
    people don't even know about.
      Traditionally operated power plants are getting more and more
    dangerous with increasing demands for energy. The danger of having
    accidents with such plants is greater, and the results of those
    accidents are more deadly.
      Jim's statistics show the expected death count for operating
    those traditional plants comes to nearly 6000 deaths annually
    just from direct results, plus a large number (in the tens or
    hundreds of thousands) from indirect results.
      Compare this to the death rate of the worst nuclear accident
    in history - namely Chernobyl. There have been fewer than 30
    deaths, and fewer than 300 who are suffering from radiation
    sickness. If such a disaster occurred every single year, the
    death rate for nuclear power generation would STILL be 200
    times less than the death rate of fossil fuel power generation
    WITHOUT such major accidents, and without taking into consideration
    the thousands and thousands of deaths caused by the pollutants
    from fossil fuel plants.
      Next take the death rates for equivalent power plant disasters.
    Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster ever, and just about the
    worst imaginable. Nuclear plants in America are physically
    incapable of anything even approaching this. Probably the worst
    nuclear accident in America was the Three-Mile Island incident -
    with a death rate of 0.
      It is statistically more probable that an oil-fired plant will
    have a major fire. The resulting pollutants will cause contamination
    to the point where, if the smoke blows inland, the expected death
    rate would go into the thousands. As shown in this week's article
    and by UCLA, the death rate for a hydroelectric dam bursting could
    easily reach over 100,000.
      Coal mining deaths are 10.5 times as high as deaths in uranium
    mining. If you take into account indirect deaths (from lung
    disease, for example) the death rate for coal miners is more
    than 66 times as high.
      What you end up with, very simply, is a statistically proven
    greatly higher incidence (from 10 times to thousands of times) of
    death and injury caused by traditional power plants when compared
    to nuclear plants.

      Then there's the problem of waste.
      The quantity of waste from all nuclear plants is more than a
    million times less than the waste from fossil fuel fired plants.
    Furthermore, after ten years only 1/10th of 1% of the nuclear
    waste will still exist, while virtually ALL of the fossil fuel
    wastes will still exist. After 30 years there will be almost nothing
    left of the nuclear waste - and after 30 years, those fossil fuel
    wastes will still be around.
      Producing the fuels is statistically more dangerous. The waste
    products, although less dangerous pound for pound, are so much
    greater in quantity (millions of times greater) that the overall
    danger is also considerably higher. For every ounce of nuclear
    waste, a traditional power generating station will produce tons
    of poisons and toxins.
      One of the statistics that comes from Jim says, "In 1973 the
    maximum permissible radiation at the property line of a nuclear
    plant was reduced from 170 mrems/year to 10 mrems/year." So,
    if you lived right on the perimeter of the power plant, the
    added dose you'd get per year would be the equivalent of 2
    coast-to-coast trips, or 1/10th of an x-ray, or 1/5th the amount
    you get from eating.
      If you live farther away from the plant . . . well, statistically
    the added dose on an average for those within a 50-mile radius of
    the plant is .01 mrems - which means that you get 2500 times
    as much from eating, and 5000 times as much from an x-ray.

      What else is there? Fossil fuels are more dangerous to mine;
    they're more dangerous to use; produce more death and illness;
    the wastes stay with us longer; is less efficient; and is more
    expensive (a third again more expensive - and how many of us
    likes to pay an extra $33 for every $100 for something that is
    more certain to make us sick - or dead?).
      Nuclear power isn't THE solution. One day perhaps something
    better will be found. For the moment, it seems to be the only
    viable solution.

      I'd like to thank Jim for contributing to the magazine - and
    I hope that he'll be checking in on a regular basis this week,
    since he is obviously more of an expert in this field and also
    has access to the proper statistics.

    UNTIL NEXT TIME

      Unless Scott comes through with his own article on "American
    Foreign Involvement," I'll most likely put up that miscellaneous
    issue of strange things that happen in the world.
      Or perhaps this week's issue will generate not only interest
    but a topic for some kind of continuing issue. Maybe alternate
    power sources?
      There *are* alternates. However, at present all are more dangerous
    and more expensive. (What comes to mind is a debate on another
    system - where one uneducated user kept harping on the advantages
    of solar power - at which point Jim tossed back at him, "Go ahead
    and install one for your home." The reply was, "I can't afford
    that!" Then there was fusion. Incredibly more powerful, but so
    powerful that technology does not presently exist to control it.)

      We'll just have to wait and see.

Zephyr Magazine is © Gene Williams. All rights reserved.