"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

My point was that it is no riskier than things we accept on a daily
basis.
As I commented above, there is nothing that is truly safe.

No there isn't. But fact is, the safety must be addressed. THe idea
that all is well, and mockery of safety issues is how we get places like
Love Canal and Chernoble. Would you care to go live in either of those
places? Those people were told "There's no problem." Now when people
come around and tell people "There's no problem" the reaction is quite
different

And Jim mentions the waste disposal problem. This IS a real problem, as
beyond whatever safety precautions we put on the material, it is going
to be nasty stuff for a long time. And there we are telling people
"there's no problem" in storage again.

I feel in discussing this with you that I'm being pushed into the anti
nuclear power group, when I can assure you that isn't the case. What is
obvious to me is that due to the history of this topic, people have a
pretty good reason to be skeptical.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I quite agree that safety must be addressed and that people should be
skeptical. I would certainly insist on seeing the data to show safety
rather than just letting someone tell me it's safe.

The point I was trying to make is that people are allowing themselves to be
scared off of nuclear power by emotional arguments and are not exercising
the appropriate degree of skepticism on these arguments and demanding data.

The "I think, I feel, I believe" approach has no place on either side of the
argument. But when people let fear get in the way of seeking facts to
resolve the issue, then they are doing all of us a disservice.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE