1703 



In the three years I have served in the Federal Government, I have done my 

 best to face up to whatever problems have emerged and to resolve them in an 

 open and honest manner. Thank you for your appointment and the opportunity 

 to serve. I leave with no regrets. 

 Sincerely, 



Dixy Lee Ray. 

 Attachment: News release by scientists. 



scientists' statement on energy policy 



Washington, D.C, Jan. 16, 1975. — We, as scientists and citizens of the United 

 States, beUeve that the Republic is in the most serious situation since World War 

 II. Today's energy crisis is not a matter of just a few j^ears but of decades. It is the 

 new and predominant fact of life in industrialized societies. 



The high price of oil which we must now import in order to keep Americans at 

 their jobs threatens our economic structure — indeed, that of the Western world. 

 Energy is the hfeblood of all modern societies and they are currently held hostage 

 by a price structure that they are powerless to influence. 



In the next three to five years conservation is essentially the only energy option. 

 We can and we must use energy and existing energy sources more intelligently. 

 But there must also be long range realistic plans and we deplore the fact that they 

 are developing so slowly. We also deplore the fact that the public is given unrealis- 

 tic assurances that there are easy solutions. There are many interesting proposals 

 for alternative energy sources which deserve vigorous research effort, but none of 

 them is Ukely to contribute significantly to our energy supply in this century. 



Conservation, while urgently necessary and highly desirable, also has its price. 

 One man's conservation may be another man's loss of job. Conservation, the first 

 time around, can trim off fat, but the second time will cut deeply. 



When we search for domestic energy sources to substitute for imported oil, we 

 must look at the whole picture. If we look at each possible energy source sepa» 

 rately, we can easily find fault with each of them, and rule out each one. Clearly,, 

 this would mean the end of our civilization as we know it. 



Our domestic oil reserves are running down and the deficit can only partially be 

 replaced by the new sources in Alaska; we must, in addition, permit offshore ex- 

 ploration. Natural gas is in a similar critical condition; in the last seven years new 

 discoveries have run far below our level of gas consumption. Only with strong 

 measures could we hope to reverse this trend. 



We shall have to make much greater use of solid fuels. Here coal and uranium 

 are the most important options. This represents a profound change in the character 

 of the American fuel economy. The nation has truly great reserves of these solid 

 fuels in the earth. Our economically recoverable coal reserves are estimated to be- 

 250 billion tons and exceed the energy of the world's total oil reserves. Our known 

 uranium ores potentially equal the energy of 6,000 billion tons of coal; lower grade 

 ore promises even more abundance. 



The U.S. choice is not coal or uranium; we need both. Coal is irreplaceable as 

 the basis of new synthetic fuels to replace oil and natural gas. 



However, we see the primary use of solid fuels, especially of uranium, as a 

 source of electricity. Uranium power, the culmination of basic discoveries in 

 physics, is an engineered reality generating electricity today. Nuclear power has 

 its critics, but we believe they lack perspective as to the feasibiUty of non-nuclear 

 power sources and the gravity of the fuel crisis. 



All energy release involves risks and nuclear power is certainly no exception. 

 The safety of civilian nuclear power has been under public surveillance without 

 parallel in the history of technology. As in any new technology there is a learning 

 period. Contrary to the scare publicity given to some mistakes that have occurred, 

 no appreciable amount of radioactive material has escaped from any commercial 

 U.S. power reactor. We have confidence that technical ingenuity and care in oper- 

 ation can continue to improve the safety in all phases of the nuclear power pro- 

 gram, including the difficult areas of transportation and nuclear waste disposal. 

 The separation of the Atomic Energy Commission into the Energy Research and 

 Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides 

 added reassurance for realistic management of potential risks and benefits. On any 

 scale the benefits of a clean, inexpensive, and inexhaustible domestic fuel far 

 outweigh the possible risks. 



We can see no reasonable alternative to an increased use of nuclear power to 

 satisfy our energy needs. 



