> I dont think those in Belarus and around Chernobyl would agree with
> all their cancers and deformities.My daughter visited Belarus las t
> october and was horrified that deformed babies were so common due to
> Chernobyl and were then given to orphanages.However these issues are
> so complex that I dont think one can come out with quick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: george murphy
> > .........................
> > But it is easy to be ignorantly green. Note,
> > e.g., the opposition of many self-described greens to any
> > form of nuclear power which (as Jon points out) could make
> > a big dent in greenhouse emissions.
What I criticized here was opposition "to any form of
nuclear power." Certainly there are dangers associated with nuclear
power, and certainly safeguards have to be maintained. But as Chuck and
Jon's parallels note, we need to differentiate the real risks from the
propaganda ones. In addition, those risks have to be balanced against
those involved with the use of fossil fuels. The illnesses and deaths
attributable to Chernobyl don't outweigh those associated with black
lung disease, air pollution, industrial and household fires, &c
connected with fossil fuels.
A great deal of opposition to nuclear power is based not on
knowledge of real dangers but on an almost Manichaean notion that
anything "nuclear" is inherently bad. It's an aspect of scientific
illiteracy which appears also in opposition to gamma irradiation of food
and which makes it necessary to drop the N from NMR when nuclear
magnetic resonance is used for medical imaging.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 21 2001 - 14:14:36 EDT