Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power and risk
Message-ID: <17000008@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 23:46:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.17000008
Posted: Tue Jul 15 23:46:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jul-86 06:45:00 EDT
References: <560@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Lines: 87
Nf-ID: #R:ecn-pc.UUCP:560:uokvax.UUCP:17000008:000:4124
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    Jul 15 22:46:00 1986


/* Written  6:59 pm  Jul 13, 1986 by carnes@gargoyle.UUCP in net.sci */
>But the question of whether we should increase our reliance on
>nuclear power should be decided by democratic processes.  Albert
>Einstein, considered an expert on nuclear energy, said that
>"decisions about nuclear energy should be made in the village
>square".

Indeed; they should, and they seem to be doing so.  Too bad that the
general public doesn't hear from the people who know what they're
talking about.

>It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from
>*reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information.  It is risky
>but there are no doubt many terrorists and other desperate groups who
>would be willing to take such risks (the safe handling of strategic
>materials is public knowledge).

Terrorists have other, far safer, ways of threatening vast numbers of
people than by stealing reactor fuel.  Why should they bother with
radioactive materials?  (Perhaps for added psychological effect, given
the public hysteria over ionizing radiation.)  By far the easiest way,
of course, is to get a bomb from a friendly (to terrorists) country.
But then, what does that have to do with nuclear power?

>Safer than the "soft energy paths", which are mixes of solar, wind,
>water, biofuel, conservation and other renewable resources, and which
>have been extensively discussed in recent years?  And what exactly do
>you mean by "safer"? 

What he means is that per unit power generated, fewer people die from
nuclear power generation.  OK?

>I don't have to read the netnews for this sort of
>Orwellian horseshit...

That's funny; I was thinking something similar about this posting.

>Do you know why the nuclear industry is
>deluging us with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign (with federal
>subsidizing) to convince us that nuclear energy is "safe"?  Because
>it really *is* as safe as they say it is, that's why, and the
>industry's overwhelming concern is the public good.  Big business,
>you know, is rarely motivated by such concerns as profits, power, and
>job security.  Advertising, you know, is designed to promote clear
>thinking, not to manipulate opinions and preferences.

I see far less of this "deluge" than I do of the eco-bozos ("The only
physics I ever had was Ex-Lax"), who have vastly more media time and
adulation (I recall how Dr. Rosalyn Yalow, Nobel laureate for her work
in radioimmunoassay (if memory serves), was treated on *Nightline*).
I trust their concern just as much as I do that of "big business."

>2.  Are engineers professionally qualified to evaluate how the
>*organizational setting*, the fact that risky systems are operated by
>organizations and exist in an environment of organizations, affects
>the operation of such systems?  Are they qualified to understand the
>nature of risky systems in their social setting?  Since engineers are
>not trained in sociology or organization theory, did these groups
>take into account the views of experts from such fields (such as
>Perrow)?

Good question.  Let's ask the same about the "soft energy" types.  Do
they consider the inept weekend tinkerers that will be puttering around
on rickety ladders sweeping snow off their solar collectors, or messing
about with tanks of methane?

>3.  Are these professional groups interested parties?  Would the
>abandonment of or gradual shift away from nuclear power affect their
>careers adversely?

Not in every case.  On the other hand, (1) how many people are there
who *don't* have a field as their career who know as much about it
as those who do?, and (2) let's apply the same "logic" to the "soft energy"
advocates.

>4.  Should our collective choice of energy policy be based on *one
>number*, a one-dimensional assessment of risk per unit of energy
>produced?  Or should a variety of factors, including the distinction
>betweeen voluntary and involuntary risk and the way the public
>perceives and evaluates risk, be considered?

Good point.  Let's consider the way the public perceives and evaluates
the risk of AIDS, too.  Ditto for the Inquisition.

						James Jones
/* End of text from net.sci */