3 ms·
> No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths Ooops, yes, that's what I meant to say. > I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian All
by gmac 13y ago
> No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths
Ooops, yes, that's what I meant to say.
> I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian
All I'm saying is that you can't settle this question (or many others) with facts and science alone. Sure, you've got to weigh the facts, but often, including in this case, those have got to feed in to an ethical judgment which is everybody's (not just scientists') to make.
- Udo 13y agoI'm still unclear on what that actually means. Surely we can agree that every death or injury is one too many? So is it more ethical to run a well-designed nuclear reactor than a well-designed coal power plant? I think so, and I believe so do you. But that doesn't mean we can shrug off the inherent dangers and drawbacks. Acknowledging these issues does not make a person anti-nuclear per se. Exclaiming, as the article does, "see, not a single person got hurt, everything is just awesome!" while people in Japan are burying contaminated top-soil from school yards under their front lawn, while everyone carries a dosimeter to gauge how long they can stay outside today, and while thousands of people have lost their homes strikes me as very bad judgement - even if the health statistics have not been manipulated. By saying that facts and scientific understanding are essential to decision-making, I'm not insinuating these decisions can only be made by scientists. Instead I'm advocating a better scientific/factual understanding by and for everybody. Clearly that is not how things are working right now, but I think it's an important goal to have.