From: parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Keywords: Darn news editor
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:41:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Repost... the distribution was limited to PU

In article <1992Dec17.214004.21338@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec17.202436.11538@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Dec17.160109.6457@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
|> |> >In article <1992Dec17.015017.756@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
|> |> >
|> |> >Sorry, you've fallen into the "utopian environmentalist" stance. You say:
|> |> >
|> |> Really, cool man.
|> |> 
|> |> > "Will it bring harm to another person or animal. If the answer is yes,
|> |>                  ^^^^
|> |> >  then it's wrong, don't do it."
|> |> >
|> |> >By this argument, cars, planes, trains, chainsaws, toasters, etc. should
|> |> >be banned. 
|> |> >
|> |> Hey not a bad idea.
|> 
|> No Comment.  Apparently you prefer a standard of living akin to Bangladesh.
|> 
|> |> 
|> |> >There is a benefit vs. risk issue here. Commercial nuclear power plants in
|> |> >the U.S. have killed _0_ people, and we get about 20% of our electricity
|> |> >from them. That's DAMN good benefit vs. risk. 
|> |> >
|> |> I don't recall using the word kill... if you want citations of were
|> |> nuclear power has harmed people and the environment, I just finished
|> |> finals so I'd be glad to waltz over to the library and get you a few.
|> |> 
|> |> >By stating otherwise, you are being irrational.
|> |> 
|> |> Using one example is not to logical either pal.
|> 
|> Ok.  I take you up on it.  I would ask you limit your search to the USA, and 
|> the commercial production of energy via nuclear.  I grant you the entire fuel 
|> cycle, if you will.  Then, when you're done, do a risk/benefit analysis-- 
|> even break it down to MW/casualty, or whatever measure you deem reasonable.  
|> Compare it to the risks of solar, wind, coal, hydro (easy... thousands upon
|> thousands have died...) and compare the results with nuclear for the U.S.  
|> *FACTOID*... More people died at Chappaquidick (Sp?) then at TMI.  Look at 
|> the environmental destruction required of each... acres of solar panels, acres
|> of wind farms, tons of "Greenhouse Gases Produced", tons of heavy metals 
|> produced, and tons of Nuclear Waste/Resource produced.  Then do a risk/benefit
|> analysis.  
|> 
|> The reason for limiting the search to the U.S., or any other Western Country,
|> is not underhanded.  Chernobyl was due more to the failing of an incompetent 
|> and illegitimate system than the failure of Nuclear Power.  The (now defunct) 
|> U.S.S.R. was rife with similar examples of irresponsibilit and the system 
|> succumbed, inevitably, to its failings.   
|> 
|> |> -- 
|> |> Take 'er easy.... Shane
|> |>
|> 
|> Merry Christmas.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Stephen Parrish              |          Will Do Core Design for Food 
|> Purdue University            |       
|> School of Nuclear Engineering|          
|> parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu    |  KEMP/Powell '96   (If the US survives '92-96)


-- 
Stephen Parrish              |          Will Do Core Design for Food 
Purdue University            |       
School of Nuclear Engineering|          
parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu    |  KEMP/Powell '96   (If the US survives '92-96)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment