Page 4
University Daily Kansan, July 26, 1982
Opinion
]
Ecological assassination
America is a land of natural beauty. From its miles and miles of unspoiled shoreline to its vast tracks of untamed canyonlands, mountains and forests, our nation is a treasure trow of natural wonders. But that may be quickly changing.
To safeguard the physical beauty of our land, Ronald Reagan is using two very strange caretakers. In the manner of physicians more interested in the death of their patient than in his survival, James Watt, secretary of the interior, and Anne Gorsuch, director of the Environmental Protection Agency, have been tending their charges with deadly effect.
Watt, whose latest action has been to open nearly a billion acres of our nation's outer continental shelf for oil and gas development, has established himself as an enemy of conservation.
This may seem to be strange actions for a secretary of the interior. But Watt was hand-picked by Reagan from a Denver legal firm that specializes in helping industries fight federal environmental constraints, and the secretary is doing very much what the president wishes.
Gorsuch, like Watt, was recruited by Reagan from Denver to streamline federal regulations in her department. Gorsuch has succeeded in gutting her department of personnel and its enforcement power and has made a once potent agency into a harmless bureaucracy.
It is shocking that two individuals whose actions and philosophies are the opposite of the nature of their offices should be placed in charge of protecting our nation's physical health.
The University Daily KANSAN
(USFS 625-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and October. Subscription by mail are $14 for six months or $72 in Douglas County and $8 for six months or $3 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester, paid
Postmaster: Send change of address to the University
Daily Kansas, Fliint Hall, The University of Kansas, Law-
ary.
Editor Business Manager
Coral Beach Sharon Baden
Managing Editor Marissa Brink
New Editor Janet Murphy
Assistant Campus Editor Catherine Jebsen
Assistant Campus Editor Gymnastics Editor
Editorial Editor Joe Barton
Wire/Layout Editor Pattie Pomeran
Suan Pang, Allen Warner
Copy Chief Wendler
Editorial Columnists Patric Quinn, Adrian Jewell
Retail Sales Manager Maria Khose
Retail Sales Manager Lara Hanen
Back to School Coach Classified Naren Haren
Retail Sales Representative Angela Beyer, Denise Pepin
Kathryn Myers, Melissa Payne Ed Keating
Sales Marketing Advice
Sales and Marketing Advisor
John Oberan
General Manager and News Adviser
Paul Jess
Letters to the Editor
Nuclear energy doom for future generations
Dear Editor:
There are so many erroneous statements in William Adams' letter-to-the-editor of June 8, 1982, that it is difficult to know where to begin. If the subject were virtually any other, I would have no trouble understanding it, but the pertinence of the issue demands that I challenge his recent "pru-nuclear" stand.
Mr. Adams sees nuclear energy as a suitable solution (or part of one) to our country's energy needs. He makes the point that fewer people have died in the nuclear "industry" than in "other power generation industries" and that this is why we need an additional radiation, they emit far less than coal-fired plants.
With these thoughts in mind, William Adams is able to examine the nuclear issue and then maintain that nuclear power production is in the best position of the United States and presumably the world.
What really irritates me about Mr. Adams is that he can blithely sidestep the real questions concerning nuclear energy. To my knowledge, no anti-nuclear group has ever raised a holier that workers in nuclear plants are dropping like flies. The issue has never been worker safety, but world safety. Mr. Adams' ignoring this fact makes it no less valid.
It is already been said a hundred times before, but apparently Mr. Adams hasn't been listening or does not believe that nuclear plants produce deadly waste that will continue to be deadly for hundreds of years, which means that tomorrow's children will be required to protect themselves
While conceding that "problems" exist with nuclear waste, Mr. Adams goes on to say, "We have managed to contain these wastes so far, and we can reason to think that we cannot continue to do so."
from the poisons we bequeath to as a result of our thirst for energy today. This fact also justifies the complete and immediate end to the nuclear power industry.
We have not managed to "contain these wastes so far." In fact, thousands of buried S5-gallon drums containing high-level wastes were discovered to be leaking—only after the water table had been contaminated—because of the corrosion that took place in the years they were stored. The result was a horrendously expensive and toxic chemical that greatly mass generated by private industry, not to mention the irreparable harm done to the environment.
Strontium 90 has turned up in milk cows as a
result of immerior radioactive, waste disposal.
result of improper radiative waste disposal.
A few years back the AEC discovered' several kilos of plutonium missing. It was never recovered.
