The Politics of Nuclear Power

The late P.E. HODGSON was Senior Research Fellow Emeritus in Physics at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

The last three articles have shown some
of the difficulties of understanding
the advantages and disadvantages of this
new source of power in order to decide
whether it is the best way to secure our
future. Having at least provisionally decided
what needs to be done, one is faced
with the far more difficult problem of persuading
people to take the necessary actions.
The decision is not a matter of dispassionate
analysis of the objective facts
but becomes embroiled in a maelstrom of
emotion, rhetoric, and national and international
politics.

After the end of the Second World War,
nuclear scientists were very concerned
about the dangers of this situation. They
knew that nuclear reactors had vast potentialities
for both good and evil. Society
was faced with vitally important decisions,
and yet very few really understood the
scientific and technical facts about nuclear
reactors. Without this knowledge, unwise
decisions would be almost inevitable.

The nuclear physicists who had worked
on the bomb, most of whom had returned
to their universities after the end of
the war, realized that they had a serious
responsibility to inform the public about
the potentialities of nuclear energy. They
founded the Federation of Atomic Scientists
in the USA and the Atomic Scientists’
Association in Britain. They wrote books
and articles, gave lectures, and organized
exhibitions. The public was very receptive.
Everyone had high hopes for the
future and journalists waxed lyrical about
the coming atomic age.

At this time, in the late nineteen forties
and early nineteen fifties, I was a research
student in nuclear physics at Imperial
College of the University of London,
working under the supervision of Sir
George Thomson. Many of the scientists in
the department were active in the Atomic
Scientists’ Association, and I was invited
to join them. Soon I became a member
of the Council, and served from 1952 to
1959 and edited the Atomic Scientists’
Journal from 1953 to 1955. The President
and Vice-Presidents of the Association
included practically every eminent physicist
in Britain: Lord Cherwell, the scientifi
c advisor to Churchill during the war,
Sir George Thomson, the theoretician Sir
Harrie Massey, the crystallographer Dame
Kathleen Lonsdale, the experimental
physicist Patrick Blackett, the theoretician
Sir Rudolf Peierls and several others.
The driving force was Joseph Rotblat, a
medical physicist. He had worked at Los
Alamos during the war, but resigned as
soon as the war with Germany was over
and there was no longer an atomic threat
from that country.

As a member of the Council, I took
part in discussions about how to avoid
the threat of nuclear war and how best
to develop nuclear power for peaceful
purposes. There were many serious problems
to be tackled. The Cold War intensifi
ed, but the USA felt secure because only
they had the atomic bomb. The scientists,
however, knew very well that there were
plenty of highly competent nuclear physicists
in the USSR who would soon enable
the Soviet Union to make a bomb of its
own. This prediction was quickly realised
when the USSR exploded their first
bomb in 1949, greatly to the consternation
of the USA. Both countries embarked
on a nuclear arms race, developing more
and more powerful types of bomb. This
research required testing the new designs,
and this injected substantial amounts of
radioactive material into the atmosphere.
Indeed, it was by detecting this material
that the USA found out that the USSR had
made a bomb. Scientists were therefore
very interested in devising better methods
of detecting test explosions, not only by
the radioactive material in the atmosphere
but also by seismic means.¹

The euphoria about the coming era of
nuclear power did not last very long. It
was gradually destroyed by a well-planned
political campaign, which was part of the
cold war between the Soviet Union and the
West, and which was enhanced by several
accidents to nuclear reactors. The longterm
strategy of the Soviet Union was to
weaken the West as a prelude to their aim
of world domination. The Soviet strategists
realized that the Western countries relied
on coal and oil to provide the bulk of their
vital energy supplies. Oil was the more
important, as it was gradually replacing
coal and the principal energy source. Most
of the oil comes from the Middle East, and
so the aim was to disrupt the supplies by
fomenting unrest in those countries and
making it more difficult to transport the
oil to Western Europe.

It then became increasingly clear that
this strategy was being undermined by the
new source of energy provided by nuclear
power. As the Western nations built more
and more nuclear reactors they became
less reliant on oil. It was therefore necessary
to persuade them that nuclear reactors
were unsafe and dangerous, so that public
opinion would become opposed to nuclear
power and so prevent more reactors being
built.

