Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: The Safest Way Message-ID: <2194@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 22:53:22 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2194 Posted: Mon Sep 16 22:53:22 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 00:42:42 EDT References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> <793@lsuc.UUCP> <5960@utzoo.UUCP> <4@ubc-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 53 Summary: In article <4@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes: >BEGIN tirade { > >In article <5960@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >> >>At risk of opening an inappropriate debate, > > ... and if it is like similar debates in the past it will > be rife with such gems of intellectual honesty as: > >>I feel compelled to point out that even commercial nuclear power plants >>are the safest way of generating large amounts of power yet devised. > > It never ceases to amaze me how certain groups manage to reconcile > the view that, for example, acid rain deserves more study because > it "really isn't well enough understood," yet dismiss out of > hand concerns of environmentalists over the effects of > continuing low-level exposure to radioctive material in the > air we breath or the foods we eat. You are making the pretty gross implication that people in support of nuclear power have those views on acid rain. I for one, don't. Especially when you consider that this "continuing low-level exposure" due to nuclear power is swamped by the back-ground (natural) radiation. In fact, when approaching the question from a different viewpoint: 1) Gee, acid rain *seems* to be doing something bad. Let's do something about it *NOW* without doing any further study. 2) Gee, Coal powered power generation kills a lot of people. We'd better not go to anything else until we study the alternatives further. You seem to be contradicting yourself. > We have difficulty enough in even making the connection between > such environmental debacles as the Love Canal and the health > problems observed in local populations. Nuclear power plants > *can* be expected to leak. We *do not*, at present, have feasible > means for long term storage of waste. To spout platitudes about > the safety of nuclear power versus other methods of generation > in the name of scientific objectivity is intellectual sleaze > in the extreme. > >} END tirade Intellectual sleaze? We have enough trouble talking about anything without running into people who choose to completely ignore the facts because of a paranoid fear of nuclear power. The combustion of Coal (mainly for the generation of power) in the States kills 30,000 people per year. Rather than stopping one source of power that we *know* to be safer than what we have now, why not find out the *facts* about the situation and do something about the sources of power that we *know* are dangerous and are killing people now. And if you say "Solar power (or whatever) is the answer", then what will we do for power for the next 20 years? Oh God, what have I done? can.politics will be choked up for weeks! -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321