From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:06:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.202320.6596@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.231007.696@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>>In article <10959@cis.rand.org> Rodger_Madison@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
>>>     I don't doubt that a nuclear reactor can be build that will operate
>>>     perfectly for an indefinate period of time.  This can happen only if
>>>     competant individuals dedicate themselves to making it happen.  I DO
>>>     doubt that this will happen in every case in which a reactor is built
>>>     and operated.  Somewhere along the line there will be human mistake,
>>>     inattention or malice that will cause a system failure.  When this
>>>     happens it may illuminate a previous human mistake in the design or
>>>     construction of the facility and cause a catastrophe.
>>
>>	In a perfect world,  all of the materials used to build a nuclear
>>reactor are of the highest quality.  In reality,  one ends up buying
>>concrete from the mob.  In a perfect world,  well-trained and attentive
>>experts work in the control room.  In the real world,  they run an extension
>>cord from the bathroom to power a TV set.  We can never underestimate the
>>human potential for making honest mistakes,  never mind dishonest mistakes,
>>sheer stupidity and everything else that can go wrong.
>
>     In a perfect world, all the other car drivers operate their
>     vehicles in a safe and courteous manner.  However, it is not
>     so I suggest you stop driving.  In a perfect world, no aircraft
>     crash due to pilot-error and/or maintenence problems.  However, it 
>     is not, so I suggest you stop flying.  In a perfect world, no
>     trains collide because of driver-error and/or switching error
>     and/or maintenence error.  However, it is not, so I suggest you
>     stop using the train. 
>
>     My point is that it is *indeed* possible to overestimate the potential
>     for human mistakes, and to overestimate them in such a manner
>     as to very grievously hurt a society.   It is hard to imagine the
>     potential growth lost to society and the pollution of
>     the environment gained by the effects of mindless objections
>     to the concept of nuclear power.  In my way of thinking, a cask
>     of potentially useful radioisotopes buried thousands of feet
>     under western hills is exceedingly preferable to the smog-belching
>     coal-fired plants in the Ohio valley that are progressively
>     acidifying our streams and killing our trees.  
>
>     Since most of my power comes from the nuclear plants at Surry and
>     Lake Anna, I see no reason why I should have to suffer the fumes
>     of plants that should have been replaced by nuclear energy long ago.
>
>     I also offer the ground 5200 feet beneath my house as a nuclear
>     material storage repository (subject to regulatory approval and a 
>     appropriate personal fee).  
>
>                                    dale bass
>
>
>
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926

It seems to be human nature to emphasize fears of large-scale dangers or
those that are further from our individual control.  Note that many people
who are afraid to fly know that it is safer than driving a car, but this
doesn't change their mind.  The nuclear power industry, large-scale
incinerators, and the like will always have to contend with exaggerations
of the dangers from their facilities.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10024 sci.psychology:3243