During the cold war the Soviet Union
provided massive financial support to
Communist parties worldwide.² It is
notable that the vast majority of the vociferous
opponents of nuclear power have
been Communists and left-wing politicians.
It is therefore not unreasonable to
surmise that the campaign against nuclear
power originated in the Soviet Union. It
was very well planned and was made plausible
by basing it on physical facts that are
correct, but exaggerated completely out of
proportion. Thus it was pointed out that
nuclear radiations are dangerous in large
doses, as was well-known from the effects
of the atomic bombs on Japan. Nuclear
reactors are a source of such radiations,
and so it was argued that they are inherently
dangerous. What matters, of course,
is the intensity of the radiation, which is so
low from reactors that it poses no hazard.
It is necessary to express the comparison
numerically to show this, but it was never
done. The disposal of nuclear waste was
billed as a great unsolved problem, whereas

it is a simple and well-understood operation.
Great publicity was given to reports
of increased numbers of cases of leukaemia
near nuclear installations, although these
were not supported by detailed medical
studies.

Ever since the end of the Second World
War the Soviet Union had carried out a
continuous campaign to persuade the West
to disarm. They organised Peace Conferences
that stressed the dangers of nuclear
war. When this danger receded with the
collapse of the Soviet Union, thousands of
peace activists looked for something else
to do. Already fervently anti-nuclear, they
enthusiastically supported the campaign
against nuclear reactors. They found it
easy to recruit many well-meaning people,
who naturally wanted peace and safety, but
were unaware of the deeper implications
of the campaign, to join them.

The campaign against nuclear power
received a powerful boost from the accident
to the reactor at Three Mile Island
in the USA and the much more serious
disaster at Chernobyl. No matter that
a reactor designed like the one at Chernobyl
would never be accepted in the
West; western capitalist reactors were bad
but socialist reactors were good. Indeed,
the Soviet Union had a large program of
reactor construction; this was halted by
Chernobyl and played no small part in the
Soviet collapse.

Chernobyl is still used as an argument
against nuclear power, and every reactor is
seen as continually on the brink of a similar
disaster. This ignores both the folly of the
operators of the Chernobyl reactor and the
great advances in reactor design since that
time. Many children have been brought to
Europe from the area around Chernobyl
for medical treatment and publicized
as “victims of Chernobyl,” liable to die
prematurely from the effects of radiation,
whereas they were actually suffering from
the effects of malnutrition.

The general fear of nuclear radiations
was enhanced by the discovery of seven
cases of childhood leukaemia between
1955 and 1983 in Seascale in Cumbria near
the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
This number seemed to be greater than
would be expected by chance, and it
received much publicity. It was, however,
very difficult to see how these cases could
be blamed on Sellafield, since the amount
of radiation emitted from that plant is far
smaller than the natural background.

Another possible mechanism to account
for the Sellafield cluster was suggested in
1987 by Gardner, who postulated that the
children developed leukaemia as a result
of their fathers’ exposure to nuclear radiation.
He collected statistics that showed a
significant correlation between paternal
radiation dose and leukaemic children.

The Gardner hypothesis has such
serious implications for the nuclear
industry that many further studies were
made. These included the actual process
whereby paternal irradiation could lead
to childhood leukaemia, the statistics of
leukaemia in the children of survivors of
the atomic bombing of Japan, and more
extensive studies of leukaemia around
nuclear plants.

The results of these studies were
published by Sir Richard Doll, Dr. H. J.
Evans, and Dr. S. C. Darby.³ They showed
that the possibility that nuclear irradiation
could cause a gonadal mutation leading to
childhood leukaemia can be studied using
data on genetically-determined leukaemia.
The detailed statistics shows that there
may be a recessive mutation that could
contribute to a number of the observed
cases. However, “it effectively excludes any
major contribution from the type of mutation
that would be required to account for

the appearance of the Sellafield cases in the
first generation, namely a dominant mutation
with a high degree of penetrance.”

Studies by Neel and colleagues of
“the children of atomic bomb survivors,
including more that 1500 born to parents
who received a gonadal dose of one sievert
or larger, revealed no clearly increased
frequency of mutations.” These doses
are far higher than those received by the
Sellafield workers.

