TIME's Nuclear Hobgoblin The Halloween issue of TIME featured the dreaded hobgoblin of American reactors that produce fuel for nuclear weapons. In a cover story entitled "The Nuclear Scandal" or "They Lied to Us," TIME exploits human tragedy to fan public fears. One photograph shows an eight year old boy with leukemia, and his two-year-old brother with an artificial leg due to an amputation for bone cancer (presumably osteogenic sarcoma). An unnamed doctor is quoted as saying that the boy's leg contained "ten times more uranium than would be expected to accumulate naturally over a lifetime." Such an amount, he said, could not result from eating dirt; the child must have breathed it. Just how much uranium would that be? Throughout the article, TIME avoids mentioning a single actual dose. Marshall Brucer, MD, of Tucson calculates that "100 times the expected amount" of uranium would be measured in femtograms (quadrillionths of a gram, i.e. grams x 10<)<1<5). The radiation produced from such a dose of U-235 would be so small that it could be masked by the polonium residue of natural radium in cigarette smoke. Additionally, the latent period for radiation-induced cancers is 15 years or more; a two-year old child is about 13 years too young to develop a solid tumor even from high doses of radiation. Dr. Brucer noted that the effects of breathing U-235 were tested during the Manhattan Project in 1943 by placing a colony of rats in an atmosphere laden with uranium dust in an amount thought sufficient to kill them fast. A control colony breathed clean air. After several months, nothing had happened. Eventually, the rats lived out their normal life span, with one surprise: the rats who had breathed the uranium dust lived longer and were happier (i.e. had a better reproductive history) than those who had not. Not a single rat developed a tumor. Cancer is a common disease, affecting nearly 20% of the population at some time during their lives. Thus, clusters of cancer are bound to occur. Some of these occur near a nuclear facility, and some do not -- purely on the basis of chance. In Tucson, there is no conveniently located nuclear facility to "explain" the occurrence of cancer. Here, reporters intent on discovering a man-made cause (and hence, someone to sue), blamed minuscule amounts of trichloroethylene in the drinking water. TIME entertains no doubt about its hypotheses -- the editor saw no need for review by a statistician. However, they did quote an expert, a high school teacher residing in Idaho Falls, who doesn't "believe much of what the Department of Energy says is going on" at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). Not many residents would say such a thing, according to Tom L. Schumann, MD, staff physician at INEL. That's because most either work there and KNOW what is going on, or rely on a trusted friend or family member who does. TIME clearly recognizes the implications of public fear of nuclear reactors. If tritium production at the Savannah River facility is not resumed within a year or so, "we will begin to disarm unilaterally." Is TIME interested in the truth? Watch to see whether letters from Drs. Brucer or Schumann are published. Panic in Disaster Many believe that victims of disaster inevitably panic and become shocked, dazed, and unable to cope. This idea is a myth, according to Joseph Scanlon, director of the Emergency Communications Research Unit, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. "People may say they act that way -- but they don't," said Professor Scanlon. After a mudslide that had led to an evacuation, one woman told him that she was so upset that she "ran around screaming in circles." What she actually did was to awaken her husband, alert the emergency services, warn the neighbors, and get herself and her husband into the car and off to safety. Whatever she was screaming was apparently just the right thing. In the wake of disaster, people help each other (Civil Protection Autumn 1988). The Education Gap Under the rubric of peace and global education, children in grades K through 12 in our public schools are being indoctrinated in a radical left perspective. One curriculum guide tells students "Think of the US and USSR as rival street gangs" (Ryerson, Wall Street Journal May 31, 1988). Some say that well-meaning educators have no choice but to use curriculum materials that are available; alternate materials are desperately needed. On a visit to a curriculum center for St. Louis public schools, I could find only two books with a pro-defense orientation, "Soviet Military Power" and another US government publication. Teachers also may be paid to attend seminars about the "new world order." A book for high school students that counters the propaganda to be found in units such as the NEA's "Choices" is in preparation by Frances Shands, Associate Professor of Education at St. Louis University. A draft copy of "Insight for Peace in a Nuclear Age" can be obtained from Dr. Shands, 6 Portland Dr., St. Louis, MO 63131. Please send $8 to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing. Comments are invited.