> Wojtek: Cars are far more dangerous than airplanes, and more people die in
> car accidents than in plane crashes, but it is the plane crashes that make
> the news and produce fear. Likewise, more people get sick and prematurely
> die from constant pollution emitted by coal and gasoline burning than from
> nuclear pollution (both civilian and military) - but the former is
> considered "normal" whereas the latter is rare and thus susceptible to fear
> mongering.
>
> Somebody: This is really the crucial issue here. I never cease to be
> appalled by how otherwise sophisticated people fail to be able to weigh
> relative risks. We have thousands of Japanese dead from a tsunami, but even
> *that* is considered "normal" compared to the possibility that someone,
> someday might get cancer from radiation leaks in Fukushima.
On what basis are you saying that Chuck and I (and, presumably, lbo83235 and Jordan) are unaware of the relative risk of earthquakes/tsunamis, partial-to-complete nuclear plant meltdowns, airline travel and the use of automobiles? Isn't it possible that we're well aware of how extraordinary the earthquake/tsunami was but still have things to say about nuclear power?
Or were you writing about other people not involved in this conversation?