Further studies were made of all the
leukaemia cases in people under 25 years
of age in 1958–90 born after 1958 in Scotland
and a part of north Cumbria near the
Scottish border, and of all children under
15 born near five nuclear installations in
Ontario. They found that “neither set of
results supported the probability of a hazard
from the father’s occupation.” Several other
studies reached the same conclusion.

Thus the authors conclude that “the
association between paternal irradiation
and leukaemia is largely or wholly a chance
finding.” They note that there appear to
be “small but real clusters of leukaemia
in young people near Sellafield, and some
other explanation for them needs to be
sought.”

This highly authoritative study should
have finally laid to rest the fears of radiations
from nuclear installations, but
whether it will or not depends on the mass
media. The presence of leukaemia clusters,
and particularly the Gardner hypothesis,
has been widely publicized by organizations
opposed to nuclear power. This
has encouraged families with children
suffering from leukaemia to seek compensation,
but when the scientific evidence is
laid before a court, the judgment inevitably
goes against them.

There is also some concern about the
radiation dose received by people who eat
sea food from the Sellafield region. Studies
have shown that the few people who eat
very large amounts may receive an extra
annual dose of 0.35 mS. Those living
near Sellafield may receive an extra dose
of 0.25 mS. This is to be compared with
the average annual background dose of 2.2
mS per year and about 8 mS in Cornwall.
Similar studies on other countries give the
same results.

The Danish Minister for the Environment
has criticized Sellafield for releasing
the isotope technicium 99 into the sea.
Measurements in the Kattegat show that
the resulting radiation level is between two
and three Becquerels (Bq) per cubic metre
and 0.1 Bq /kg. in fish and 20–25 Bq/kg.
in lobsters. If a fish-lover consumes 50 kg
of fish and 20 kg of shellfish per year, the
resulting radiation dose is about 0.14 mS.
For comparison, a person inside a typical
Danish house receives an annual dose of
about 30 mS so that the dose from the
air is about 200 times that from the fish.
Furthermore, all fish and shellfish contain
polonium 210, and this gives a dose about
300 times that from the technicium. In
any case, the technicium discharges from
Sellafield have now ceased.

Detailed studies by the National Radiation
Protection Board and the International
Commission on Radiation Protection of the
life histories of thousands of workers have
shown “that there is no evidence that radiation
workers have cancer mortalities which
are higher than those for the general population.”
If anything, the statistics showed
smaller rates. A study of workers in the
UKAEA in 1985 showed that their death
rates from cancer were 22% lower than
the national average, and 14,347 workers
at Sellafield had an average mortality rate
from all causes that was 2% less than the
national average. A study of 21,358 men who
took part in the UK atomic bomb tests in
Australia and the Pacific showed no detect
able effect on their life expectancy or on the
incidence of cancer and other diseases.

It still remained to understand the
origin of the cluster of cases of leukaemia
around Sellafield. It was found that similar
clusters occur in regions where there are
no nuclear plants. A possible explanation is
that they are connected with the influx of
many people into a relatively isolated rural
community, as occurred around Sellafield.
Dr. Kinlen proposed that the cases are due
to some viral infection. This hypothesis
was tested by seeing if the effect occurs in
cases of similar population movements due
to the construction in rural areas of factories
with no connection with the nuclear
industry and indeed this was found to be
the case.⁴

As part of their campaign, an environmental
group published an advertisement
in several national newspapers. It showed
the photograph of a baby, described as a
Kazakhstan nuclear test victim, followed
by the quotation: “Hush mother, do not
cry. I am filled with angels.” The advertisement
continues: “These brave calming
deathbed words of a child radiation victim
may shock us. They should not surprise
us.” The impact of this emotion-laden
photograph is somewhat changed when
one learns from other sources that the
child is suffering from hydrocephalus, and,
according to Professor Trott, professor of
radiation biology at St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital, no case of hydrocephalus has
ever been identified as liable to have been
caused by radiation exposure.

The advertisement continues: “Now
we face the prospect of huge increases
in radiation, heightened chances of accident
and greater polonium risks, all from
THORP, the newly licensed reprocessing
plant at Sellafield. It is our opinion that
these risks are real. They beckon a world
where radiation linked disease becomes
an accepted part of everyday life. As if to
prove the point, it can be shown from offi-
cial figures that 2000 will die because of
the discharges from Sellafield over the next
ten years.”

This statement is untrue. The amount of
radiation that will be emitted by THORP
is minute, comparable in magnitude to the
extra radiation received on a short airplane
flight, or a visit to Cornwall. The figure
of 2000 deaths is the result of using the
discredited linear relation dose hypothesis.
The advertisement goes on the accuse
the nuclear industry of being “intent on
spreading radiation and the means of mass
destruction around the globe,” and appeals
for money to help them to continue the
fight: “All you need is a sense of right and
wrong and to refuse to be walked over by
powers who deem it right to play with
children’s lives.”

The reality is that Sellafield took their
responsibilities so seriously that they spent
£250M to reduce radioactive discharges
by an amount estimated to save one or two
hypothetical statistical cancer deaths over
the next 11,000 years. “Hypothetical”
means assuming the discredited linear
dose relation at low energies. If the money
had been spent on new motorway crash
barriers, they would save one actual statistical
life for every £5000.

These are just a few of the ways the
nuclear power has been vilified. The character
of the battle has been well described
by Professor Cohen: “First let’s consider
the cast of characters in the battle. The two
sides are of an entirely different ilk. One of
the main interests in life for a typical antinuclear
activist is political battling, while
the vast majority of scientists have no
inclination or interests in political battling,
and even if they did they have little native
ability or intellectual preparation for it [ .
. . ]. While the former was making polit
ical contacts and developing know-how
in securing media co-operation the latter
was absorbed in laboratory or field problems
with no thought of politics or media
involvement. At this juncture the former
went out looking for a new battle to fight
and decided to attack the later; it was like a
lion attacking a lamb.”⁵

Nuclear scientists had long agonized
over such questions as what safety measures
are needed in nuclear power plants and
what health impacts their radioactivity
releases might cause. All the arguments
were published for anyone to see. It took
little effort for the antinuclear activists to
collect, organize selectively, and distort
this information into ammunition for their
battle. Anyone experienced in debates
and political battles is well prepared to do
this. When they charged into battle wildly
firing this ammunition, the physicists at
first laughed at the naïvité of the charges,
but they did not laugh long. They could
easily explain the invalidity of the attacks
by scientific and technical arguments, but
no one would listen to them. The phoney
charges of the attackers dressed up with
their considerable skills in presentation
sounded much better to the media and
others with no scientific knowledge or
experience. When people wanted to hear
from scientists the attackers, provided
their own—there were always a few available
to present any point of view, and
who was who know that they represented
only a very small fraction of the scientific
community? The anti-nuclear activists
never let it be made clear who they were
and whom they were attacking. The battle
was not billed as a bunch of scientifically
illiterate activists attacking the community
of nuclear scientists, which is the true situation.
It was rather represented as “environmentalists”—
what a pure, good, sweet
connotation that name carries—attacking
big business (the nuclear industry), which
was trying to make money at the expense
of the public’s health and safety.

The rout was rapid and complete. In
fact the nuclear scientists were never even
allowed on the battlefield. The battlefield
here was the media, which alone have
the power to influence public opinion.
The media establishment swallowed the
attackers’ story hook, line, and sinker,
becoming their allies. They freely and
continually gave exposure to the antinuclear
activists and their allies, but never
gave the nuclear scientists a chance. With
constant exposure to this one-sided propaganda,
the public was slowly but surely
won over. The public was driven insane
over fear of radiation; it became convinced
by the demonstrably and utterly false
notion that nuclear power was more likely
to kill them than such well-known killers
such as motor vehicle accidents, cigarette
smoking, and alcohol; that burying nuclear
waste, actually a very simple problem, was
one of the world’s great unsolved problems;
that, contrary to all informed sources, the
Three Mile Island accident was a close call
to disaster and so on. Fears of everything
connected with nuclear power were blown
up out of all perspective with other risks.
Hitler’s spokesman, Goebbels, had shown
what propaganda could do, but the nuclear
scientists never believed that it could
succeed against the rationality of science,
yet succeed it did. The victory of the antinuclear
activists was complete.

The anti-nuclear activists have won their
battle, and to the victors belong the spoils—
the failure of nuclear science to provide the
cheap and abundant power we sorely need.
This is the goal they cherished and they
have achieved it. Our children and grandchildren
will be the victims of their heartless
tactics. When Shakespeare said “the
truth will come to light,” he didn’t reckon

with the power of the modern media.”

