> CG: "Nuclear reactor safety, kiss my ass."
>
> [WS:} This is not a very rational attitude, to say the least. It
> seems to ignore two crucial facts: (1) that all energy production is
> dangerous and polluting and (2) that breach of safety is more of a
> function of cost cutting (or rather cost shifting) measures than the
> technology itself.
>
>
Yup, you're right Wojtek, more people have lost their jobs, homes and life
savings over the years in the failure of small businesses so we absolutely
shouldn't be alarmed by things like Enron, IT bubbles or housing bubbles.
Furthermore, it is pivotal to remain dispassionate and unconcerned when
general statistical measures of chronic problems "really" trump immediate
crisis conditions. And, certainly, resolving the issues of cost-cutting or
shifting in the real of energy production makes sense as the proper solution
to the nuclear energy issue because there are no rational concerns about
nuclear fuel production or waste disposal and absolutely no other viable
alternatives to nuclear. Furthermore, there aren't any other nuclear plants
located in ecologically vulnerable places that couldn't protected by putting
the proper amount of money into their productive technology and safety
systems.
Objective, expert scientific knowledge of the real technical risks and
secondary and tertiary consequences of various choices when it comes to
energy production and public safety are and ought to be the determinates of
public policy because the interests of corporate capital and the ignorance
of the lay public must be managed so as to preclude the destruction of
everything Victorian Progressives value (and everyone else would value if
they'd just step back from self-interest or step up and learn a thing or two
so they could understand the magisterial brilliance of experts.)
When was that that you were thinking of changing your last name to Durkheim?