On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 08:27:28PM +0100, eckinator wrote:
> 2011/3/13 John Francis <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >> that is so disgustingly cynical. if you care to know what severe
> >> nuclear contamination does, point your google fu to "fallujah depleted
> >> uranium" - the faint hearted may not want to do an image search...
> >> makes you wonder what payroll the author is on...
> >
> > Really? ? Should we also wonder if you are on the payroll of a coal or oil
> > company, because you produce a one-sided condemnation of nuclear power?
>
> John, IMO it is a valid question to ask - almost all media pursue a
> political agenda of some kind and almost all political powers try to
> control the media in some way, either by ownership or other
> direct/indirect influence or by censorship.
>
> my statement on the other hand was an expression of my disbelief of
> the statement quoted and my puzzlement at what the author was trying
> to say. I'm still not sure but the impression on me is he is trying to
> make it look not all that bad... what would be the point of that? I
> can't think of anything else but to convince people that nuclear
> contamination to the point of potentially causing 200K+ people to lose
> their homes isn't such a big deal. but I am open to another
> explanation if you feel I misread that paragraph.
Try reading that part of the argument as saying:
Don't lose perspective. There's a whole lot more disruption and
death caused by other aspects of these "natural disasters";
focussing too much attention on the nuclear power plant will
only cause attention to shift from more pressing problems.
I'm not sure that's the whole message (or even part of the message)
that the author was trying to push. But I think it's at least as
plausible a reading as shifting blame away from nuclear power.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