This analysis of the situation is borne
out by the experience of any scientist
who tries to bring some sense into what is
euphemistically called the nuclear debate.
The media frequently present ill-informed
attacks on nuclear power, and if a scientist
tries to correct them, he is usually ignored.
His own writings presenting the truth as
he sees it are routinely rejected. One of my
attempts to correct an absurd statement by
a (left-wing) politician that there would
be thousands of cases of cancer if a nuclear
accident like that at Three Mile Island
occurred at a proposed nuclear power
station in Britain was brushed aside with
insults.

Another example is provided by a
leading article in a prominent daily newspaper
reporting a large increase in the
death rates in the United States due to
the dust from Chernobyl, complete with
a large picture of Death the Reaper. It was
obvious that this was extremely unlikely
because no such effects had been reported
from Europe, where the amount of dust
deposited was much larger, though still
far below that likely to cause any detectable
effects. The article was supported by
statistical data showing a strong correlation
between the amount of dust deposited and
the death rate in that area.

The story seemed so unlikely that I
contacted Harwell and asked for detailed
figures. This took some time, and when
the date arrived, it soon became clear that
the figures in the article had been obtained
by statistical juggling and that they showed
no effects whatsoever. I wrote to the newspaper
and was told that nothing could be
done because it all happened so long ago that
everyone would have forgotten all about it.
It is, however, more than likely that they
will remember the association between
nuclear power and Death the Reaper.

One might well expect the Governments
to take action to ensure that the
public has access to reliable knowledge,
but they are hamstrung by political considerations.
Any move that could appear to
favour nuclear power would immediately
affect their popularity adversely and
with it probably the next election. If it is
suggested that a nuclear waste depository
is built, then immediately a pressure group
in that locality is organized to oppose it.
The member of Parliament for that area
tells the minister that if the proposed
depository is built he will probably not be
elected at the next election. The Minister
then shelves the proposal and the depository
is never built.

Governments are now concerned about
global warming and convene conferences
to discuss possible countermeasures.
At these conferences every conceivable
method is discussed except nuclear despite
its being the most effective alternative.
Nevertheless, the reality of the danger of
climate change is increasingly realized and
the leaders of several Governments now
declare their support for nuclear power,
although they still fail to take action.

If the representative of the nuclear
industry, who really know what they are
talking about, attempt to contribute to the
debate, they are dismissed with the remark:
“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”

The Churches are in a strong position,
as they are free to say what they like and
are committed to truth. Many Church
bodies have realized the importance of the
energy crisis and climate change, and have
made statements. Most fail to realize how
much detailed expert study is necessary,
and have been strongly influenced by the
anti-nuclear campaign. Only two statements
are based on the necessary studies
by experts in the necessary disciplines, the
document “Shaping Tomorrow” issued
by the Methodist Church in Britain,⁶ and
the 700-page report of a study convened
by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.⁷
Due to the anti-nuclear bias of the media,
neither of these valuable studies received
much publicity.

The whole debate has been gravely
hindered, if not made practically impossible,
by a false democracy, which treats
everyone’s opinion, even on highly technical
subjects, as of equal value. This is
equivalent to a denial of objective truth.
Professor Maier-Leibniz has described
what happened in Germany where the
Government established a commission
to decide the future of atomic energy
with equal numbers of experts and antiexperts:
“The result was a great number of
papers, minutes of meetings, opinions and
counter-opinions, responses and counterresponses.
Everything was discussed and
nothing became clear. And what is worse,
the experts were the best experts that
could be found, so there was nobody left
who could give a final opinion.”

Energy for the Poor

The people who are suffering and dying
from the effects of the energy crisis and
climate change are billions of the poorer
people in Africa and many other countries
elsewhere. Drought due to climate change
is leading to destitution and widespread
starvation. Even if the rains come, they
have no money to buy seeds and livestock.
With more energy available they could
begin to rebuild their lives.

