Re: Balanced?

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

Where is it said that  we are trying to present a balanced view ?
What's the point of being balanced, when one alternative is clearly
superior?

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Dupray <michael.dupray@gat.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Some comments on the APASE/Charlotte web site


>At 11:24 PM 12/28/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>Dear APASE:
>>
>>Your web site, which purports to offer educational information about
energy
>>sources and use, has been the subject of considerable comment recently on
>>RADSAFE, an Internet mailing list for radiation safety professionals.
>>
>>There are some indications in the material on your site that you aspire to
>>present a balanced view of various energy options, but I feel you fall
short,
>>tending to emphasize the disadvantages of some sources of energy and
>>ignore the
>>disadvantages of others.  In addition, there are some simple errors of
fact on
>>the site.
>>
>>Some specifics:
>>
>>You write, "Natural gas has no sulphur or nitrogen, so burning it does not
>>cause
>>acid rain.  It produces less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, but it
produces
>>methane, which is a worse 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide."
>
>So.....if we feed our livestock (as well as ourselves) Beano we can reduce
>the greenhouse effect?? LOL
>
>************************************************************************
>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