SESSION VI 31 TAYLOR: Having dropped by an amount which i: very important, then the next question is, is the aim to get back up to where we were before the attack, which! think is foolish, or is itto... HEMLER: Survive. TAYLOR: Survive and move in new directions, perhaps. Let me give one example. If half the power plants had been knocked out or two-thirds had been knocked out, I don't see that it should become an objective to go back to the energy standards that we had before the attack, because that's lavish, luxurious. We may be much more interested in raising the food productivity level than raising the power level. AYRES: Incidentally, there have been unclassified studies (Reference 52) done on this question of energy, which suggest that it will be in oversupply. TAYLOR: It is now. EISENBUD: I was in Rio de Janeiro last January and there was a bad storm which washed some mud down the mountainside and in through the race of a hydroelectric plant; when the water receded, the mud caked and the plant was knocked out for an estimated year and a half, DUNHAM: If the bomb landed on the city and not on the power plant, you would have no power problem. EISENBUD: Let rne say what happened as a result of the plant being knocked out. Who would have thought, for example, that in the middle of January, just before Carnival, the sewage pumips could not be operated? Sewage was pumped into Copacabana Beach. Re a TAYLOR: Isn't that standard in all seasons in the world today? EISENBUD: No, but juet think of the implications of the loss of power supply which resulted in the required discharge of the normal amounts of sewage in untreated fashion into the surrounding waterways. Then superimpcse on that the additional biological material that's going to have to be disposed of, recognizing that in most of these estuaries, or many of them anyway, the biological demand is just a litt} wit less than the dissolved oxygen.