All this ignores the fact that each year tons are added to the world's already abundant supply of highly radioactive nuclear waste. So much for our ability to "contain these wastes so far."
Mr. Adams feels the hazards associated with nuclear energy are far less than those associated with coal-fired plants. He is able to ignore the risks associated with coal-fired plants to malfunction and render unapplicable an area
the size of Kansas. Think about that. Uninhabitable. An entire state! How could a coal-fired plant do more damage than that?
Mr. Adams would presumably argue that the chances of such an accident occurring are so slim that they are not even worth considering. But my feeling is that if there is any chance that such an accident could occur, the plants should not be built. Period. No amount of benefit justifies not allowing them to allow power companies to gamble with our safety and the safety of future generations.
Mr. Adams asks, are the risks associated with nuclear energy sufficient to justify the concern that has arisen around this industry? He thinks I think he is seriously-dangerous--misguided.
How serious must the risks be before Mr. Adams would agree that they are great enough to justify re-examining our nuclear power company and making necessary changes before the stakes are too high—even for him.
The stakes surrounding nuclear energy are indeed too high. Defecating in one's bath water is stupid—no matter how much power it produces. If Mr. Adams and nuclear industry leaders insist on defecating in their bath water, that is their business, as long as they confine their activities to their own tub. When they defecate in mine, or children's, they become my enemies to the end.
Keith Sessions Lawrence sophomore
Keith Sessions
Science has solutions to the world's puzzles
By ERIK RAMBERG
Guest Columnist
An English bishop half a century ago proposed a moratorium on scientific research for one decade. He thought that the hectic pace of advancement and the lack of resources to suit the stripping the ability of society to cope with it.
Although made in jesst and put forth merely to make a point, his idea was seriously considered by many, and its feasibility was debated for quite some time. And now? Well . . . in this wondrous society we have made for ourselves since then, I am sure the bishop's proposal would be more popular than the Equal Rights Amendment.
The assembly line, that great source of economic strength, has quite often meant the pro-
tracted work.
BUT WHY are science and technology viewed with such trepidation on the part of so many? Answers come to mind easily with a bit of thought. Anybody can remember some instance when a piece of sophisticated technology has seriously influenced them, possibly even them harm.
And if you really want to clinch the argument, just mention the words "atomic bomb." Nobody I know like nuclear weapons, and there is no denying the fact that they wouldn't be here except for the dogged determination of a small band of scientists.
However, I am a scientist. And this article is for the sole purpose of expressing my positive feelings toward scientific research and technology.
I refuse to try to convince you by listing the nifty things science has given us (like Tang and wrist television). I am, instead, basing my argument on one simple, selfish fact. I would not be alive today it not for scientific research in the medical sciences.
I LIKE LIFE (especially my own) and in my list of things under the heading "good." "life" is the only one that does not have a question mark after it. (If you want to argue the mertis of life, I am afraid you will have to kill yourself to prove your point.)
How many people do you think would be survivors on this planet if scientific research did not exist? I would seriously think more than two billion less than there are now. And there is a 50-50 chance that one of those two billion would be you. Think about that for a while.
This idea has its problems, however. Certainly life is good. But cannot too much life be bad? Wouldn't maximizing the number of humans on this planet minimize the number of other life-
This is certainly the case, as can easily be seen
by looking at the endangered and extinct species list.
Furthermore, overpopulation is probably the biggest contributor to world tension.
THIS IS INDEED a puzzle.
No—my defense of technology is not adequate if increasing human life means that other species must pay the price or if the result is massive destruction by our so-called 'defensive weapons';
I would like to propose a solution to this puzzle. Interestingly enough, it involves technological advancement and more scientific research. It comes down to this: increase our living space and access to natural resources without endangered other forms of life.
Impossible, you say? Well, I know of a place very close to here that has living space galore, natural resources beyond compare, practically beautiful and yet beautifully beautiful and would be impossible to pollute.
The catch is that it's several hundred miles
up, the catch up. And that place is space,
of course.
It's going to take some pretty intense research and advanced technology before man can live there and call it home. But the benefits once we succeed are tremendous. Even the relatively small government, with its eight-fold return on its investment. Too bad the rest of the government does not work that way.
THE MAJORITY of people I try to convince with this argument do not agree. The biggest question I hear is 'Why don't we spend all that money on people down here instead of wasting it on all this space stuff?' If this is your question, too, then read on, for I have an answer.
First of all, very little is being spent on space research and an increase of a billion or two is money wisely invested. (What's a billion to a government that outsists itself by 100亿?)
