Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.

Deirdre wrote:
> RadgeGadge wrote:
> >
> > "Deirdre" <finch.enteract@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:43877BFC.8B5D7FA7@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >> What did you do?
> > >
> > > Enough to blow my thyroid to kingdom come
> > > and develop pernicious anaemia...what does
> > > it matter to you?
> >
> > Oh, call it a friendly inquiry. A friend of mine had trouble with her
> > thyroid so I know how serious these matters are.
> Thyroid troubles are part and parcel of
> working with certain substances...frankly,
> once the hormone levels were stabilised, it
> became a non-issue. The anaemia, otoh, is
> a rare monster which causes all manner of
> complications in my life.

Ach, sorry to hear it.

> > >My results don't agree with
> > > your mindset, so why should you be interested?
> >
> > Oh, call it a debate. A discussion even. People sometimes do it.
> You've made up your mind and stated your
> position, why should I attempt to budge you
> from it? What purpose woud be served? I've
> watched this "debate" with no small amount
> of amusement...wasn't it de Montaigne who
> said "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we
> least know."?

Think so. This is the perfect area for it, too. Stats are inherently
boring, and not one person in a hundred has a head for them. And yet,
that, essentially, is what we're debating here.

> I work with bioremediation and uranium even
> now, but my ego isn't on the line and I've no
> need to be an authority, moral or otherwise,
> the facts are there for anyone who chooses
> to seek them out. My job is to furnish facts,
> not comprehension...and in this instance, I
> don't even see the point of furnishing facts...
> the minds are already made up. So be it and
> so what?

Well, sometimes it is fun just to throw ideas around. At worst, it
gives you confirmation of all your worst prejudices. At best you might
learn something new.

And on areas like risk and risk perception, let's face it, *everybody*
has an opinion and a right to one, no matter that most people's are
founded more on prejudice than on 'facts'.

I've also handled radioactive and biohazardous substances and attended
seminars on 'Scientific Ethics', taught courses in which these issues
arise. Today in fact I spent in rainy grey cold Glasgow, hearing about
assessment in Psychology. Ethics comes into it.

If nothing else, you can always continue to have a laugh at us ordinary
mortals with our silly opinions about radiation mortality. I admit I am
an amateur when it comes to stats, though I did allegedly pass exams in
it at various points.

I used to be an enthusiast and apologist for nuclear power too. The two
things that changed my mind were:

- Finding out about the Windscale fire in 57 ( ) and the Dounreay explosion in
77 ( )

- Finding out about the links between 'civilian' and military fuel
cycles. Reading accounts of how the current nuclear powers acquired

I suppose, then, you can live with concerns like these?

> > > You might develop a case of objectivity and
> > > then where would you be?
> >
> > Don't worry, there's no danger of that happening.
> In which case, there's naught to say on _any_
> topic, is there?

Au contraire, if we were all 'objective' and equally well-informed,
that would be the case for no further debate.