Re: Chernobyl and Similar Hazards -Reply, Re General Marshall

["Harald Weiß, D-24147 Kiel" <weiss@ki.comcity.de>]

Charles Willis wrote:

> Rather, I believe we are seeing a natural
> response to unfortunate phraseology.  The Marshall Plan was not a
> response to a
> "demand for," or a self-proclaimed "right to," economic assistance.

You may be more right than you expect. AFAIK the russian language is
much influenced by the german. And when I translate the quoted sentences
from englisch to german they may not only be read as "We demand the
world to give money." but also as "The world is forced to bear the
consequences.". (True anecdote on flawed translations: When after WWII
Germany was asked what kind of help was most badly needed, a translator
heard "Korn" (german for cereals, esp. rye) and said "corn". In
consequence Germany was fed with more corn anyone could bear, but it
helped to survive.)

One other point to keep in mind: Those reactors were built by the Soviet
Union, and in their construction security was neglected for economic
reasons. (It was about 1980 when a speech of the soviet minister for
energy was circulated. In this speech he said, undoubtedly german
reactors were safer than soviet ones, but that wasn't necessary. Soviet
reactors were safe enough and all that nice money we spend for
additional safety was spoiled.) The SU used the saved money for
whatever, and it's gone. The SU is gone, too. It's disintegrated due to
bankrupt. It left behind a couple of countries which don't have the size
of the SU and the possibility to deliberately shift money between the
parts of the SU and their trabants such as the GDR, Poland, CSSR and so
on and they are struggling against bankrupt, too.

--
Harald Weiss                 weiss@ki.comcity.de
Preetzer Strasse 263         Tel  +49 431 7859659
D-24147 Kiel                 Fax  +49 431 7859658
..