On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 8:44 am, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > Accepting this hypothesis for the purpose of the discussion, exactly > what is it you are recommending?
I was recommending nothing. But since you ask maybe I should recommend a refresher course in the history of pollution and environmental damage for the entire world. I just recall that when I was a very little boy I asked my father, who was a freshly graduated PhD in Chemical Engineering from Pittsburgh University why colored liquid was flowing out to the sea from a factory he used to work for in Gujarat. He explained to me that it was a poison that would get diluted because the ocean is so huge. It is assumptions such as these, "The Ocean is so huge", The atmosphere is so big" and "There is so much energy in xyz" that have led to overuse of every one of these. Of course it makes good business sense for the UK which has opposition to say more nuclear power. If the UK gets there first, they are likely to be able to mature the technology earliest, and sell it to others and recoup development costs, so that by the time any damage to the environment is discovered, it will be someone else's problem - the UK will be ready to pull out and move on to something else. And so it goes on.. shiv
