Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: nuclear fission, safety, politics
Message-ID: <1310@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Sep-83 16:36:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1310
Posted: Fri Sep 30 16:36:00 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Oct-83 02:09:03 EDT
Lines: 45


   Just got an irate reply to my comments re nuclear waste and uncivil
disobedience; unfortunately the author neglected to send his/her
address and I can't get a message through by the paths I've tried.
Whoever you are, please send a USMail address and I'll be happy to
answer.
   I'll attempt a quick summary of the dispute, in case someone else
is interested:  The person in question says I'm "not entirely
impartial" and "irrational" and claims I told people not to worry about
the nuclear waste problem and that if we'd recognized the problem
years ago, we could have cut off the waste before the pile got so big.
He or she also objects to my comments about democratic means of protest,
saying that nuclear power agencies are not directly elected.
   As I said in my original article, I have serious reservations about
nuclear power, and the waste problem is one that (to quote myself)
"we MUST solve."  But, at the present time, we have so much waste
(much of it from non-power-plant sources) that keeping or discarding
the nuclear plants we have (including the few under construction) will
barely make a dent in the problem and will not make it go away.  In
simple terms, the waste question is an important issue but isn't
directly relevant to the pro-/anti-nuclear discussion at this late
date.  And, unfortunately, we can't alter the past.
   As for the minority of antinuclear activists who find it necessary
to break the law to express their opinions, I consider their actions
damaging to the public image of the antinuclear movement, and therefore
unproductive as well as of very questionable ethics.  Whether the NRC
or a state utilities commission is directly elected hardly determines
whether we live in a democracy.  (Would you propose storming a
Social Security office because its denizens are appointees?)  We can
express our views in the media and at the ballot box; unlike Gandhi
and King, these avenues are open to us.  Civil disobedience is
justified as a last resort.  Engaged in for self-gratification, it
is both damaging to the society and to whatever cause it seeks to
further.
   Finally, we'd all be well-advised to eschew ad hominem tirades.
Since I have no connection with the nuclear industry (other than
paying my electric bill), I don't see what reason I'd have to be
"less than impartial".  As for "irrational," well, I think I'll
hold out for "loony-tunes."

Peace,
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary