Glenn Seaborg Interview (page: 3 / 8) Discoverer of Plutonium	Print Interview

Let's talk about the more constructive face of nuclear technology, and your years at the Atomic Energy Commission. You had very high hopes for the peaceful uses of nuclear power.

Get the Flash Player to see this video. I don't think that I thought that nuclear power could be developed immediately. The time scale upon which it was developed was pretty close to what I anticipated. But I did feel, and I still feel, that nuclear power is a beneficial method for producing electric power in our country and throughout the world. It is probably environmentally more benevolent than other methods of producing electricity, if you think in terms of fossil fuels. You have the greenhouse effect, which can lead to catastrophic consequence. And acid rain. You have the terrific toll of coal miners with their black lung disease and so forth. Whereas you don't have those problems in the relatively clean method of producing electricity through the operation of nuclear power reactors. You have other problems there, of course. The very small possibility of a huge nuclear reactor accident and the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I think the problem of nuclear waste disposal can be solved; it's almost mainly more of a political problem than a scientific problem. And the other problems so far as the environment is concerned and the detrimental effect, they're probably less in the case of nuclear power than in other methods of generating electricity. There are probably less casualties per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced through the use of nuclear power than through the other methods of producing electricity.

You had a vision of what nuclear power could provide. You wrote at one point that nuclear power could raise the world's standard of living, and that it would take place in harmony with the natural environment. It hasn't happened quite the way you hoped. What went wrong?

Get the Flash Player to see this video. Glenn Seaborg: We've just had a lot of resistance to nuclear power. I don't like to use the word environmentalists, but a number of them have opposed it. I like to think of myself as an environmentalist. This opposition has been very vocal. Those who have the view that nuclear power might be, in balance, beneficial, are not vocal. They have other matters to occupy their time, and the result is that it has been possible to almost stop the development of further use of nuclear power in the United States. However, there are parts of the world, like France, where this hasn't happened, and about 70 percent of all the electricity produced in France is produced through the use of nuclear power, and this is giving them quite an advantage. They can produce it because of the lack of this kind of opposition we have in the United States. They can produce it economically, and it can contribute to their being more free of, or less dependent on, the importation of oil from the Mideast and so forth, so that France therefore has the opportunity to be in a position of advantage. They're actually already beginning to export electric energy to other countries, and if they can in the years ahead produce electric power more economically than we can, they can perhaps beat us in the international commercial competition in the world market. So not everyone is bypassing nuclear power. I think in the United State that we're going to come back to nuclear power. They're developing even safer reactors. The ones we have I think are safe enough for the purpose. Even in Three Mile Island, when the worst possible accident occurred, essentially nobody was hurt because we have containment to prevent the spread of radioactivity. I think, either with our present reactors or improved reactors, we're probably going to come back to nuclear power because of the severe consequences of other methods of developing electricity like the burning of fossil fuels that can lead to the catastrophic greenhouse effect and so forth.

What was the problem? As head of the Atomic Energy Commission you were right in the middle of the controversy. Were the companies in the industry not quite sensitive enough about safety?

Glenn Seaborg: I would say that. I think the companies could have been more concerned toward the safety aspect of their design of reactors, and we probably made a mistake in also not standardizing to a greater extent on a single design, so that we could put all our efforts into making that safe. That's what they've done in France. There's a greater degree of government involvement there, so they have succeeded in standardizing. In our free enterprise system, which has a lot to recommend it of course, there was a tendency, a program of having many competing manufacturers and therefore a diffusion of effort and not a concentration on a standardized design, where you could put more emphasis on safety. I want to say, nevertheless, I believe our nuclear power reactors in the United States are safe in comparison to other methods of generating electricity, when you think of it in terms of casualties, however you want to define them, per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.

As you look back on that whole era, when you were in the midst of all the controversy over nuclear power, do you think that people in the scientific community were so inspired by the potential of the technology that there was a tendency not to concentrate as much on the safety factor?

Glenn Seaborg: Yes. I think that is probably true. There could have been more concentration on the safety factor from the very beginning.

What was it that slowed it down? Was it the concentration on how positive this would be, and the desire to get it implemented?

Glenn Seaborg: I don't think there was any mechanism really for having that ideal situation during the development. You have a new technology, you see the potential for it, you have the enthusiasts developing it, and in the natural course of events they will place their emphasis on getting the technology developed for applications. Then it's a rather natural consequence that as time goes on you begin to pay attention to these other things. The same thing is true in the general clean-up program now of the Department of Energy. If you look back at the earlier days at the Atomic Energy Commission and so forth, they had other priorities at those times. In retrospect, it would have been better if they had a broader view but their priorities were to get on with the job. Remember, we were in quite a race with the Soviet Union, too, at that time. I would say that nearly everybody placed the objective of being sure we were ahead in the arms race ahead of these other environmental considerations. In retrospect, perhaps I was wrong, but it's just easy to understand why it happened.

Looking at the circumstances at the time, do you think people were preoccupied?

Glenn Seaborg: Yes, would have been at that time. I lived through it. I would say that our objectives were to get on with the job, not fall behind in the arms race, get on with the development of a new source of energy and so forth. It's probably a natural consequence that as circumstances change, you begin to consider these other aspects -- the environmental aspects, the safety aspects and so forth. Which in a more perfect world should have been considered more from the beginning, but that's the way life is.

We see it differently in hindsight.

Glenn Seaborg: Our hindsight is much better, but also, and this is most difficult of all to get across, the circumstances were different. The attitude of the country was different. We were in the middle of a cold war. In the '60s, the Soviets resumed atmospheric testing. Our priorities were different at that time, and those were the conditions that prevailed.

