In a message dated 7/5/01 7:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< For me, the
potential
> risks (or rather, the potential damage when things go wrong) outweigh
> possible environmental benefits. >>
But do they?
To ignore a cheap safe energy source because of a small but real risk ignores
the cost of that decision. The small loses of life from the "safer" fuel (the
car crash not the plane crash). It ignores the cost of going with the other
energies. Cost to the envirnonment, cost of developing the other source, cost
of human effort, of capital that could be used for more attainable goals. It
always seems ironic to me that radical enviromentalists are as blind to true
costs and to the finite nature of our world as are the rabid right wing slash
and burners (what do you call these guys- anti-environmentalists?). We have
finite resources, be they natural, economic, or personal. We have to choose
and those choices always have consequences. Not doing nuclear is a choice
that may be worse for all of us. It may be riskier in th long run.
