From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:34:08 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep4.010529.26023@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <52907@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.133036.25840@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>>In article <JYM.92Sep1181648@remarque.mica.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> General luddism.  Nuclear applications are new.
>>>>
>>>>=\= Pro-nuke advocates are always bringing this up, but I must
>>>>say that I've never met even one anti-nuke advocate who was
>>>>actually motivated by Luddism.  Not a single one.
>>>
>>>Come on now.  Of course if you walked into an anti-nuke demonstration and 
>>>asked around if anyone was a Luddite, or if anyone had a fear of technology, 
>>>you'd find no-one.  If you asked the anti-automobile crowd at the turn of the
>>>century you'd also find no-one.  If you asked the anti-vaccination,      
>>>anti-airplane, anti-immunization, anti-genetic engineering, anti-steam power,
>>>anti-electric light bulb, anti-pasteurization, anti-space travel,     
>>>anti-blood transfusion, anti-X-ray, or any anti-<new technology> crowd over
>>>the last century of so, you'd likewise find few who outright expressed a
>>>fear of technology.  Unless, of course, you looked deeper.
>>
>>And what about if you looked "deeper" into the motives of those who
>>are against wind and solar technolgies? 
>
>Let's have a show of hands here.
>
>How many of us are actually *against* wind and solar technologies?
>

Sarcasm is obviously out of place in this forum, so let me make my point
directly. That is: it is factually incorrect to argue that opposition
to nuclear power is a symptom of hatred of science and technology or that
the anti-nuclear movement is created by and kept alive by some machiavellian
plot. I note that it requires a certain willful ignorance to claim that
either George Kendall or Lovins is anti-scientific or against technology.
And, there are many people like myself who are in favor of technology
and science, but who are not impressed with nuclear power technology.
Furthermore, it is at best spectacularly naive to argue that the
anti-nuclear side is the sole source of the vast amounts of nonsense
and outright lying present in this debate. The nuclear power lobby, the
NRC/AEC and all sorts of pro-nuclear hangers including some in this forum
have been repeatedly guilty of authoritatively insisting on some falsehood
or half-truth. 

>station being proposed is to be sited on the northern part of the east
>coast and must generate 1 GW, solar technology will probably be
>inappropriate due to the lack of continuous sunlight.  Wind technology
>might fare better, but this depends on whether or not the wind patterns
>are consistent and favorable.  That leaves you with coal, hydroelectric,
>coal, nuclear, and possibly natural gas (there any 1GW natural gas
>stations?  I was under the impression that NG was primarily used to
>deal with peak-load situations only, rather than baseload).  Hydroelectric

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the UCS alternative energy program
before you refute it? I'm sure that the UCS recommendations are eminently
debatable, but they have already been informed of the fact that the
Northeast is sometimes not particularly sunny and have taken that into
account.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu