Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Sandy,

It is true that there are many other "indicators" that play a part in the public's anti
nuclear thinking.  However, if you trace back to first principles from each of those
"indicators" I find the most important first principle is the LNTH.  For example:  take
nuclear proliferation.  The "indicator" is: there will be more bombs if we have more
nuclear plants.  More bombs means more threat of nuclear war.  Nuclear war means more
deaths; not only from the direct blast and heat effects of the explosions, but from
direct radiation and fallout.  The numbers of projected deaths from the latter are
predicated on the LNTH and are very large.  So, in this case there are at least two
"indicators" one of which is related to the LNTH.  If one examines the other
"indicators" in the same way, one reaches the conclusion that Ted makes.

Might such an analysis of all "indicators" assist in clarifying our thinking about this
subject?

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

Sandy Perle wrote:

> > So long as we nuclear experts keep saying that there is no safe level of
> > radiation, then all the silly stuff we complain about follows as the night
> > the day.
>
> Ted,
>
> While I agree with much of your premise, there are other indicators
> that demonstrate that dissension in risk determination is not a key
> factor. Consider smoking, which is known to not only cause
> cancers, but other serious illness as well. Consider alcohol, which
> also causes a significant number of well accepted illnesses.
>
> Dissension is important, but I do not believe that the debate over a
> continued nuclear option can be directly correlated to the debates.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html