poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (05/07/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Poli-Sci Digest Tue 7 May 85 Volume 5 Number 17 Contents: Nuclear Power Pop Quiz Drinking Age Cars Reagan Appointees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Apr 1985 21:15 PST From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC> Subject: Nuclear Power About a year ago, there was some discussion in this forum about the moral implications on the use of nuclear energy - and its alternatives. I was pretty upset about some of the things that were said, and I saved the issue (Poli-Sci vol 4 #26) and I've been re-reading it from time to time. The discussion brought out some important statements from both pro-nukes and anti-nukes, but also left out some arguments that I think are relevant. Maybe someone will pick up where we left a year ago. The "anti" perspective was presented by Liz <Sommers@Rutgers>: > There seems to be no environmentally sound method of storing > and/or transporting nuclear wastes. ...Meltdowns are not the > question at all - clean water and earth on a regular basis is. The "pro" perspective was most forcefully presented by JoSH in one of his (in)famous tack-ons: > [... you have been organizing support for a movement whose > effect is to pollute the air and water and kill 10,000 people > a year (... the OTA number ... is 50,000). Like Liz, I used to be an anti-nuclear activist; now I am not so activist any more; but I don't feel good about fission either, for the following reasons: 1. No acceptable method has yet been demonstrated for disposing of high-level waste, such as spent fuel. There has been some talk of glassification, but I am not aware that this process has been demonstrated on an industrially useful scale (i.e. on more than a few kilograms of material). Most of the world's spent reactor fuel lies around in water filled ponds next to reactors, some amount has been reprocessed to extract remaining fissile material (leaving an equal amount of high-level real waste), and a fairly small part has been dumped in old mines. I guess, if we could glassify the high-level waste, transport it safely to a mine and seal it in a dry rock structure and then close the shaft, I'd find that a very acceptable disposal. 2. Operation of increasing numbers of reactors in a large number of politically volatile countries slowly but fairly surely leads to a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and sooner or later a terrorist group is going to lay their hands on 50 kilograms of plutonium. I was shocked to hear that even Sweden had not been able to resist the temptation to play with nuclear explosives. A number of other issues are somewhat relevant but it is almost impossible to cut through the fog surrounding them: 3. The real price of nuclear energy is nearly impossible to assess; I believe it is somewhat higher than coal-generated electricity. Plant construction costs of necessity must be higher because of safety concerns, but this element has been escalated out of proportion by pressure from activists that have delayed construction causing capital expenses to skyrocket. It is probably impossible to assess a market price for reactor fuel, because fuel processing has been integrated with weapons material processing. I suspect that there has been a minor subsidy from the military to industry. Cleanup costs are unknown. As far as I know, no reactor of any size has been decommisioned and totally disposed of. Humboldt Bay, I hear, has been in "temporary shutdown" for ten years. What do we do ? Dismantle the whole building and bury all parts in a deep hole in the ground ? 4. I used to expect that we'd run out of oil in 10 years and then switch to fission, and run out of Uranium in another 50 years. Frankly, I didn't think it was worth the mess to postpone the end of civilization for just 50 years. But the price of oil went up, and we actually learned to treat fuels and energy with some respect. So maybe ... still I believe conservation should be a major effort in energy policy. 5. Both pro's and anti's cite the dangers of transportation: of coal or of nuclear waste. We have let our backbone rail system fall apart. We should try to find a way to get this re-built - and the Defense Budget is probably the only way to get the money collected. The railway companies do not seem to be at all interested in doing this. / Lars Poulsen Advanced Computer Communications <Lars @ ACC.ARPA> [Hmm... I was under the impression that nuclear power was not an "in" cause any more, largely because the activists kept running into hard facts whenever they got far enough into the decision-making process to do anything. Everybody forgot it and suddenly became worried about nuclear war. After all was said and done, nuclear power is still the fastest-growing (and the safest) segment of the US power industry. I do not want to belittle legitimate safety concerns, but I suggest that those who voice them must compare the dangers of nuclear power to those they replace. High-level wastes are miniscule in volume compared with the chemical wastes of coal burning. They are slated for storage in places like old atom bomb test sites, which are already radioactive, whereas the chemical wastes are spewed across the countryside. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1985 13:20-PDT From: king@Kestrel.ARPA Subject: Infant mortality Quick quiz: How does the infant mortality for 1984 (RR's 4th year) compare with that of 1980 (JC's 4th yr)? No fair looking in the Alminac -- you should use the impressions you get from the press! A> substantially greater (say 10% more, or worse) B> about the same (say between 10% less and 10% more) C> substantially less (say 10% less, or better) D> I don't know E> these statistics are not kept Send responses to me - I'll tabulate three days after this comes out. