Re: "Anti-nuke clamor"

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I quite agree that way to much money is spent on mitigating putative and
ephemeral risks and it could be spent much better on mitigating much greater
risks, or even on better projects altogether.  I just question the
connection to jobs -- we'd still be assessing risks, but maybe concentrating
on the significant ones.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Saturday, August 05, 2000 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: "Anti-nuke clamor"


>Ruth, Barbara et al,
>    I appreciate your comments on my rant and I agree that there will
always
>be jobs available for good scientists;  even for those who may be so so.
>    What I lament however, is the billions of dollars along with much
talent
>and other resources that have been squandered in the past 40 years pursuant
>to the spate of environmental laws and regulations that have been adopted
>during this period. I regret all the time and effort wasted on
environmental
>impact studies that might actually have been spent doing creative and
>productive science.
>    Maybe I am wrong, but can anyone cite examples of really dire
>consequences that have been averted as a result of these legally required
>environmental impact studies?  What  have we got to show for all the time,
>talent, and money that has been spent?
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BLHamrick@aol.com <BLHamrick@aol.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 11:30 PM
>Subject: Re: "Anti-nuke clamor"
>
>
>>In a message dated 08/04/2000 8:46:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>ruth_weiner@email.msn.com writes:
>>
>><< Personally, I'm kind of sorry I responded.  The argument "the
anti-nukes
>>are
>> responsible for creating your job ... no they aren't ... yes they are ...
>no
>> they aren't ...yes they are ..." is hardly constructive or enlightening.
>>>
>>
>>I would tend to agree, but can't help but add that for those who are
>>creative, hard-working, and reasonably intelligent, there are more
>>opportunities in this world for success than failure, and whether nuclear
>>power re-establishes itself in this country, or is snuffed out like a
>candle,
>>there will be plenty of jobs for good, solid scientists.
>>
>>Barbara L. Hamrick
>>BLHamrick@aol.com
>>************************************************************************
>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



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