At present only PDF and raw text is avaiable for this file at: http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/CNR-PubList1978.pdf http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/CNR-PubList1978.txt CNR PUBLICATION LIST: September 1978 No permission is required to reprint CNR materials, in whole or in part. We encourage it. Publications before 1976 remain on this list only if their validity is undiminished by later events. 1. Short and introductory. 2. Solar energy. 3. Energy-efficiency. 4. Medium length. 5. Technical reports. Short and Introductory Nuclear Power...A Unique Problem. This 5-point flyer explains what is unique about this issue, why it matters so much, and how the Nat'l. Council of Churches voted in March, 1976. On the reverse side is a brief essay by Dr. George Wald who suggests a test for deciding which experts to believe, when experts disagree. One sheet. Nuclear Power...Bad for Health and Life...Bad for the Economy. On one side, this flyer summarizes the biological and atom-bomb hazards of "peaceful" nuclear power plants; on the other side, it presents the economic disadvantages of nuclear power relative to energy-efficiency, and the probable consequences of dependence on the nuclear fuel cartel. The High Cost of Confusion. This simple, very brief flyer explains why nuclear power is not necessary and why it will lower the American standard of living if we accept it. Supplement to the "Confusion Flyer". This single sheet explains in greater detail the economic advantages of using energy efficiently instead of expanding costly energy supplies; also explains the fraud of promising that nuclear power will be cheaper than alternatives. Common Sense about Nuclear Electricity. This 2-sheet leaflet presents very short, amazing stories---all true---about human errors and statistically "impossible" accidents (non-nuclear) which have happened. The stories, entertaining for most readers, point up the contrast between real human performance and the god-like promises about nuclear power safety. Survival---The First Question, by Frances Tarlton ("Sissy") Farenthold. In this well-received address to a graduating class of college students, Ms. Farenthold warns them they must continue---and intensify---their efforts to stop irreparable nuclear pollution from civilian nuclear plants, and to prevent nuclear war. Emphatically, she tells them the responsibility belongs to them, not to someone else. June 1978. Two sheets. A Small Affidavit with Big Implications, by John W. Gofman. An affidavit showing why it is undeniable that every nuclear power plant today is killing people. The "benefit-risk" concept is challenged as a new crime of industrial societies: premeditated random murder. June 5, 1978. 3 sheets. Mental Anguish and Visible Mourning. This paper describes an anti-nuclear activity which might attract people who would not support civil disobedience, and has the advantage of creating no police or court costs to impose on tax-payers. More important, it would be a mechanism for explaining to more and more people how nukes commit premeditated random murder, and for explaining the Nuremberg Principles---that people have an inalienable right and duty NOT to support activities which violate others' inalienable right to life, and that those whose policies kill people, must be held accountable.. August 12, 1978. Two sheets. The Only Rational Solution to the Problem of Radioactive Waste Management. This five minute testimony before the Dept. of Energy's Nuclear Waste Management Forum points out the criminality of planning to create more wastes to "manage", in view of the deaths which are inevitable due to radioactivity which will escape even before "final" waste burial. July 21, 1978. 1 sheet. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. 2. SHORT AND INTRODUCTORY, continued One Way to Improve Federal Regulation of Radiation Health and Safety. This invited II testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs makes a specific proposal which, if ever implemented, would cope with the intellectual dishonesty of those regulators who have a vested interested in irradiating people. May 11, 1978. 1 sheet. II Power from Fusion: The Real Meaning of Recent Breakthroughs. This brief essay explains the disadvantages of successful fusion. Fusion reactors can (and will) be used to produce both plutonium-239 and uranium-233, fissile isotopes useful for both making atom-bombs and fueling nuclear fission plants. Fusion represents the ultimate in centralized, monopoly power-production. Extravagant use of fusion would heat the Earth, with possibly disastrous consequences. Aug. 15, 1978. 1 sheet . . . ¥ A View on Nuclear Power. 5-minute presentation (2 sheets) to Ralph Nader's Critical Mass Conference, Nov. 15, 1974; a truly succinct statement of the logic against nuclear power. Religious Leaders: Nuclear Power Is Your Problem. Presentation to religious leaders in II Washington, D.C., Oct. 10, 1974, If the moral leaders of this generation do not insist on maintaining at least minimal morality toward future generations, and if they permit this planet to become irreversibly contaminated by radioactive poisons (building cancer, deformities, mental retardation right into the air, water, and food), the future generations are not likely to say, "Other issues of the 1970 1 s were more important!". 