Second, money spent on scientific research is being spent on people down here. Research and development has been cited as the biggest producer of jobs in the world economy.
And if all this does not convince you, let me make a proposal: instead of buying 100 F I-5s next year, let's buy $8. Split the money saved between the space program and social spending. Every billion comes out as a winner except the billions at Lockheed, who were almost a long ago.
**THINK ABOUT IT. What do you think would be the response if the White House announced that, by golly, we just weren't to buy to many planes next year?** Instead, we were going to spend it on the challenge of making a future pilot. It might be sure that even the English bishop would smile.
Editor's Note: Eric Ramberg has a B.S. in
University of Kansas and is currently working for
the University of Kansas.
The violent act of rape leaves scarred victims
By FRED MARKHAM Guest Columnist
KATHY remembers feeling very lucky that rainy December night, even though it was Friday the 13th. She had a job she enjoyed and was happy living at home with her mother and three sisters (her parents were divorced but still friendly). And best of all, she was beginning to fall in love with Jim, who felt the same way about her.
: "I was looking forward to the best Christmas of my life," she said.
"I am a Catholic, and though I'd drift away, from the formal church, I was still keeping my promise I'd made to myself when I was a little girl. I would be a virgin when I married," she said.
She had just turned 19—an old-fashioned 19, she said.
"But sexual freedom wasn't for me," she said.
"My virginity was the gift I would give to the man I loved enough to marry. That was my choice, and I was content with it."
Some of Kathy's friends laughed at her. Others told her that she wouldn't be able to judge whether a man was meant for her unless she'd slept with him.
"It's not that I wasn't physically attracted to
Jim—I was. We dated almost every night, and I
had a lot of fun."
work (I was a secretary for a finance company), I would often drive to meet Jim at the freight office where he worked evenings. Then we would have dinner together."
"The failure of my parents' marriage made me wonder if a man and woman could even get along," she said. "I had seen my father, an easygong, loving man, turn into a raging maniac after he'd had a few drinks. But Jim was gentle and full of fun. When he held me in his arms, I was protected. I was becoming more and more certain that our future together would be happy."
TRUSTING A MAN with her private thoughts and dreams was a new experience for Kathy.
When Kathy dropped him off, she realized that she was hungry. She had been excited all day to eat, so on her way home, she stopped at an all-night restaurant in the middle of a well-lit shopping area. She had eaten there many times before with friends and family.
Jim and Kathy had a date to go to a party that Friday, the 13th. His car was in the garage for the day.
"The party was a lot of fun and when we left a little after midnight we were so happy we laughed."
"When I left, I felt as safe if it were the middle of a sunny afternoon," she said.
HER SMALL CAR was parked by the restaurant. She hadn't locked it because it was difficult to unlock the door on the driver's side from the outside.
"The rain was coming down in buckets, so I
opened the door and jumped inside," she said.
"I wanted to scream," she said. "But his other hand was clamped tightly over my mouth. I couldn't even move forward enough to lean on the car horn to honk it. I was terrified, but it all remained. Uneal! I couldn't believe this was happening to me, not here, with so many people close by."
She had just put the key in the ignition when a man who'd been hiding in the back seat suddenly grabbed her arm with one hand and muttered: "You're going to enjoy this."
KATHY TRIED to put up a fight.
"I struggled to pull his hair, but it was too short to catch hold of," she said. "My car was so small there was hardly room to fight back the way I wanted to."
Then, at all once, shock drained all the manhole covers and the attacker pulled her into the back seat with the plungers.
His hands were clamped so tightly around her mouth that her teeth cut into her lip and she could not move.
"He ripped my dress and my pantyhose off," she said. "No matter how I twisted and turned trying to get away from him, he seemed to be a woman step ahead of me. I know it's been said to a woman of his own age," she added. "This just isn't true. There are no words to describe the defeat and helplessness I felt."
"I had no strength at all," she said. "When I could fight no longer, he penetrated me. It hurt me."
Kathy didn't know how long the attack lasted. "I think it was about an hour or more," she said. "It seemed endless. He raped me twice before leaving out of the car and running."
"I was crying so hard I couldn't speak or scream." she said.
She sat in the car for almost an hour with fear and shock. Cars drove by and even parked under her car.
BY THIS TIME she was hysterical.
"I couldn't make myself call for help, or face walking into the restaurant in my form clothes," she said. "I couldn't let anyone know what had happened to me.
"Finally, I was able to start my car, but I didn't go home. Instead, I drove to a nearby lake to a spot where I always go to think. All I knew to myself was, 'I'm not a virgin anymore.'
