Each day (even if there were _no_ 'manmade' radiation, every person on earth is subject to a dangerous level of radiation from "natural" sources. That is a given. There are doubtless millions of deaths each year ascribable to natural radioactivity.
Does it follow that since natural radiation accounts for (say) 90% of the radiation we receive that we should not therefore try to block the additional 10%.
Get rid of your utopian fantasies Wojtek.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Wojtek S Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:17 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] catastrophy
Alan,
While I appreciate that you pay attention to what I post to this list, I also think that you over-analyze it way too much. I was making a simple point that people tend to be more scared by catastrophic events than by continuous but far more dangerous peril. So chill out man - it is a schmoozing list not a seminar in litcrit or pomo theory :)
Wojtek
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jordan: "http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear
>> This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate
>> protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success,
>> deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with
>> those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring
>> taxpayer subsidies aren't attracting investors. Capitalists instead
>> favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost, construction
>> time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no
>> serious rivals, let alone those competitors-which, however, already
>> outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster."
>>
>>
>> [WS:] Thanks for this link. He makes a good argument, especially that
>> I would like to believe in what he is saying. My original point,
>> however, was slightly different - that nuclear is better than coal,
>> not that nuclear is better than "soft energy." If "soft energy" can
>> replace coal power plant, as he is arguing, this would be of course
>> great, but not everyone agrees with this proposition, I am afraid.
>>
>>
> But you do this a lot, Chuck wasn't talking about coal... much less coal
vs.
> nuclear... in fact, he didn't mention alternatives at all but he did
mention
> the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built right on top of the San Andreas
> fault, right on the coast... in double fact, Chuck didn't even imply that
> his concern was associated with personally being downwind.
> So what you did was construct a complete a total straw man, name it Chuck
> and others like him, and savage it in the name of technophilic Progressive
> expertise and implicit proposals that the only real problem is that we
can't
> get energy businesses to listen to you brilliant Progressives. If you'd
> asked Chuck about coal I bet he'd agree with the idea that its a total,
> complete and devastatingly chronic ecological, health and social
disaster...
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk