From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:33:53 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Jul27164005@topaz.ucsc.edu> <50981@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 28 Jul 92 02:08:37 GMT

In article <50981@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Jul27164005@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <50926@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
   >
   >   I have no opinion on microwave ovens, but Prof. McCarthy has attempted to
   >   argue as follows:
   >	 A) Nader attempted to stop the use of microwave ovens
   >	 B) Burns from ordinary ovens are not unusual
   >	 C) No injuries at all are caused by microwave ovens
   >
   >You exaggerate Victor. The argument boiled down to: there is a known,

   I most certainly did not exaggerate here. 

Did too ;-)

   >finite injury rate for children from conventional ovens. Nader argued
   >that microwaves have a higher probability of injury, McCarthy
   >suggested the injury rate was in fact _lower_ - not zero.

   Sorry, but you are incorrect. Here are  Prof. McCarthy's very words:

   In article <JMC.92Jul25195926@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >   >I dunno about Greenpeace, but Ralph Nader did try to ban microwave
   >   >ovens for that reason.  If Nader is responsible for the slower
   >   >penetration of microwave ovens in the U.S. as compared to Japan,
   >   >he killed a lot of children.  No-one has been injured by a microwave
   >   >oven, but the conventional cooking that might have been displaced
   >   >partly by microwave cooking has proabably killed a few hundred
 
   Please note: "No-one has been injured by a microwave oven". 

As another poster noted, this is reducing to what "injury by a
microwave" means. If indeed John contends that no toes have
been broken by dropped microwaves he is wrong - I personally
do not consider superheating or steam explosions to be injuries
"by microwaves" and I do _know_ that conventional ovens 
directly cause massive injuries.

   >Ah, but Nader contends (I understand) that the microwave oven (manufacturers?) are liable
   >if they increase the injury rate, by that standard of argument, it is
   >possible to argue that Nader is responsible for excess injury, if in
   >fact microwaves have a lower injury rate and Nader was actively
   >responsible for microwaves not being used.

   We don't know either (a) what Nader's arguments were, or (b) what
   the relative rates of injury are, or (c) whether Nader's activities
   lead to more stringent safety standards for microwave ovens. What
   we have, instead is a specious chain of shaky reasoning, founded on
   a false statement and relying on a dubious deductive rule.

I took "Nader's argument" to be one given - it is at some level
irrelevant whether Nader used it or whether he was effective,
what matters is whether the argument was made knowing anything about
the relative injury rates _and_ whether a statement based on the
failure to consider a possible decrease in other injuries, considering
only the possibility of new injuries is consistent with the position
Nader and others advocate. I note you carefully deleted that
paragraph. I ask again, is it not incumbent on someone advocating
restraint based on possible indirect harm to also consider the
possible harm caused by accepting the restraint?
	Or is ethical consistency irrelevant to you?

   >The specific instance used above is at an end due to lack of data
   >and the particpants lack of inclination to gather the necesary data
   >(I would, my commercial rate is $125 per hour!). However, the data
   >used in the argument so far is at least as good as that used by Nader
   >in the first place, and so should be considered, no?

   I have no idea what data was used by Nader in the first place, and am
   under the impression that neither you nor Prof. McCarthy are much more
   knowledgeable. If one is going to accuse others of "lawyers science", it
   seems as if a short stint in the library might be in order.  

Hmm, you hold us to a higher standard than those you defend? Do you
know any more of the issue? My impression is not.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy