disagree with this and bundle them "Opposition to nuclear power might well provide a focus for protest groups over lue nexi decade"
That's the reason the Tories give for deciding on a "low profile" approach to their nuclear programme over the next 10 years. The Central Electricity Generating Board's promise to give public reports on the safety of their nuclear plants tends to sound rather hollow after that.
EXPLOSION The reason for the Tories' reticence is clear. They are scared of an explosion Not the sort that shook Harrisburg rennsylvanla last year, wnen a bubble ol explosive gas blocked the reactor's cooling system and threatened the contamination of almost 100,000 people.
These kind of explosions are, as we all know, merely the "scare-mongering" reports issued by "dissident" groups.
No, the explosion they fear is a human one. They are frightened of the mass upsurce inat men develoo i tael suicidal plans ever became widely known. DANGER And, of course, they're right. The Tories plan building another 10 nuclear power stations in the next decade. Some of these will be pressurised water reactors (PWRs) of the kind that almost brought aisaster to inree Mue Isiano It is not just the horrendous possibility of a "melt-down" that make reactors like this potential time-bombs. Scientists have admitted that radiation leaks cannot be completely eliminated and that the incidence rate of cance among the workforce will therefore be high. The accident rate at Windscale confirms this Moreover there are the dangers of "atomic waste" which - as scientists at the Windscale enquiry confirmed -retains is deadiy elects Ior up to 30,000 years. Just where will it be contained - - and what guarantees are there that natural disasters won't "disturb" it?
FIGHT-BACK The implications of these death-traps has already led to wide opposition in many countnes dom te usA lo werany where mass protests have forced the covernment to nar nea sucida. programme The beginnings of a similar move. ment seem to be emerging in Britain when last November, a major anti-nuclear conterence took pace in condor chaired by Arthur Scargill. Bringing together all the anti-nuclear groups, the conference called for an unqualified No! to nuclear power and decided to launch a major campaign against Tory policy.
The potential of such a campaign is unquestionable since there have already been numerous calls for a public enquiry and conservation groups all round the country nave challenged ine melnods the Tories are using to steamroller through their plans.
AIMS One of the major aims of the campaign - mus be to bring the horrendous dangers of a nuclear future to the public scrutiny This will mean a major struggle within the labour movement, many of whose leaders - including the lUC - nave given their stamp of approval to the Tory plans It has to be pointed out, in opposition to figures such as Chappell of the ETU, that nuclear power is not inevitable. that there is easily enough coal to provide energy needs for hundreds of years (during which time research could be developed into alternative sources).
Equally important. it has to be pointed out that nuclear power is a threat not only to the safety of the labour movement, but to jobs and to unions' democratic rights. It may provide ine inaustral barons wil massive orons at a ume waen or supplies are becoming "precarious" but for working people, it is a potential time-bomb No! to Nuclear Power! rora rewraming rrogramme.
For an alternative strategy based on coal!