Gale on Energy Alternatives

Dr. Robert Gale’s column (“Our Energy Debate Can’t Run on Emotion,” Op-Ed Page, May 5) contains some points which are worthy of consideration, as well as some major errors.

I was impressed by Gale’s defense of nuclear energy. Although I have been opposed to nuclear energy in the past, Gale’s column is causing me to rethink my opposition. Gale is one of the few educated Americans who has dealt with the adverse effects of nuclear power by treating the Chernobyl victims. He must surely have weighed the risk of an accident, prior to embracing nuclear power as a viable alternative.

Gale’s column should encourage Americans to practice energy conservation. Although energy conservation may not be a total solution, it is a very important step to use in conjunction with developing new energy sources. American policy-makers should push for more mass transit, higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, and higher fuel prices for non-essential energy use. American consumers should use appliances, heaters and air conditioners in a more fuel-efficient manner. Many local utilities provide energy conservation suggestions for their customers.

America should also encourage energy conservation in the Third World countries which Gale refers to. Since these countries are evolving from scratch, we should encourage them to develop energy conservation habits at the same time that they are developing an energy demand.

Gale’s criticism of the Los Angeles city law which prohibits offshore oil drilling is uncalled for. Many of his scientific colleagues in Alaska who practice veterinary medicine on oil-spill victims would undoubtedly support a ban on offshore oil drilling.

In conclusion, nuclear power may be a reasonable step towards reducing the energy shortage. However, this shortage does not justify the abandonment of energy conservation measures or the abandonment of reasonable environmental safeguards.

DOMINICK FALZONE

Venice