Once we open the door to the plutonium economy, we expose ourselves to absolutely terrible, horrifying risks from these people.

What happens when the guy who runs the reactor gets out of bed wrong or decides, for some reason, that he wants to override his instruction sheet some afternoon?

I believe that the average guy in the street will give up a great deal, if he really understands the cost of not giving it up. In fact, we may find that, while we're drastically cutting our energy consumption, we're actually raising our standard of living.

We've pumped waste into cavities in solid rock and found that it spread through the rock.

'Realistic' is a loaded word for me. Anyone who uses the word 'realistic' is all bad.

Apollo 13, as you may remember, gave us a reactor that is bubbling away right now somewhere in the Pacific. It's supposed to be bubbling away on the moon, but it's in the Pacific Ocean instead.

A great deal of pressure was then built up to remove me from the club and my resignation was, finally, a forced one.

Even if you build the perfect reactor, you're still saddled with a people problem and an equipment problem.

It's like turning the space program over to the Long Island Railroad.

Understanding how DNA transmits all it knows about cancer, physics, dreaming and love will keep man searching for some time.

The more we pour the big machines, the fuel, the pesticides, the herbicides, the fertilizer and chemicals into farming, the more we knock out the mechanism that made it all work in the first place.

We tried burying the waste at sea and the concrete cannisters that held it cracked open.

I sort of kept my hand in writing and went to work for the Sierra Club in '52, walked the plank there in '69, founded Friends of the Earth and the League of Conservation Voters after that.

Some otherwise sane scientists have seriously proposed that we tuck this deadly garbage under the edges of drifting continents but how can they be sure the moving land masses will climb over the waste and not just push it forward?

I was actually telling people that - by harnessing the atom - we could enter a new era of unlimited power that would do away with the need to dam our beautiful streams.

Yet another proposal would have us rocket the waste into the sun, but, as you're probably aware, about one in ten of our space shots doesn't quite make it out of the earth's gravitational field.

Is the minor convenience of allowing the present generation the luxury of doubling its energy consumption every 10 years worth the major hazard of exposing the next 20,000 generations to this lethal waste?

I don't think we have very good records about what they were thinking except, as I pointed out earlier today, that they did invent our political system.

For how many people do you think might yet stand on this planet before the sun grows cold? That's the responsibility we hold in our hands.

They simply don't know that much about what they're doing. There isn't enough control. There isn't enough capability in ordinary people to tinker with such a complicated piece of machinery.

There is no place where we can safely store worn-out reactors or their garbage. No place!

We are at the edge of an abyss and we're close to being irrevocably lost.

I will say this, - though: If it is true that fusion will put unlimited amounts of energy into our hands, then I'm worried. Our record on this score is extremely poor.

We've got to search back to our last known safe landmark. I can't say exactly where, but I think it's back there at the start of the Industrial Revolution, we began applying energy in vast amounts to tools with which we began tearing the environment apart.

All I know about thermal pollution is that if we continue our present rate of growth in electrical energy consumption it will simply take, by the year 2000, all our freshwater streams to cool the generators and reactors.

It is absolutely imperative that we protect, preserve and pass on this genetic heritage for man and every other living thing in as good a condition as we received it.

The risk presented by these lethal wastes is like no other risk, and we should not be expected to accept it or to project it into the future in order for manufacturers and utilities to make a dollar killing now.

It seems that every time mankind is given a lot of energy, we go out and wreck something with it.

The Sierra Club is a very good and a very powerful force for conservation and, as a matter of fact, has grown faster since I left than it was growing while I was there! It must be doing something right.

What's even more unsettling is the way these people hide what they're doing from the public. They strip the labels off miracle wheat when they ship it, for instance, and say, 'Watch out. Don't plant too much and don't depend on it too much.'

When people say, 'You're not being realistic,' they're just trying to tag some thoughts that they can't otherwise handle.

There are many different kinds of radioactive waste and each has its own half-life so, just to be on the safe side and to simplify matters, I base my calculations on the worst one and that's plutonium.

Until four years ago, in fact, I was absolutely in love with the atom.

I began working with the John Muir Institute and then started helping found Friends of the Earth organizations here and there in other countries. That pretty well brings us up to the present.

It's very hard for me to know what to say about fusion right now, inasmuch as it is not yet scientifically feasible. I just can't understand how so many people are able to predict so much about something that still isn't scientifically possible.

Perhaps we'll realize that each of us has not one vote but ten thousand or a million.

Bring diversity back to agriculture. That's what made it work in the first place.

At that time a senator who was on the Joint Committee of Atomic Energy said rather quietly, 'You know, we're having a little problem with waste these days.' I didn't know what he meant then, but I know now.

Perhaps most ridiculous of all is the suggestion that we 'keep' our radioactive garbage for the use of our descendants. This 'solution', I think, requires an immediate poll of the next 20,000 generations.

Once we open the door to the plutonium economy, we expose ourselves to absolutely terrible, horrifying risks from these people.

We are at the edge of an abyss and were close to being irrevocably lost.

Understanding how DNA transmits all it knows about cancer physics dreaming and love will keep man searching for some time.

It seems that every time mankind is given a lot of energy we go out and wreck something with it.

There is more inside you than you dare think.

Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed.

If the economy becomes disembodied from society it can only lead to disaster.

I don't know where the stock market is going, but I will say this, that if it continues higher, this will do more to stimulate the economy than anything we've been talking about today or anything anybody else was talking about.

I take great pride in having been able to overcome the Asian financial crisis and seeking the opportunities available to bring about an unprecedented growth in the economy.

What we've proven is that you can protect the environment, use it wisely and grow the economy and that there is no conflict between the two.