Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 10, 1975)
edifofia nmriviwuwm-- Nuclear technology priorities mixed up Advancements in technology have a habit of getting less than rave reviews. People objected to the automobile because it scared horses. They objected to the airplane because, as everyone knows, man wasn't meant to fly. And now they are objecting to nuclear power. . There are, without a doubt, improvements yet to be made in nuclear power plants. Construction costs are extremely high-an estimated $1 billion for the next plant to be constructed at Fort Calhoun, Neb. No adequate solution has been found for the disposal of radioactive wastes. And safeguards against possible nuclear accidents always can be taken one step further. But none of these difficulties is so insurmountable that construction of nuclear power plants should be halted indefinitely, as Lincoln Sen. Steve Fowler and legislators in 17 other states are asking. Adequate temporary precautions exist now. Solutions are only a short time away. Stopping construction may hurt research more than help it Those who would have us picture nuclear power plants as public time bombs, ready to mushroom into full-scale recreations of Hiroshima at any time, are ignoring some pertinent facts. The rhanre of a nuclear accident is small. According to Dr. Emerson Jones, chairman of the state Radiological Advisory Council, radiation levels are higher in the Statehouse rotunda than at the boundary of the Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville. And solutions to the problem of disposing of nuclear wastes now are being analyzed. While construction costs for nuclear power plants are high, the cost of nuclear power is small in the long run. One kilowatt of power produced by a nuclear plant costs $16 compared with $74 for conventional plants, according to Jones. And, when fuel and construction costs are compared on a 30-year basis, nuclear plants cost $60 per kilowatt per year to $109 per kilowatt per year for coal-fired plants, he said. For years nuclear technology has been geared to military purposes with only the promise of peaceful uses. Now that nuclear technology is on the verge of fulfilling that promise by making life easier instead of obliterating it, it is being opposed and the proliferation of nuclear weapons is going virtually untouched. Somewhere our priorities have gotten mixed up. Wes Albers oovoumuiE THIS IS GftfK WK,ptM? HMPM IWT8Y THAT REMARK THAT yOUM ANTI-MEEK. MCH M AM OF THE GREEKS IVE COME W CONTACT UTH. WHO DO W KMW THAT'S A GrflEEK? ZOUCE KHEUA GUY J THE 'REAM m STVD" HOUSE, AM) I tET A mi IV 50R0KJ77 OHCl , I WELL; 7MTS cernm a WIDE AKRM 70 PASS FH0M, CORK. I THAHK W. n Dear editor: I agree with Joe Dreesen's analysis of the state of affairs in ASUN's household. He effectively describes the ASUN elections as I, a student, see them. ASUN has operating power and authority comparative to that of a Weed Control Commissioner in county government. Although the post is elective, one doesn't see droves of people turning out at the polls to elect a competent and efficient Weed Control Commissioner-rather it almost becomes a popularity contest. Why? Because the post does not bring about any changes in policy. ASUN is not a form of legitimate power for the student needs and desires, so the election of its members also becomes proportionately meaningless. ' Dennis Johnson Large results Dear editor: In reference to Joe Dreesen's article of March 6: 1 found seme cf his comments most amusing, but I found it rather one-sided. People like Dreesen tend to look at student government as a mere exercise in futility. I disagree most emphatically. True, the ASUN Senate does tend to bog itself down with a lot of rhetoric and little action. But the "little" action sometimes brings results of a large nature, such as the student regent, student lawyer and book exchange. True, some of the resolutions are mere trivia, but occasionally there is something of merit brought up. I -feel the ASUN Senate has the potential to affect needed change. The road to change for the Senate is long, but it can happen and I feel the only way it will is through a truly representative body that is "interested" in the problems of the students on campus. I suggest that if the Senate is a "farce.' as Dreesen suggests he should petition the chancellor's office for its replacement. Jn the meantime, I feel that since the Senate is now the only elected student body, that he should hope to see people at least interested enough to become involved, something this campus could use more of. Don Thompson $100 reward Dear editor: There are many important questions in America that desperately need to be answered. I am offering page 4 money rewards in an effort to get some answers to these questions. The most important question in America today is the question of where profits come