🚀 go-pugleaf

JOHN LOCKARD <ZJKL10@east-tenn-st.edu> wrote:
 
> > Do you believe that people should be completely isolated from
> > anything radoactive?
> 
> Some things are just not matters for belief.  If radiation exposure
> causes chromosomal damage, cancer, and death then reducing ones exposure 
> seems a logical course of action.  I haven't seen any scientific studies 
> showing radiation to be healthy.
 
But there are studies which do show that moderate increases in radiation
(even 2 to 3 times normal background) do NOT cause additional health
problems.  One should spend resources on what will increase health, not
on things which won't make a difference (or much less difference).

And, quite argueably, nuclear power can reduce radiation exposure,
compared to coal, which is really the competator source.

> > You would then have to remove all of the naturally occurring 
> > radioactive ore and gas from the earth and never venture
> > outdoors into the sunlight.  Sounds pretty silly to me.
> 
> True.  There's no way to elimate risk - even protons decay.
> But not adding to the risk, such as chernobling, and reducing risk,
> such as wearing sun screen, are reasonable stratagies to take. 
 
The point is, we are going to generate electricity anyway, so we should
use methods which have low impact and risk, like nuclear power.

> > Japan has the most reason to fear nuclear power, since it was bombed
> > by two nuclear weapons.  However, it has warmly embraced nuclear power 
> > and is fully utilizing it.
> 
> Weak arguement - ignors ignorance, politics, and pure greed.
> Japan is an island nation which must import its energy at high cost.
> Nuclear power provides a secure source of power and resonable cost
> for user.  But if another source of energy povides the same security
> at a lower cost the japanese will drop their nuclear program.

No, you have the weak argument.  The point was that the Japanese have
been able to avoid anti-nuclear paranoia in spite of having been the
victim of nuclear weapons (and thus having the most "justification"
for such paranoia.

> > If they aren't afraid of it, then why sould anyone else be?
> 
> Same arguement at the local church, "I drink 'strictnine' water,
> handle rattle snakes, and speek in toungs...  Why not you too?"
 
If my choice is to increase my religious faith, I can choose lower
risk ways of doing so.  If my choice is to generate electricity, I
can choose lower risk ways of doing so.

> Why fear what you know can happen?
> Maybe you find the costs greater than the rewards.

Maybe you aren't seeing the costs (risks) of the alternatives.

Donald Borowski    WA6OMI    Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
                                       -G.K. Chesterton