🚀 go-pugleaf

Donald Borowski 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.

Not in my opinion. We'll have more data after the winding-down of the existing
ageing first-generation nuclear plants. After that our opinions will no doubt
converge somewhat.

> 
> 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.

More people may have died so far from coal usage, but typically not without
individual encounters with, and acceptance of, the risks [smog, acid
rain, war, global warming]. Nuke risks are mostly invisible to individuals and an
informed political acceptance of them is correspondingly difficult to obtain.

> 
> 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.

Assert your opinion by all means. Just don't portray it as an objective
scientific statement that doesn't contain human fallibility. To paraphrase
Sherlock Holmes, it is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the data.
One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will never
provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.