[Peace-discuss] Nuclear power?

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>Two  orthogonal cultures, where there should be a meeting of  
>the two. .

Maybe they are two secular religions with the proponents of each tending to
be "true believers" and that means that there probably will be no meeting of
the minds between the proponents of the two.  Those in each camp who are
inclined to be more open-minded about issues and who might profitably engage
in cross discussions refuse to get involved because they fear banishment
from their respective secular religions.  

Just a passing thought.  Both camps seem to have axes to grind and interests
to protect; hence, I am afraid that I personally distrust information coming
from both sides of the issue. Not only has science made errors and
mis-assessments of long and short range outcomes and consequences in the
past as well as failing to account for unintended consequences but
scientists themselves have not always been as objective or pure as the
driven snow when it comes to the survival and funding of their research,
their personal reputations in the profession, and their sources of income.
Similarly, those on the other side of the issue have also built up
organizations and followings that they need to protect at any costs,
established reputations and income sources speaking and lecturing or writing
that they want to preserve, and often personal reasons for not trusting the
scientists and government officials and arguing the worst case scenarios.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K.
Brussel
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:12 PM
To: C.G.Estabrook
Cc: peace discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Nuclear power?

Conclusion: All who see beneficial aspects to nuclear power are  
shills. As are almost all the scientists and engineers who have  
studied the issue, i.e., experts. There's a kind of head-in-the sand  
phenonenon at work here, a legitimate distrust , but carried to  
extremes: Two  orthogonal cultures, where there should be a meeting of  
the two. .
--mkb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:01 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> I'd be glad to see a serious discussion on the subject by people who  
> are not shilling for the interests of corporations, the military, or  
> academic institutions. Physicists from the Manhattan Project through  
> the Cold War and the first generation of nuclear power plants have  
> shown themselves generally subservient to those interests -- from  
> Oppenheimer and Teller to the contemporary Department of Energy,  
> perhaps including Steven Chu.
>
> Serious -- and successful -- criticisms of nuclear weapons and  
> nuclear power have come from people outside of those institutions.   
> I'd like to hear more of that. Democracy should be skeptical of  
> experts with interests.  --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> But the fact is, Carl, that you know nothing of the science that  
>> convinced the author to change his mind, and in your ignorance of  
>> these matters, you just pooh-pooh them, a not admirable knee-jerk  
>> reflex.   I have been in contact with scientists at Argonne  
>> National Laboratory who had been working/designing on the fourth  
>> generation reactors mentioned, and they are justly receiving an  
>> increasing amount of attention because of the advantages they  
>> potentially present. There are problems in constructing such  
>> reactors, of course, and it won't be tomorrow that they will be  
>> built, but they are very promising from various points of view,  
>> especially if one looks a couple of decades ahead, when energy and  
>> climate issues will probably be even more critical than they are  
>> now. --mkb
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:16 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> 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