PREFACE 



The United States and most industrially developed 

 nations of the world are confronted by crucial decisions 

 on the use of alternative sources of energy. Both short- 

 and long-term effects on human and environmental 

 health, and frequently on the international balance of 

 payments, hinge on the outcome of these decisions. Too 

 often policy is made as a reflex response to the clamor 

 created in the public realm by industrialists, economists, 

 or environmentalists, without giving due consideration 

 to the overall impact and compromises associated with 

 the choice of one fuel over another energy option. For 

 example, many environmentalists oppose large central 

 power plants because high temperatures increase mortal- 

 ity for certain aquatic organisms but do not consider the 

 potential for increased growth rates or higher species 

 diversity from moderate thermal inputs. In contrast, 

 some industrialists view nuclear central power stations 

 as the most viable energy option because the probability 

 of an accident is minimal and the long-term efficiency is 

 high. However, the exceedingly long-term impact of a 

 radioactive leak and the difficulty of cleanup magnify 

 the significance of a single "low-probability" accident. 

 Finally, the environmental impact of nuclear power 

 must be evaluated with respect to that of other fuels, 

 e.g., the environmental effects of acid mine drainage and 

 acid rainfall that can result from the procurement and 

 conversion of coal or the effects of thermal effluents 

 from fossil-fueled power plants. 



This symposium, Energy and Environmental Stress 

 in Aquatic Systems, served as a forum for discussions of 



