At 10:35 AM 7/4/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>Now look at the cancer rates arround a COAL fired power station..
>>over EIGHT times, in some cases, the national average. And that's
>>before we consider the CO� and other pollutants it spews...
>
>Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. I don't know -- I don't have the data.
>
>Your statement looks like that old tactic: tone down a problem by pointing
>at an other, bigger problem. But that's not gonna work -- not on this list.
>
>The issue here is whether or not nuclear power plants are safe. Pointing at
>conventional power plants and say "the cancer rates around those are MUCH
>higher than around nuclear plants" does not proof that nuclear power plants
>are safe. It only points out that nuclear plants aren't the *only* problem.
But Jeroen, "safe" is a relative term. Indeed, "safety" has no meaning
except in comparison to some other event or standard.
Given that all modern human civilizations require the existance of power
plants (and the members of these civilizations very much want them) -
comparing the relative safety of nuclear power plants to other power plants
is the only rational way of conducting this discussion. In this case,
since the vast majority of power plant generation comes from coal plants,
the relative safety of nuclear power to coal power is of the utmost relevance.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