2 sheets. Solar Energy Most CNR publications discuss solar energy; selected below are just the ones which give it the greatest emphasis. II A Tale of Two Energies, by Dr. David R. Inglis. This article presents an historical perspective on windpower and nuclear power, and assesses their respective prospects now. 1976. 6 sheets. Enough Energy for Life, by Dr. Lewis Mumford. This 1974 address to the M.I.T. Technology II and Culture Seminar, advocates decentralized solar energy (based primarily on biomass), and puts the energy-question in an historic and political framework. 3 sheets. II Solar Energy---How Soon? by Egan O'Connor. This article explains how much solar energy there is, and deals with all the major arguments which claim its use is 20 to 30 years away. 1973. 3 sheets. II Sea Thermal Power: One Form of Solar Energy, by Mark Swann. This article explains how the surface of the ocean is a natural (vs. man-made) collector of solar energy which could be tapped; diagrams. 1974. 6 sheets. II A Sunshine Future, or a Radioactive One? This article, originally issued in early 1973, put into circulation the very favorable conclusions. of the report, "Solar Energy as a National Resource" by the National Science Foundation; the NSF's report, which was the first "official" admission since 1952 that solar energy could become the primary energy source even for a fully industrial economy, had been widely ignored by the press. CNR's report points out that solar energy's economic practicality is no chancier than the nuclear breeder's, since the breeder's only demonstration plant (Fermi) produced electricity at a cost of $4.00 per kilowatt hour. 4 sheets. Jimmy Carter's Energy Plan, Part I, Solar Energy. 1977. One sheet. Please see listing ¥ under "Medium Length" section. Energy-Efficiency ¥ Greatest emphasis on energy-efficiency and conservation will be found in Short and introductory: Medium Length: The High Cost of Confusion. Jimmy Carter's Energy Plan, Parts II and III. Supplement to the Confusion flyer. Alice in Blunderland. Nuclear Power ..¥ Bad for the E..onomy. Some Economic Benefits of NOT Building Nukes. 3. Medium Length ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ A Critique of: Report on "Nuclear Energy in Louisiana" by the Subcommitátee on Nuclear Reactors to the Louisiana Legislature. Critique by Dr. Joel Selbin (Prof. of Chemistry) and Raymond G. Lefebvre (electrical engineer). This critique makes an easily compre hensible, utterly convincing, and delightfully caustic case against nuclear power, while providing well over 40 references to useful source documents. It covers: An Overview; Radioactive Waste Storage; Risk of Nuclear Accidents and the Rasmussen Report; Self Evident Costliness of Nuclear Power; Hidden Subsidies for Nukes (estimated $47 billion 1975-1985); Changing the American Life-Style .¥. If We Go Nuclear. June 1978. 6 sheets. The Nuclear Double-Trouble: Some Approaches beyond Widget-Fixing. A 1-hour presentation at Hiroshima Day rallies, which proposes an explanation which would reconcile the valid view of the militarists (that the U.S. must stay strong) w±th the valid view of the peaceniks (that the nuclear arms race will surely lead to holocaust and genocide). Content includes: Why the Nuclear Arms Race Has to End in Holocaust; The Lust for Power as a Medical Disease; The Disease Leads to Nuclear Power; the Disease Leads to Nuclear Weapons and Their Use; The Task Ahead: Disease Control; Some Reasons for Optimism; Two Obstacles to Progress; The Nuclear Problems on a Scale of Injustice. August 5 & 6, 1978. 16 sheets. Abominations Unlimited: From Here to Eternity? A half-hour presentation at the Seabrook rally which examines the epidemic of intellectual dishonesty associated with nuclear power, and which asks tpugh questions about what principles should apply to rejecting various murderous technologies (for instance, the car). June 25, 1978. 8 sheets. The Catch-22 Society: Some Thoughts on "Civil Disobedience" and "Uncivil Obedience" ¥ A half-hour presentation at the Barnwell rally which questions "majority rule" when the issue is murder (premeditated random murder by nuclear and other pollutants), and which proposes the anti-nuclear movement insist that the "higher law" invoked by the U.S. at the Nuremberg trials be applied in our own courts, both to those who commit "civil disobedience" and those who commit "uncivil obedience". April 30, 1978. 