from. Profits are our economic pulse. It is profits and only profits that make the economic wheels go around. When our economy breaks down and we go into depression, the answer to that depression is real easy. All we need to do is to find where profits come from so that everyone can go get some profits. This will make the wheels go around and we can actually have perpetual prosperity. But-where do profits come from? Profits are something and something cannot come from nothing, so, therefore, profits must come from somewhere. But where? ' The communists tell us that profits come from exploiting labor. Yet, during our last great depression we had millions of hungry workers who could be hired for starvation wages, and we had a great surplus of capital. The very fact that no one was hiring these idle workers and making profits from their labor is proof enough that profits do not come from exploiting labor. Wfore, then, do profits come from? In order to promote economic inquiry, I am offering a $100 reward to anyone who can answer this question and tell us where profits really come from. Fred Obermeier Paolo, Kansas Paddleball complaint Dear editor: I am one student who is nauseated with the blatant case of egocentricism which many of the university's off-season athletes-particularly the football players possess. My letter concerns the selfish dominance of these athletes around the paddle ball courts in the NU Fieldhouse. These facilities have been built for the use of the entire student body which, of course, includes athletes. The Fieldhouse is under the auspices of the Athletic Department during football season but this says nothing concerning the remainder of the year. I can agree with the football season's athletic ascendancy because it was football teams which have given this University national recognition. My complaint though is during the winter when these athletes fail to accept the fact that these paddleball courts can be used by the average 97-pound weakling as well. They often use their extra tonnage to inhibit and discourage others from enjoying this exciting game which they are entitled to play. They also have invisible hours which they recite at random, saying that during those periods athletes only arc allowed to play on the courts. The average student usually has to pay for his own education, a responsibility which by no means daily nebraskan increases the balance in one's savings account. The athlete on scholarship receives his education at no expense. It is indeed ironic that the average student is many times unable to receive all the benefits of his tuition payments. I merely hope in the future that those guilty individuals will think about someone else's enjoyment instead of increasing their biceps or narrowing their waistlines. R.C. Jensen Yankee for American Dear editor: Ernie Cervantes editorial makes reference to a problem that has been bothering many people for generations: what can people born in this country call themselves? Cervantes centers only on what those of Hispanic descent will call themselves. The problem is much more complex than that, however. In short, those who are born in this country are without a name of their own. An "American" is properly anyone who is born on either of the American continents. Thus is is very chauvinistic for us to refer to ourselves as simply "the Americans" thereby excluding the others who share these continents with us. A Canadian is an American. So is a Chilean, Someone who lives in Mexico City has as much right to call himself an American as does someone who lives in Omaha. Thus, the term "Mexican-American" is redundant. A Mexican is an American. So, in essence, one is either saying Mexican-Mexican or American-American. Thus we are left in a quandry. What shall we call ourselves? Chicano is a good solution for part of the people who live here for it is truly unique to this country. However, what shall we do with the rest? Anglo is much too limiting since it refers only to those of British ancestry. Gringo is better, but Chicanos will find it disconcerting when they travel to Argentina to hear themselves referred to as n g uS' 3 term aPPlied t0 any foreigner. Perhaps the best solution is the one that has been adopted by most other countries. They have been calling U3 "Yankees" for years. Yankee refers only to those born in this country. Perhaps we could introduce a constitutional amendment to change the name of this country to Yankeeland. We could adapt it to song titles such as "Yankeeland, the Beautiful" and "God Bless Yankeeland." In any event.it would eliminate the ambiguity in a statement made by Cervantes: "Chicanos, then, are merely fighting to become 'Americans'." It would be much clearer if he had said, "Chicanos, then, are merely fighting to become Yankees." But somehow I .don't think that's exactly what he had in mind. Robert May monday, march 10, 1975
