From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-20 07:43:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:41:18 +0100
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <bpine3$1obm5s$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <ZuudnWONTe-cnyyiRVn-iQ@gbronline.com>
 <bor2ji$1h7730$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de> <3FB22125.1040807@noplace.com>
 <botbde$1hvqjj$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de> <3FB3751D.5090809@noplace.com>
 <JtPsb.8014$fB3.463946@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <bebbba07.0311161831.bce38a5@posting.google.com>
 <Az7ub.3669$ZF1.458179@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <1069092089.51926@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <bpib7a$9lb$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <1069341262.907029@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Reply-To: v.hoefler@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069342979 59103420 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2740
Date: 2003-11-20T16:41:18+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:

>The proper way to deal with new technology is to give it some minimal
>amount of testing, looking for obvious problems, and if none are =
present,
>go off and use it. If it turns out that problems appear subsequently,
>clean them up.

Well. What if you can't clean them up (fast enough)?

Remember Australia's rabbit problem? Having such thing on a larger
scale *could* be very disastrous and not be revealed by "some minimal
amount of testing".

I'd say, nuclear technology is understood enough that someone can
*calculate* the risks (I'm not talking about if they are too high or
what, I am just claiming that we understand most of the implications).

In contrast GM is still not really predictable. Its effects can only
be predicted by something known as "Chaos Theory". If you think, that
this is enough, go off and use it.

As I said somewhere else: Something *will* survive. It might be the
eight-legged flying frog, but who cares? ;-)


Vinzent.