>I don't understand why people who last week were all for undoing the
>industrial revolution in case of global warming are being so reasonable
>and level-headed about dirty bombs this week.
>
>Doug's argument last week was,
>"If the theorists of climate change are right - and, given the stakes,
>it's prudent to assume they are".
>
>Well, the dirty bomb stakes are pretty high. So why aren't you running
>for the hills now?
>
>James Greenstein
Who wanted to undue the industrial revolution? Such deliberate misrepresentations help no one. It is possible to have beautiful and livable cities with every modern convenience without the tremendous waste we have now.. Was life so hard 20 years ago when electricity usage per person and fuel usage per person was much less than it is today? Was 1984 some sort of modern stone age of brutish despair?
Just because you believe that a "dirty-bomb' is not an effective weapon of mass destruction, such as is it being currently sold to the US public, doesn't mean you believe it is harmless. Why are these argument made in such extreme binary terms? If we don't grow at our current rate or faster and consume even greater quantities of natural resources then we must expect to undue the industrial revolution and become hunter-gatherers again!
Why do you believe there is a greater fear from a dirty-bomb than climate change when the best science we have suggests just the opposite approach?
John Thornton