ustxtxb_obs_1980_01_18_50_00016-00000_000.pdf

kca e Old n st. Cafe ifx 310 East 6th St. sexe j ‘u! i snv Parisian Charm. Omelette & Champagne Breakfast. Beautiful Crepes. Afternoon Cocktails. Gallant Waiters. Delicious Quiche. Evening Romance. Continental Steaks. Mysterious Women. Famous Pastries. Cognac & Midnight Rendezvous. In short, it’s about everything a great European style restaurant is all about. Create a positive first impression with your next paper or report. Complete your project with one of our inexpensive bindings to create your own special effect. Remember, first impressions can have lasting effects. Call 476-9171 for details Copying is our middle name but not our only service Ginny’s Copying Service, Inc. 4111111111111111111111111111111111h Postmaster: If undeliverable, send Form 3579 to The Texas Observer, 600 W. 7th, Austin, Texas 78701 Dialogue Which ‘grand’ party? I noticed in Sam Attlesey s article “Identity crisis” about Democrats defecting to the Republican Party \(Obs., chairman Ray Hutchison said, “What you’re witnessing is the deterioration of a grand party.” Could he, without realizing it, have been speaking of the deterioration of the Republican Party, what with the addition of a bunch of fairweather turncoats like Bill Braecklein et al? Barbara Fredricksen Conroe A pro-nuke point of view. The Texas Observer has such a good reputation for responsible journalism that I find it hard to believe that it would publish something as poorly done as Wendy Watriss’s piece on Comanche Peak nuclear protesters \(Obs., “We will serve no group or party” in , deed. The article makes it appear the Observer has sold its integrity to the anti-nuke freaks, who are the last people interested in anyone who will “hew hard to the truth.” The article is full of outright lies and half-truths. It says the power plant in question has been plagued with cost overruns and construction problems “endemic to all nuclear plants.” The truth is that nuclear plants run better than other kinds of power plants these days. That is easy to understandthe light water reactor plant is well understood and the design stabilized, while coal and other fossil fuel plants are being hit with all kinds of new-fangled pollution control devices costing millions and often Cantankerous. Then there is the “intense public scrutiny and negative publicity that have helped slow nuclear development in states like Oregon. Oklahoma, New York, and New Hampshire.” In the last-mentioned state, the “intense public scrutiny” took the form of a violent attack fortunately repulsed without loss of life. The Okies just defeated an anti-nuke referendum soundly. Oregon and New York are increasingly dependent on nuclear power for large portions of their electricity. The article praises use of nonviolent civil disobedience,’ which is okay with me as I’ve used it myself against racial injustice and against the Vietnam War. But I prefer that people who use it know what they are talking about. I can imagine what “nationally known” experts on the dangers of nuclear power were sum moned, though they are not listed. There are three or four crazies who always show up at such dog and pony shows, as they did in the Silkwood farce. There are no problems related to lowlevel radiation emitted by nuclear plants. Another lie. Neither are there any genetic effects of such radiation. Another lie. Neither are there rising cancer rates among people living near nuclear plants. Another lie. I could go on, but what’s the use? Talking with confirmed anti-mike freaks”, is like trying to deprogram Moonies. Nuclear power is just one of the ways to make enough watts to keep the country going in ‘the future, and hopefully bring relief to the Third World. It is the fact that it is environmentally preferable to other methods which should interest us. In other words, the truth is the exact opposite of the basic assumptions of your article. Hew to the truth indeed. Mark Acuff, Editor The New Mexico hulependent Albuquerque 16 JANUARY 18, 1980