"When I finally did go home, my mother and sisters were aleep. Quickly, quickly, I threw myself into the tub with as hot of water as I could and poured it over the dirt that I didn't think I'd ever get clean again."
KATHY KEPT thinking that she had committed to an unappeasant pinch and that she had to plead.
"I took three baths, and each time I scrubbed
I until my skin was red and raw," she said.
She knew that she should call the police and report what had happened to her.
"But I couldn't," she said. "I didn't even tell my mother. Telling anyone made it seem more real. I wanted to pretense it never haptened, but I still thought I could think of me? They would blame me, I was sure."
"Although I was afraid I might be pregnant or not some terrible disease, I didn't even go to the
"I know now that was stupid of me, but I was not thinking straight then, and I for sure didn't."
She was afraid that her attacker lived in the neighborhood and would tell everyone.
THE CHRISTMAS Kathy had once looked forward to passed like a bad dream.
"give him his present, a watch I saved six months to pay for, and he gave me a gold cross, just what I had wanted," she said. "But now I have as a sign that I was a liar and a deceiver."
When Jim tried to kiss me, I turned away. "When I don't help myself, I simply couldn't bear to touch."
Jim was puzzled by Kathy's reaction, then hurt and finally angry.
"What could I say to him?" she said. "I wanted to tell him what had happened, but was afraid that if I did so away, he began seeing me less and less, and finally he never called again."
Kathy began to feel more and more that what had happened was her fault, that something she had done was wrong.
ir only I had gone straight home that night . . . if I had locked my car . . . if I had looked inside the car before opening the door . . . if I had fought harder ," she said.
The thoughts haunted her for years.
Kathy knows now that this kind of self-torture and guilt is common for rape victims, but she doesn't know how to do it.
"I was so afraid of the dark, afraid to be alone in the house, afraid to go out to empty the garbage," she said. "Was this man watching me, waiting to attack me again as he warned him."
ALMOST A MONTH after the attack, Kabby was having lunch with one of her friends at work. The tears started running down her cheeks. She couldn't keep her secret one minute longer.
I keep Iain secret the minute
"I've been raped," she blurted out.
"After the initial shock was over, my mother couldn't understand why I hadn't told her immediately," she said. "I told her I didn't want to upset her."
"My friend was warm and understanding and convinced me that I should tell my mother," abe
"After neither of us had spoken for a while, my mother told me that I wasn't the first of her
When she went home that night, she told her mother.
daughters to be raped. Two years before, my
daughter was assaulted while bitching with two other young
bitchings with two other young
Kathy said her mother seemed to feel as if both of her daughters had betrayed her.
"TWO MEN had stopped pretending to offer help and drove to a country road and raped two of them, including my sister. The other woman escaped and went to get help, the attackers were gone by the time assistance arrived. The men were never captured."
"Was she one of those who believed that a really good woman could fight off a rapt?"
"Is it possible?"
Then, Kathy realized she had been doing the same thing.
"I was shocked to learn of my sister's experience," she said. "But I was angry, too. Why hadn't my mother told me, warned me? She knew of the danger, but she'd kept it to herself. Perhaps my mother could have saved me f·m on the experience if she'd been honest."
"I had been hiding what had happened to me because I was ashamed," she said. "I resolved then that, no matter how painful it might be, I had to tell about the rape so that no one else, particularly my younger sister, would be a victim of lack of awareness or because of carelessness."
IT WASN'T EASY for Kathy.
"It took me a full year before I felt that I wanted to live again," she said.
During the first year after the rape, she thought many times about killing herself.
"Many times I startled to drive my car into a wall or drive off a cliff, but I never could do it," she said.
Eventually, there came the day when Kathy was able to believe what had happened was no more her fault than if she had been run over by a drunken driver.
"technically, I might no longer be a virgin,
but in my mind and heart. I realized I still am."
The road back hasn't been easy for Kath, but her friends and family have been very helpful and caring.
1
Kathy now works at a center for women who are victims of rape. She counsels them and relates her story to them to offer support to these women, through the traumatic experience of being raped.
OH YES-Kathy has a much more pleasant experience coming this December. She and Gary
"His unfailing patience and gentleness have taken away all my remaining fears of physical love," she said. "Our wedding day is set, and my dress is ordered."
1
"And my dress is white," she added and smiled.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This column is based on an interview between Kathy, whose name has been changed in the article, and Fred Markham, who is a former Kansasan columnist.