8 sheets. Trouble on the Way to the Bank, or Why There Will NEVER Be a Solution to the Radioactive Waste Problem. A 30-minute presentation to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Nov. 20, 1977. This talk could also have been entitled, "The Gourmet and Pharmacist View of Nuclear Waste", since it discusses how public attention is being diverted from the real problem (which is explained) into absurd discussions by nuclear advocates of whether the waste will be safe enough to EAT several centuries from now. 6 sheets ¥ A Sane Solution to the Energy Problem. An irreverent, 45-minute analysis for citizenactivists of what they are really up against; WHY utilities, Congress, and the Administration are so stubbornly devoted to nuclear power regardless of the facts; and some suggestions about coping. Some cartoons. Presented Sept. 24, 1977 before the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 9 sheets. (Continues). ' ,e.ow.. y .,c-.,11 ..,w. W11M 'TIii INI OI nc 1 -.,ca '1111 C..1111¥ I MM¥"II.. StM.a 1'1MI Ci,tMI ¥¥ ¥¥ (wiWI ¥t"´ +e 6"9 t.\1a,.l1W.. &aMt a.r,.I). en (D ,Q C: .... TMI ''" wr.a-1,,.... Q\,\ITI Mt&P. 1111 '-1\T 0. ff \\A'b 4. MEDIUM LENGTH, continued ¥ Jinuny Carter's Energy Plan: Myths vs. Realities. Part I, Solar Energy, June 6, 1977 . A single-sheet analysis showing that Carter is NOT promoting solar energy aggressively. In fact, his Plan provides for using only one-third as much solar energy by 1985 as was envisioned under the Ford Administration. As proof, this sheet reproduces a littleknown table frdln a thick Federal Energy Admin. report of Nov. 1974. Also this sheet makes th.. point that one-third of ALL American energy-consumption is in the form of heat below the boiling point, a form for which solar energy is well matched by nature and by simple equipment. One sheet. ¥ Jimmy Carter's Energy Plan: Myths vs. Realities, Part II, Energy Conservation, June 6, 1977. A one-sheet analysis showing that energy conservation is certainly NOT a "cornerstone" of Carter's energy Plan; plus a one-sheet, easy-to-remember proposa1 for increasing energy EFFICIENCY by a modest 2.4% per year instead of increasing energy CONSUMPTION by 2.4% per year (Carter's "conservation" plan). Includes graphics showing U.S. energy inefficiency compared with $weden, Switzerland, West Germany. 2 ,sheets. ¥ Jimmy Carter's Energy Plan: Myths vs. Realities, Part III, Nuclear Fission, June 6, 1977 . This analysis shows_ that Carter_ is certainly NOT treating nuclear power like a "last resort" in spite of his pre-election promises. On the contrary, his Plan promotes both current-model and breeder reactors above all other energy options, and can not even be taken seriously as a non-proliferation (weapons) effort. This report shows that only a pitiful 4% of Carter's imagined energy-demand of 1985 can be met by permitting additional "nukes" to go into construction; explains that fusion is another step toward plutonium production and atom-bomb proliferation; points out that a thorium/uranium-233 breeder would be no solution to either the bomb or toxicity problems---all matters which needed clarification bot.. for our supporters and the press. 5 sheets ¥ ¥ ¥ Atom-Bomb Proliferation: Business Wave-of-the-Future? This article explores the shocking prospect that high-level decisions may have been made to permit widespread possession of atom-bombs as a natural, profitable extension of the lucrative arms business. Sept. 1976. 4 sheets . ¥ ¥ Some Economic Benefits of NOT Building Nukes. This article discusses energy-efficiency as a cheaper, bigger, quicker source of additional energy than nuclear power; it also suggests the disadvantages of dependence on the nuclear fuel cartel. June 1976. 1 sheet. ¥ Radiation Doses and Effects in a Nuclear Power Economy; Myths vs. Realities ¥ This article shows why no one should believe the nuclear industry's claim that it will give each American only a trivial dose of extra radiation, and boils the pro-nuclear case down to its absurd essence: "If everything goes perfectly, then everything will go perfectly." April, 1976. 8 sheets . ¥ ¥ Alice in Blunderland (or, Nuclear Power -NO). Dr. John W. Gofman's !-hour presentation in his debate against Dr. Edward Teller, Oct. 17, 1975. Covers everything! Energyconservation (the leaky gas-tank image), nuclear fuel shortage, health and safety problems of nuclear power, the major points of the nuclear advocates, and some of the Alice in Wonderland rationalizations actually offered by nuclear advocates for undeniable blunders so far. 15 sheets (large type w. cartoons); 2 ¥ ¥ The Plutonium Controversy, by Gofman. This reprint from "The Journal of the American Medical Assn." explains why plutonium recycle would lead to a lung-cancer epidemic. July 19, 1976. 2 sheets. ¥ ¥ Hazards of Nuclear Fission Power and the Choice of Alternatives, by John T. Edsall, M.D., PhD. This reprint from the journal "Environmental Conservation" explains the hazards of fission (starting with uranium mining) and outlines the available alternatives. 1974. 5 sheets. Nuclear Power and Ecocide; the Need for Adversary Science. This reprint from the ¥ "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" explores WHY nuclear power has been permitted to expand in spite of its obvious harmfulness, and proposes a simple way in which society could protect itself from the development of other such hazards. Sept. 1971. 2 sheets. Time for a Moratorium. The still-widely-reprinted article by John W. Gofman, 1972. 3 sheets. sheets Congress. Record ¥ ' ' , ' . 