Their problems are daunting and manydimensional
and need to be tackled on
many levels. On the small scale of individual
homes, simple solar heaters have
been designed to cook food. Electricity
would solve many of their problems, but
these countries certainly cannot afford
power stations. This would seem to be an
area that could be tackled by the United
Nations, encouraging manufacturers to
build power stations in the poorer countries
and then to market the energy produced.
The more affluent business organizations
and wealthier people could pay for their
electricity, while the poor could initially
get it free. As they began to stand on their
own feet, they could begin paying a modest
amount. Gradually the initial investment
would be repaid. It would be a long time
before the industry could break even, so
some form of international subsidy would
be needed.

The imposition of worldwide controls
on greenhouse gas emissions is understandably
resented by the underdeveloped
countries. They point out that the developed
countries industrialized without
caring about the pollution they caused,
and so it is unjust to prevent the poorer
nations developing in the same way.

If the energy program included nuclear
power stations, it might well be objected
that a rogue Government could seize
power and use them to make bombs. To
prevent this, the power stations would have
to be kept under international control.
The financial and organizational problems
of implementing such a plan are immense,
but the idea offers one of the best hopes for
poorer people. The scientists have opened
up the possibility of providing the power
the world needs, and now it is up to the
politicians to transform their vision into
reality.

The Future Outlook

There are now many people who care
for the environment and are inclined to
accept the reality of climate change. They
feel that they ought to do something but
do not assess the comparative efficacies of
various possible actions. They buy some
energy-saving light bulbs and join a protest

against flying. Such activities give the illusion
of action, but their effects on global
warming are minuscule. At the same time,
they strongly oppose the replacement of
fossil fuel power stations by nuclear, which
is known to effect substantial reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions. The manifesto
of a well-known environmental movement
includes an emphatic rejection of
nuclear power.

There are some who prefer to wait for
the advent of fusion power, believing that
it is free from radioactivity. Certainly there
are no fission fragments to contend with,
but radioactivity is still produced in the
surrounding materials, though not with
the same intensity as in fission reactors.
The success of fusion would really solve
our energy problems, as it uses deuterium
which is present in ordinary water at about
one part in 5,000. However the problems
of building a viable fusion reactor have
not yet been solved. The need for more
energy is so urgent that existing technologies
must be used, although of course it is
always necessary to continue research into
possible new sources.

There are also sincere defenders of the
environment who stress the great benefits
that can be obtained from energy conservation,
the adoption of more modest lifestyles,
and the development of renewable
sources. All this is admirable, but it will
not solve the problem. Generally speaking,
people do not change their lifestyle as a
result of exhortation, but only if it is in
their direct immediate interest to do so.
It is certainly unrealistic to expect renewable
sources to provide more than a small
fraction of our energy. Perhaps the best
strategy is to say to them that we must
meet urgent immediate needs by building
more nuclear power stations, while they
continue their program of self-denial and
renewals. If and when these prove their
worth, they can gradually take over from
nuclear power. Some may believe that this
will never happen, but it is a challenge that
they can hardly reject.

As for climate change, it does not seem
to have had much effect on the lives of most
people. There are reports of the melting
of the Arctic ice, the inundation of New
Orleans, and the melting of the permafrost;
but these things happen far away,
and anyway what can I do about it? People
only take action when their own lives are
directly threatened. The first priority of
Governments is to win the next election,
not to introduce expensive measures to
save the next generation. Scientists, who
have made possible a new energy source,
are horrified by the lack of urgent action to
stave off impending dangers. It may well
be too late.

NOTES

1. P.E.Hodgson, Nuclear Physics in Peace and War. (London:
   Hawthorn Books, 1961).

2. C. Andrew and V.
   Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives
   and the Secret History of the KGB. (London: Penguin,
   2000).

3. Sir Richard Doll, Dr. H.J.Evans and
   Dr.S.C.Darby. Nature 367.678.1994.

4. P.E.Hodgson,
   Nuclear Power, Energy and the Environment. (London:
   Imperial College Press, 1999).

5. Bernard L. Cohen,
   Before It’s Too Late: A Scientists’ Case for Nuclear Energy.
   (New York: Plenum Press, 1983).

6. Edgar Boyes, ed.,
   Shaping Tomorrow. (London: Home Mission Division
   of the Methodist Church. 1981).

7. Andre Blanc-Lapierre,
   ed. “Semaine D’Etude sur le Theme Humanite et
   Energie: Besoins—Ressources—Espoirs,” November
   10–15, 1980. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta
   Varia No. 46. 1981.