On Monday 28 November 2011 01:14:01 [email protected] wrote: > On Monday 28 November 2011 00:40:22 Dinesh Shah wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday 27 November 2011 23:34:27 Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: > > >> On 27 November 2011 23:12, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) > > >> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > BTW, far more number of people die in road and rail accidents in > > >> > India and around the world than nuclear reactors going bust. > > >> > > > >> > Should we ban all road and rail travel? after all auto-mobiles and > > >> > rail are also considered technology. > > >> > > >> This particular meme seems to be absolutely standard around the world, > > >> to be used in all scenarios where one wants to enforce one's point of > > >> view. And of course, it is plain wrong. > > >> > > >> Road accidents can be certainly reduced by banning road travel, and > > >> that is obviously not a decision you want to make. So you will start > > >> by identifying particular stretches of roads that seem to be more > > >> dangerous than others and (a) ban traffic on those stretches, or (b) > > >> improve those stretches to eliminate the accident-causing factors. > > >> Since banning is still not an option, you will turn to the latter. > > >> > > >> If you do that in a structured way, you will also further emerge with > > >> metrics like "accidents per 1000 vehicles" or "accidents per 1000 > > >> route-km" and so on, that will allow you to meaningfully compare two > > >> separate stretches of roads. > > >> > > >> And then you will attempt to do a similar analysis with a planned > > >> nuclear reactor. You will end up realizing that in terms of the metric > > >> that can be meaningfully compared - like "deaths per 1000 population" > > >> or "deaths per year of operation" - your average nuclear reactor is > > >> several orders of magnitude more dangerous that your average state > > >> highway. > > >> > > >> Now you will start factoring in the probability of a failure. At which > > >> point, after investigating the geological and other factors, you will > > >> hopefully realize the killer legacy our current incumbent in the PMO > > >> is hell bent on leaving for our children. > > > > > > Well said. > > > > > > There was a similiar strawman argument "more people die of shark bites > > > than nuclear accidents''. Ofcourse ofcourse. BUT the death rate is near > > > 100% when your boat meets with an accident in shark infested waters. > > > And more importantly it stops with you. You see, your wife on the beach > > > does not get killed 30 years later automagically. > > > > It looks like whatever argument put forward here is not convenient to > > your, it becomes "strawman argument". :-) > > > > Since you don't like road accident argument I will change to fire. We > > have learned a great deal to use and control fire. Still fire causes > > death and destruction. We sure don't want to stop using fire for > > current and future gen? > > Sure. Read shark part again. Fire stops destruction at the end of fire. > Ones kith and kin and random joes walking past the fire site wont die 10 > years from now. > > A nuclear disaster - actually even when not a disaster - does not end with > the destruction of the reactor. It continues for a few centuries > afterwards. It does not stop at the site. It keeps spreading wider and > wider. It > concentrates it self in the food chain (read about strontium, cesium, > cobalt). > > > > Unfortunately one has to deal with these type of factually wrong > > > statements all the while. > > > > Really? I would like to know which are wrong statements? (so I can > > learn to make right statements :-) ) > > Read about radioactivity and half life. Also those readings from Geiger > counters tell you less than half a story. In Japan, NGOs took apart car air > filters and tested for radioactivity. The radioactivity was 100 times > higher in 100% of the cases and 100 times higher in a significant number of > cases.
a 1000 times higher in a number of cases. -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
