Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!topaz!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!dartvax!psc70!tos
From: tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion,net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <238@psc70.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 07:58:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: psc70.238
Posted: Wed May 21 07:58:25 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 04:23:36 EDT
References: <638@bu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Plymouth State College, Plymouth, NH
Lines: 23
Xref: linus net.philosophy:4997 net.religion:9865 net.sci:598

>So, therefore, you feel comfortable with the fact that Hanford operates
>without a containment vessel even though that was pointed out as being
>the chief problem with Chernobyl?

  No, the referenced posting did NOT refer to the author's greater or
lesser feelings of comfort, and gave no indication that this was
implied. The posting was a response to another which seemed to
infer that Hanford is just like Chernobyl, and that any criticism of
the Soviet reactors applies equally to such American ones as Hanford.
  As for feelings of comfort, obviously the distinctions become
trivial unless one infers some policy implications. One reasonable way
to state these, perhaps, would be to say that the Hanford situation,
because its operating pressures are signficantly lower, AND because
it is not situated in densely populated area (less than a dozen
families within 10 mile radius from what I read), does present
significantly lesser safety risks. Hence if one is making judgments
about the comparative prudence of national policies, the American
policies **on the basis of this one example only, and not knowing very
much about the rest on either side!!** seem significantly more
acceptable.

Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264
uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos