[Peace-discuss] Nuclear power?

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>The author spends most of his article complaining about how unpleasant
Greens 
>are to him, rather than presenting the argument that led to his "Damascene 
>conversion ... a month ago."  

Without taking a position of the correctness of either side's position (I
have trouble trusting and believing the statements and facts presented by
either side when it comes to this subject), I would suggest that the author
may not have reiterated his arguments because he may have made a full
statement of them elsewhere, which is what created the reaction and his
current response.

>Timeo hominem unius libri ("I fear the man of one book") said Thomas
Aquinas

Hmmmm!  If you agree with Aquinas, then the two of you must have little
trust in the common man and his judgment since most common men have written
no books - let alone one book.  :-)  I have to wonder if we should fear the
person who writes many books that constantly say the same thing in different
ways and never say anything new and preclude taking into account any
possibility that they may be wrong or not very current.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:16 PM
To: John W.
Cc: Morton K. Brussel; peace discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Nuclear power?

The author spends most of his article complaining about how unpleasant
Greens 
are to him, rather than presenting the argument that led to his "Damascene 
conversion ... a month ago."  He relegates that to a reference to
"Prescription 
for the Planet, a new book by the American writer Tom Blees."

Timeo hominem unius libri ("I fear the man of one book") said Thomas
Aquinas. 
We've been hearing the science-has-made-nuclear-power-safe argument since
the 
Eisenhower administration, but very little about the cui-bono argument.  The

persecution should contest both points.  --CGE

PS -- I appreciate your paying attention to my letter, Wormwood, but I had
less 
Lewis in mind than the bitter herb (parallel to Sage) that some say is the 
translation of Chernobyl...


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Did you read the article, Wormwood?
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  It said that advances in technology have rendered nuclear 
> plants much safer than they used to be, even to the point of being able 
> to use "spent" nuclear fuel that up to now we haven't known how to store 
> or get rid of.
> 
> Of course I have no independent scientific proof either for or against 
> the author's claims.  I figured that Mort, being a physicist, might be a 
> credible source.  But perhaps you have greater knowledge of things 
> scientific, Screwtape?
> 
> Wormy
> 
>  
> 
>     John W. wrote:
> 
> 
>         On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:54 AM, C. G. Estabrook
>         <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>
>         <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>> wrote:
> 
>         'Persecution' seems to be just what the guy deserves.  --CGE
> 
> 
>         Care to elaborate, O Sage One?
> 
> 
> 
>         Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 
> 
>         For those on the list who are critics or distrustful of nuclear
>         power
>         generation, you might want to read this:
> 
>         -- from the U.K. Sunday Times, last September.
> 
>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4836556.ece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss