Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)

[Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>]

Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
: dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov) wrote in message news:<49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com>...
: 
: Once you know the basic facts, it is easy to understand why nuclear
: power is orders of magnitude safer that solar power could ever be.

Then explain: The loss of life expectancy due to ars*&l.$ driving
planes into buildings is ridiculously low, when compared to what
the article has to say about coal burners.
Why do they make such a fuss about a few thousand "fatalities",
spending billions on weapon systems, sending soldiers around
the world, apparently because of comparatively very few "fatalities"
(a word from the article)?

The article's argument is based on a certain view of risk, which it
points out. "Yet there has not been a single fatal accident in the
United States involving radiation for 25 years". What if there is
just one (be that whatever dangerous technololy is used),
what is the number Cohen will predict?
And still, in the light of a very low "probability of death" due to
plane crashes, the USA has become an unsafe place to live so there
needs to be a great deal more of homeland protection (all over the
world)?  Is that the mentioned single fatal accident that suddenly
readjusts the risk measuring policy?

Ah, well, of course! It's the media! ;-)

J. A. Paulos, "Innumeracy", has further examples and praise.


Georg