Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.5; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
From: bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Nuclear odds & ends
Message-ID: <475@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 17:21:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.475
Posted: Wed May  2 17:21:43 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 02:20:33 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 55

<...>

Limited Liability
In response to an argument that the nuclear power industry should
not be subsidized, in particular by limiting the liability, I must
agree.  I see no reason why the liability should be limited, and if
a company screws up, it (the managers in particular) should be
willing to bear the consequences.  I also feel that the nuclear
power industry should not be subject to overregulation and delays
which coal and other power industries do not attract.  My belief is
that, in a free market, nuclear power can compete, economically, with 
other (coal, hydro) sources.  

Conservation
Conservation is great, and many companies have saved much energy
and money by this method (as Jon White points out).  If I'm not
mistaken, though, much of the energy saved by conservation is/has
been in heating, which is not usually related to electrical power.
Thus, most conservation-of-energy arguments don't apply to whether
or not we need nuclear power.  Further, most of the easy
conservations have been made, to save money if for no other reason.
All my friends (and their parents) turn down the thermostat at
night, to the point where lots of blankets are necessary.  If
people are already wearing sweaters indoors during the day, are
they likely to save more energy by foregoing heat altogether?

Straw Men and Nuclear Irrationality
Someone claimed that the "pro-nuke" people believed that anyone
against nuclear power must think that a reactor could turn into a
nuclear bomb.  Naturally, anyone who is even slightly informed
knows that this is not possible, including many (perhaps most) of
the people who are against nuclear power.  Certainly I would expect
and hope that those who are actively opposed to nuclear power to have 
this modicum of knowledge.  It is surprising, however, what sort of
things that uninformed people believe.  Recently (on a whim), I
bought one of the latest "James Bond" books, having read the Ian
Fleming series when I was young, and wondering how the new author
compared.  It was entitled "License Renewed".  The bad guys were
out to blackmail the world by taking over a bunch of nuclear power
plants and threatening to turn them into "China Syndromes".  In
more than one place, the book talked about how the radioactivity
would go straight through the earth and cause much damage when it
emerged on the other side.  So far as I can tell, the author really
believed this to be possible.  If the author, presumably an
otherwise educated man, believed this to be possible, what do you
think that his lesser-educated readers believe?  If you couple such
beliefs with the fanaticism of, say, Rex S*nders, who feels that it
is not only right but important to usurp the democratic process
because he *knows* his cause is just, you have a dangerous combination.
(note: Rex probably knows that a reactor core melting through the
earth is physically impossible, but it is clear, and amazing, that
others don't know).

Sam Hall