🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:38:56 GMT, none (Quarks like a duck) wrote:

>Donald Borowski <borowski@spk.agilent.com> wrote:
>>There may be some merit in the distinction, but there are very few who decide to
>>use no electricity. Only in this case is there an "imposed" risk and no benefit.
>
>>The real case we are discussing then is a risk that I take on directly (e.g.,
>>installing and maintaining PV panels) or one that I take on indirectly (the nuke
>>plant that I get power from). From either I get the benefit of electricity. If
>>either one kills me, I am just as dead.  But the risks of the nuke plant are
>>lower.
>
>>And then there is the next case of a coal plant vs. a nuke plant. Once again, the
>>risks of the nuke plant are lower.
>
>>Some have made the counter argument that a nuke accident would make a large swath
>>of land inhabitable for generations. I still am not convinced that even over
>>generations the damage caused by the anticipated number of nuke accidents is
>>greater than the damage caused by the normal operation of the coal plants that
>>would be necessary to produce the same amount of energy.
>
>>--
>>Donald Borowski
>>Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU
>
>Thanks for giving me a great quote to put on my web site!!! Do you
>have a picture of yourself wearing a dunce cap?

It is a measure of how different perspectives can be on this issue.
That "none" can be incredulous at Donald's comments, so much so he
feels no obligation to point out what he thinks is wrong with those
comments.  And yet in another post "none" writes:

>Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
>nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
>people.

.. and he expects not only to be taken seriously, but assumes he holds
the high ground.  The mind boggles!


...Greig