cem; approximately half of the respondents suggested that further study of this specific issue was warranted. Many of the respondents considered microwaves to be the major “environmental” problem associated with the SPS. Several respondents were concerned about related potential microwave problems such as “interference with electronic communications.” A New Mexico couple drew inferences about possible health impacts of microwaves from the report that “. . .microwave beams used as spy devices (e.g, those aimed at the American Embassy in Moscow) were shown to have caused leukemia among Embassy staff and families.” While most respondents cited other environmental problems they saw with the SPS, there was a great deal of diversity in what people perceived as being the most significant of these impacts. Numerous themes or subissues surfaced as the responses were reviewed by CEP. Land use, environmental impact statements, the “greenhouse effect,” rocket exhaust, depletion of scarce minerals and natural resources, conventional terrestrial construction and requisite mining practices were among topics receiving comments. Almost 13% of the comments specifically noted problems of land use and land degradation including not only rectenna siting but also the stringing of high-voltage transmission lines. If there was a common thread among the environmental responses, it was stated most succinctly by one respondent: “The environmental impacts alone should turn the government away from this concept.” Of those responding to the questions regarding health and safety issues, several respondents (who identified themselves as scientists) were dubious about the technical feasibility of keeping men and women in outer space for long durations without impairing their health. Several comments were also received from individuals who stated that personal safety factors would adversely affect space workers, thus severely inhibiting the construction schedule. Approximately 30% of the respondents saw the SPS as a dangerous trend towards centralization of energy planning, big government, and concentration of capital in a small number of big businesses. A major concern of those addressing this issue was that the SPS and other centralized energy systems are “capital drains” that pull financial resources “away from decentralized, more benign energy systems.” For example, a Division Chief of Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation wrote: “More electricity produced in a centralized facility is not the answer to today’s or tomorrow’s energy crisis. This $76 billion (estimated cost for an orbiting SPS prototype) could produce much more positive results for our society if put into decentralized, dispersed, renewable energy technologies and conservation;” and several people concurred with the feelings of one respondent who described the SPS as a “potential danger to our visions for a democratic future America.” Almost 60% of CEP’s respondents noted the military implications of the SPS concept suggesting that the SPS could be used as a military weapon, could be a military target, or could encourage a whole new round of weapons development. A large majority of the comments highlighted two primary concerns: [1] “. . .by merely redirecting the beam, the SPS could become an instrument of war,” and [2] “The SPS is a sitting duck for enemy action.” “SPS. . .has military implications which contradict our basic policy of peace through disarmament,” wrote a representative of a major national religious organization. Readers of the summaries who commented on the international considerations important to the discussion of the SPS, voiced a wide variety of concerns related to this topic. One reviewer summarized the feelings of 40% of those individuals responding to this issue by stating: “Internationalizing the SPS will prove difficult at best; other countries would be paranoid about who would control it and those coun-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==