From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:20:59 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Jul29154018@topaz.ucsc.edu> <51143@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu's message of 30 Jul 92 13:40:23 GMT

In article <51143@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Jul29154018@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <51084@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   >   >I took "Nader's argument" to be one given - it is at some level
   >   >irrelevant whether Nader used it or whether he was effective,

   >   It is? In support of a claim that Nader used "lawyers science" in the
   >   cause of a scientifically invalid argument which "killed children", you 
   >   claim that "it is at some level irrelevant" whether or not Nader's 
   >   case has been presented accurately. This seems to reduce to "I don't
   >   like Ralph Nader so it doesn't matter whether I slander him or not."
   >   All in a good cause.

   >Crap. The question is whether Nader is working at the standard he
   >sets others, it is clear that he wanted microwave ovens restricted or
   >banned because of a possible threat, and that he did not consider
   >what potential injuries would be eliminated. Whether he was arguing
   >about low level non-ionizing radiation or superheated milk bottles
   >is irrelevant.

   Sloppy reasoning and zero research. It's clear that you find Mr. Nader
   not to your liking, and that you are willing to badmouth him.

I have very little personal opinion of Mr Nader beyond noting
he's had an arguably beneficial effect on car safety and seems to
think law suits based on sometimes ludicrous notions are an effective
way to get things done.

   It's also clear that you have absolutely no idea what Nader's objections
   to microwave ovens were, how well researched his objections were, and 
   what the effects of his objections were on current safety standards.

Victor, you want to defend Nader, you go research what he actually
said about microwaves - I was accepting the premise of the discussion
that he objected to microwave ovens on the grounds that they caused
harm, _and_ that he did not account for the possible reduction in
injuries that use of microwaves might lead to. That, to me, is
at least ethically inconsistent if not stupid. The notion that
a current large, known harm is better than an innovation that
will cause different but lesser harm is a very pervasive attitude
in the US.

   >   I find this question interesting. Does it not seem to you that one should
   >   nail down a few actual data points before making an accusation of the 
   >   magnitude that "X killed children" ?
   >
   >That is precisely the issue. Nader did not, yet he made the

   You have no idea whether he did or did not. 

Do you? If he did not, then replace Nader with a "if a person X..."

   >accusation, the counter-accusation can then be made at the
   >same standard that he used. 

   Even if we accept your critique of what you imagine Mr. Nader's argument to
   be, your reasoning is rather peculiar. An unsound refutation of an 
   unsound premise is still unsound.

I am not refuting anything Victor, I am simply noting that adopting
the premise - which I do agree is unsound - permits the
counter-accusation to the same standard of evidence - if the
"refutation" is unsound then you agree that the original objection
postulated is unsound - which is I believe the point John keeps making

 _if_ you want to hold others liable for indirect harm through action,
or harm through inaction, _then_ it is incumbent on you to accept the
responsibility for any harm, direct or indirect, that lead from your
insistence on the change in action.

To bring it closer to home, if you insist that nuclear power plants
be shut down becasue they may do harm, and you hold the operators
liable for any indirect harm, then are you willing to accept
responsibility for any indirect harm the shutdown may cause, or
any harm the absence of nuclear power plants leads to 

more interestingly, would you accept estimates of the harm
you would be liable for, researched to the same standard that
opponents of nuclear power plants use?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10058 sci.psychology:3259