From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: RE: Greenpeace press rele
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:51:14 GMT

In a previous article, john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) wrote:
>JW>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (fr
>JW>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown acci
>JW>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds t
>JW>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
>JW>
>JW>Biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "These numbers don't agree with
>JW>(Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>JW>
>JW>Second biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "Making this kind of sta
>JW>borders on the irresponsible."  (Ontario Hydro spokesman)
> 
>  Hey, I'll accept that: probably, the GP numbers are incorrect or 
>exaggerated. Maybe you even know what the correct odds are.
>  I think the REAL problem (and maybe this is only MY problem) is that the 
>noxious deadly material is brought together and concentrated from all over 
>the world, and then it produces useful energy which is disbursed, and then 
>there is a horrendous residue of deadly stuff left over. Seems to me that 
>this is the wrong way 'round. Seems to me we're just serving the old god 
>of the 19th century: spend anything on centralized capital costs to save 
>money on marginal costs. The ugly side-effect is the Love Canal or 
>Hanford or Chernobyl phenomena, which brings home the point of the 
>deadliness of this stuff, AND how easily safety precautions are ignored by 
>executives and bureaucrats under pressure.
>   Thus, it seems to me that distributed production of energy makes more 
>sense. Which is one of the reasons I like Solar power and fuel alcohol.
> 
> 
>---
> . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
>                                                                                                                
>----
>SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
>415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.


Many of my neighbours use distributed production of energy from a local
resource.  They burn wood in stoves, furnaces and fireplaces.  The air 
frequently stinks, they accept an increased risk of their houses burning 
down, those who harvest the wood for them work in one of the most dangerous
occupations in North America and those amateurs who harvest their own fuel
are at even higher risk.

They are not stupid people, so why do they do it?  Simply because the 
economic benefit they derive and perhaps in some cases the satisfaction
of increased self sufficiency makes the risk acceptable.

Similarly centralized sources of power production will have some level
of risk, but if that is reasonable relative to the benefit derived
than that too is acceptable.

Live and let live, I say.  Athough I work in the nuclear industry I do not
campaign against my neighbours wood stoves because they do not exceed
what I feel are reasonable levels of inconvenience and risk that we must
accept from living in cooperation with each other, even though I do feel
that they are collectively greater risk to our neigbourhood than living
next to a nuclear plant.

Would that the small is beautiful adherants would be similarly 
tolerant.


Don Cameron

	"The crowd has never thirsted for the truth.  It turns aside
	from evidence that is not to its taste, prefering to glorify
	and follow error, if the way of error appears attractive enough
	and seduces them."

			- Gustave le Bon -