3 ms·

to work for nuclear power companies – it is against my ethics I just wonder why?

by rytis 15y ago

dedward 15y ago
Its not really relevant to the topic, other than to say you should not be afraid to maintain your personal ethics, whatever they are... if you dont, you will be less happyfor it. There are lots of things we could all disagree about while we agree on other points.
rnernento 15y ago
Yeah, I could understand a company that makes nuclear warheads but I don't see the connection between nuclear power and tanks. I think the author either isn't informed about the possible positive aspects of nuclear power or meant to say something else.
- grobmeier 15y ago
  I don't want to start a discussion on nuclear power here. But I am informed about it and still do not like it. For me nuclear power is a dangerous toy and I cannot support it. Therefore I will not work for companies providing nuclear power. If I am wrong on that or not is another question.
- aaronblohowiak 15y ago
  REasonable people can object to nuclear power because 1) no matter how good the safety systems are, no safety engineer will claim a 100% safe system; there is always a balance of probabilities and 2) nuclear waste isn't fun. I'm not suggesting that these drawbacks outweigh the positive, just that I could see how an informed person would say that the risk of nuclear catastrophe (however minute) is not worth the benefits (however great.)
  - dedward 15y ago
    we cant even convince otherwise informed, intelligent people to keep adequate backups, by-and-large. the list goes on forever. gun control laws? abortion? in-vitro fertilization? Women with equal voting rights? so you hit nail on the head.... and when it comes to nuclear facilities, no small amount of amrchair stats are enough to make truly informed risk/reward calculation, and given the risk part generally includes components involving death and destruction on a fairly large scale, shot and long term, and given we all put our own values on human life and all that, for some no amount of losses are acceptable. Im not agreeing or disagreeing either - thenerd side of me feels then same way - "smart people should be able to se this is our best option" - the zen side of me says there is ia much bigger picture at stake, one i am not currently involved in , and its also not a decision i am personally faced with right now, so im sort of wasting my time even writing this post, right? Zen version: is any discussion here going to have an impact on large scale nuclear policy at this point in time, one way or the other? If not, it is a pontless avenue of discussion, we can all go focus on something more important to us individually, whatever that is. right?

to work for nuclear power companies – it is against my ethics I just wonder why?

by rytis 15y ago

to work for nuclear power companies – it is against my ethics I just wonder why?

Its not really relevant to the topic, other than to say you should not be afraid to maintain your personal ethics, whatever they are... if you dont, you will be less happyfor it. There are lots of things we could all disagree about while we agree on other points.

rnernento 15y ago

Yeah, I could understand a company that makes nuclear warheads but I don't see the connection between nuclear power and tanks. I think the author either isn't informed about the possible positive aspects of nuclear power or meant to say something else.

grobmeier 15y ago
I don't want to start a discussion on nuclear power here. But I am informed about it and still do not like it. For me nuclear power is a dangerous toy and I cannot support it. Therefore I will not work for companies providing nuclear power. If I am wrong on that or not is another question.
aaronblohowiak 15y ago
REasonable people can object to nuclear power because 1) no matter how good the safety systems are, no safety engineer will claim a 100% safe system; there is always a balance of probabilities and 2) nuclear waste isn't fun. I'm not suggesting that these drawbacks outweigh the positive, just that I could see how an informed person would say that the risk of nuclear catastrophe (however minute) is not worth the benefits (however great.)
- dedward 15y ago
  we cant even convince otherwise informed, intelligent people to keep adequate backups, by-and-large. the list goes on forever. gun control laws? abortion? in-vitro fertilization? Women with equal voting rights? so you hit nail on the head.... and when it comes to nuclear facilities, no small amount of amrchair stats are enough to make truly informed risk/reward calculation, and given the risk part generally includes components involving death and destruction on a fairly large scale, shot and long term, and given we all put our own values on human life and all that, for some no amount of losses are acceptable. Im not agreeing or disagreeing either - thenerd side of me feels then same way - "smart people should be able to se this is our best option" - the zen side of me says there is ia much bigger picture at stake, one i am not currently involved in , and its also not a decision i am personally faced with right now, so im sort of wasting my time even writing this post, right? Zen version: is any discussion here going to have an impact on large scale nuclear policy at this point in time, one way or the other? If not, it is a pontless avenue of discussion, we can all go focus on something more important to us individually, whatever that is. right?