5. Technical Reports 8 ¥ II II II II II II 8 Gross Energy Available through Light Water Reactors, by Dr. John W. Gofman, is a 21-page report covering low, medium and high estimat..s of workable-grade uranium in the U.S.; the gross electrical yield per short ton U30s mined, with all supporting assumptions and calculations; lifetime U303 requirement per 1000-megawatt LWR; quads of energy available through LWR technology; the number of LWR's fuelable within the estimated U30s supply; and the energy which would be lost to the economy if no further nuclear plants were initiated. This report provides the solid foundation for saying that additional nuclear power can provide only a TRIVIAL source of energy for the U.S. in this century---hardly the "solution" for keeping the economy rolling and the lights burning. With this analysis, the alleged benefits of additional nuclear power virtually vanish from the famous "benefit-risk equation". May 1977. 11 sheets. Cancer Hazard from Low-Dose Radiation.. by Gofman, is a 65-page report covering duration of carcinogenic risk after exposure to radiation; the effect of age at irradiation in determining the cancer risk; the "absolute" vs "relative" risk methods of calculation; the erroneous use of the absolute risk method; the power of the relative risk method, and beginnings of a comprehensive approach; three "laws" of radiation carcinogenesis; practical application of the laws including methods of calculating deaths; question of susceptibles and the morality of the person-rem approach; mortality from thyroid cancer; cancer-risk .from radio-iodine vs. X-irradiation; iodine-129 problem; lung-dose calculations and lung-cancer risk; genetic consequences of occupational exposure; dose-commitment from the nuclear fuel cycle (a prediction). 25 sheets. October 1977. á Testimony for the GESMO Hearings, by Gofman, is a discussion of plutonium toxicity in terms of human lung-cancer. It dáeals specifically with the critiques prepared by five feder..l laboratories of Gofman's two 1975 reports. Feb. 1977. 14 sheets. The Cancer Hazard from Inhaled Plutonium, by Gofman, is the paper---widely discussed in government and nuclear power circles---which shows that the toxicity of inhaled plutonium has been severely underestimated. Calculations included. May 1975. 19 sheets. Estimated Production of Human Lung Cancers by Plutonium from Worldwide Fallout, by Gofman, is a companion to the paper above. It presents the logic and calculations showing that plutonium released by past weapons-testing will kill an estimated one million people in the northern hemisphere, and that a full-scale nuclear power program by the year 2020 ..ould lead to an estimated 500,000 fatalities annually in the USA. July 1975. 16 sheets. Some Important Unexamined Questions Concerning the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, by Gofman, is his 1-hour testimony before the So. Carolina Legislature in January 1972; it was the source of the realization that a Barnwell accident (releasing 1% of its radioactive inventory) could contaminate the entire Eastern Seabord. The presentation ends with a proposal to test the confidence of Allied Chemical and Gulf Oil in the plant's safety: the legislature should require them to put their own assets on the line instead of retreating behind the Price-Anderson limit on liability. 16 sheets. Epidemiologic Studies of Carcinogenesis by Ionizing Radiation, by Gofman and Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, July 1971. This 45-page reprint (from the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability) summarizes the work which set off the radiation controversy in 1969 over the "permissible dose". 12 sheets. The Fission-Product Equivalence between Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Weapons, by Gofman, May 1971. These calculations were the source of the recognition that a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant produces as much radioactivity every year as 1,000 Hiroshima A-bombs. 1 sheet. The Cancer and Leukemia Consequences of Medical X-Rays, by Gofman, is a reprint from "Osteopathic Annals" which covers whole-body vs. partial-body irradiation, practical application of quantitative predictions, life-expectancy loss from X-ray induced cancers, the physician's dilemma, probable number of cancer fatalities from diagnostic X-rays. Nov. 1975. 4 sheets. CommlttN for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. Main P.O.B. 11207, San Francisco, CA 94101 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Francea Ferenlhold, Pr", Wella Coffee¥ Llnua P1ulin1, PhD, Nobel uurHle Jofln W. Gofmen, M.D., PhD. á Htrold Urey, PhD, Nobel L1ure1te Rich,rd E. Bellmen, PhD. David R. ln11i1, PhD. Geor1¥ Wild, PhD., Nobel uurHte R,m .. y Cl,rk, former U.S. Attorney Gener1I EloiM W. Kellin, M.D. J1m11 D. Wetaon, PhD, Nobel Leur..¥t¥ John T. Ed11II, M.D., PhD. 1,n McHu1. PhD. Peul R. Ehrlich, PhD. ¥ Lewi¥ Mumford, PhD. Glfta ,re 111-deductlble. Authors of CNR publications expreu their own views, not neceuarily those of the Board, who¥ members are well known as md4p¥munt thinkere. .a