On the nuclear power side, if you knew what you know now and had a chance to do it over, would you do things any differently?

Glenn Seaborg: If I knew everything I do now? Yes, I think I would have somehow insisted, I would have tried -- I wouldn't have succeeded -- but I would have tried to get the manufacturers together more for standardization and so forth. It's a meaningless observation. One couldn't have done it at that time. They shouldn't have had the incentive. In our free enterprise system we just let the industrial firms go out and produce their product and compete. That was just part of the American system, which overall is probably the best system in the world.

We do make exceptions from time to time about what the role of government should be, even if it intrudes in the market. Are you saying this should be one of those exceptions?

Glenn Seaborg: Yes, it should now. It should be now. But in retrospect one can't see how that would have succeeded at that time.

You seem to be saying that we have gone through a corrective process, if you will.

Glenn Seaborg: I would even say that in the case of nuclear power, we've over-corrected. There's a lack of comparison with the dangers of other methods of producing electricity. If we could somehow pass judgment from on high, to make an unbiased evaluation to come out with the method that results in the lowest number of casualties per kilowatt-hour produced, that nuclear power would rate very well.

You were concerned about the environment very early on. In the 70s and before, you were talking about the environment. What was it that first focused your attention on environmental concerns?

Glenn Seaborg: I never stopped to analyze. You've put a question to me. I think it had to do also with my rather natural love for nature and the out-of-doors and hiking and so forth. That probably had as much to do with it as anything. In the case of nuclear power, I knew that in comparison with other methods of producing electricity it stood up pretty well.

In 1975 you wrote that we would have to create a "recycle society," one in which virtually all materials are reused indefinitely. In the meantime, one could say we've become even more wasteful and have encountered even greater problems in that area. Do you have a sense now that people are much more sensitive to these problems? Do you have a sense of where we're headed?

Glenn Seaborg: Yes, I believe there is much more movement today than there was in 1975 toward what I call "the recycle society." I know that my wife Helen and my daughter Dianne are very conscious of that in our household. We do have to pay attention. There are recycling centers now in many communities and people do drive there with their materials for potential reuse. I wouldn't say that we've quite gotten to the point where we could characterize ourselves as a recycle society, but we're moving in that direction.

Moving in the right direction?

Glenn Seaborg: In the right direction and in that direction.

We've talked about several environmental issues. If you look at it overall, how do you think we're doing in our concern for protecting the environment? Are we doing better than we were ten, 15, or 20 years ago?

Glenn Seaborg: Yes, we certainly are doing better than we were ten, 15, or 20 years ago. We're probably not doing as well as we should. Again, you are finding more people that are cognizant of the need for this and you'll notice today that candidates for political office have to pay an awful lot of attention to their stand on environmental issues and in many cases it's a determinative factor. Again, I wouldn't say that we've gone anywhere near as far as we should but we're doing better than we were a few years ago.

You wrote at one point that we live in an age in which science part of our culture, shaping every aspect of our lives and institutions. What do you see as the role of scientists in society? Is their role to advise politicians, to work with our political leaders?

Get the Flash Player to see this video. Glenn Seaborg: Of course scientists find ourselves in areas now that affect the lives of all of us. Science is a pervasive part of our life. Whether you like it or not, we live in what could be characterized as a "scientific society," and of course, even members of the general public need to be more scientifically literate than has been the case in the past, even to vote intelligently and we need a work force that's able to cope with and handle the more intricate equipment that we find in today's workplace. We need more scientists and engineers in order to progress in this "scientific society." I think the thrust of your question also is what should scientists do to help in this area, and I've indicated already that more scientists should enter the political arena. There aren't enough of them. There probably aren't any more now, proportionately, than there were twenty or thirty years ago, maybe less, as I look at the scene in Washington. I just think more of my colleagues should be willing to take time out -- you don't have to really make it perhaps a lifetime career -- but more should be willing to go to Washington and serve. Run for political office. That's where the shortage really is. We have an extraordinarily small number of scientists in Congress. This is not true in a number of other countries. For example, in the Soviet Union there's a fair proportion of scientifically trained people in government. We also need the scientists at the state level, where I guess there are even less. You find very few scientists who are willing to run for office on the state level or to be governors. There are a couple of scientists who are serving as governors of states but it would be good if we had a much larger proportion.

There have been a number of surveys that show a real difficulty with finding workers who have the basic skills to work with technology. You were involved in the 1983 report on Excellence in Education. You had some very strong views about where we were headed and what we were not doing. Where are we falling short?

Glenn Seaborg: We are failing -- we have fallen back actually -- not gone forward as we should in our pre-college educational system for science and mathematics. We are losing our teachers. We are not obtaining the influx of teachers. Students in college now are not going into teaching, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics. I believe one thing that we need to do in order to correct this is to restore the status of the teaching profession. I say restore because they did have a relatively better status a generation ago. By this I mean restore respect for the teaching profession and actually increase the compensation. They are relatively underpaid, compared to other professions that they can go into. Particularly those who would be qualified to teach science and mathematics.

Are you saying that the failure to properly compensate our teachers shows up in more damaging ways down the road?

Glenn Seaborg: Yes it does, because then you are not able to provide the education in science and mathematics that's required to go out and cope in today's society. It's a vicious circle. When you have teachers who are not trained in the subject matter of science and mathematics, and therefore not interested in it and not teaching in a manner to inspire the students to become interested in it, you lose these students. They do not take scientific and mathematical subjects when they can avoid them, and then as they go on, they're no longer qualified to go back and teach. It's a vicious circle.

Glenn Seaborg Interview, Page: 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8