🚀 go-pugleaf

none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
<8hmmc6$20f$2@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Donald Borowski <borowski@spk.agilent.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
>
>>> Murray Love wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
>>> > > Donald Borowski wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > <snip>
>>> >
>>> > > However, it seems reasonable to me that individual risk-taking
>>> > > should not imperil the lives of others. Criminal law seems to
>>> > > agree, by allowing punishment for involuntary manslaughter.
>>> > > If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say I'd
>>> > > feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had
>>> > > an accident that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing
>>> > > that I'm not reponsible becaused I used accepted engineering
standards.
>>> >
>>> > This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute
"chemical
>>> > plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for
"nuke", and
>>> > you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a
risk, and
>>> > that's OK if society decides they're worth it.
>>>
>>> Although individuals can decide whether to use cars, toasters, or (here
in
>>> North Carolina) collapsing walkways, while these other risks are forced
upon
>>> them. It thus seems to me their acceptance is properly a political, not
an
>>> engineering, decision.
>
>>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?
>
>

and note that nuclear is always compared to coal, why is natural gas,
solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, biomass and oceanic excluded. i dont
particularly like coal plants, way to dirty and cheap.

ant