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 30 Apr 85 18:15:15-PDT From: Steve Dennett <DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: Drinking Age The discussion of drinking age brings up a fundamental problem with many laws and corporate policies. Their flaw is that they attempt to control a BEHAVIORAL variable through restrictions based upon CHARACTERISTICS that are statistically coincident with the behavior. For example, drinking-age limits try to control alcohol abuse by reducing its availability to persons in the age group that statistically has the most alcohol-related problems. By the same logic, young men pay higher than average auto insurance rates because **as a group** they have more accidents. The error here is that although statistics can describe the behavior of groups quite well, they are a poor tool for predicting the actions of individual group members. The reason for this is found in the well known bell-shaped curve of behavior-- most of the members of any group will display an average amount of a given behavior, and a few members will display either very little or a great deal of that behavior. The problem is that, without other evidence, there is no way to tell where on the curve an individual is actually located. Returning to the drinking example, a few teenagers will be continually be irresponsible about alcohol, most will be occasionally irresponsible, and a few will be completely responsible. The unfairness of this kind of law is that it presumes an entire group is guilty of some anti-social behavior, without trial or chance of appeal e.g. no matter how responsible a teenager is about alcohol, there is no way they can obtain the right to legally buy it. There are two ways around this inequity. The first, which has already been discussed, is testing for the desired behavior (responsible handling of alcohol). As already discussed, it's difficult to figure out how such a trait could be tested for. The second way, which I favor, is to bring such laws into line with the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty", with the caveat that once proven guilty the penalties would be harsher for a member of a statistically high-risk group. This would work as follows: There would be **no** minimum age for purchasing alcohol. But, if someone under 18 was involved in an alcohol related crime (such as Driving While Intoxicated), the regular penalties would be doubled (and no "prosecution as a minor", either.) Maybe they should even have a tattoo placed on their forehead that indicated that they cannot buy liquor (removed after a suitable period of good behavior). Thus, restrictions would be placed only on those individuals who need them, and the rest would be free to go about their lives. This is all just off the top of my head; I'd like to hear other people's ideas on implementing "innocent until proven guilty" in areas that now assume the opposite. Such a change would be much fairer to those people now discriminated against and would reduce the load on the legal (and other) systems. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 1985 17:04 EDT From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA> Subject: a wild-eyed idea... I believe that a drinking age of 21 is a basic infringement of the civil rights of those under that age. A 19 year old male is considered eligible for military service. If he can be sent off to "die for his country" it seems illogical to prohibit him from drinking. In addition, there are other ways of cutting back on drunk driving. One method which could be fairly easily implemented is equipping cars with fairly simple sobriety tests. Something device which require you to push a random sequence of buttons in a fairly short time might well suffice. If you fail the test, the car won't start for 10-15 minutes. I would not advocate requiring such devices, simply having them available in most models of cars. If insurance companies gave a discount on auto insurance for having such a device, it might make a (possibly small) dent in drunk driving statistics. If a device of that sort actually decreased the likelyhood of accidents due to drunk driving, the insurance companies would be thrilled to encourage their customers to purchase them. (note that in some states an ins. company must request government permission for any rate change EVEN A DECREASE!). A device of this sort could be made cheaply enough that the insurance discount would cover its cost in a year or two. I realize that a device of the sort I just described might pose other safety problems (ie. when you must start the car quickly to escape from the rapist/riot/mugger etc). That is why I suggest that it be optional. The consumer can do quite a good job of deciding which risks/benefits to accept when he is offered a choice. I do not intend to suggest that this idea is the best way of combatting drunk driving, but rather as an example to illustrate the idea that there are other ways of attacking the problem which do not require infringing anyones rights. From my point of view, the ideal solution (set of solutions?) would be one which is completely voluntary, does not coerce anyone, but has sufficient incentives to be effective. Dean F. Sutherland (sutherland@tartan) ------------------------------ Date: Fri 3 May 85 13:24:09-PDT From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: responsibility tests Yes, Hank, we have many, many "ages of responsibility", and some of them are in the constitution, but that doesn't make them morally "right", merely "legal". Remember, the same Constitution that required the President to be 35 didn't give women or blacks the vote, allowed slavery, etc. Unfortunately, I don't have a good general alternative to age-based restrictions, at least, not a good, *practical* one. And whatever I don't like about age restrictions, they certainly are simple tests to administer, cheap, fast, easily understood, and objective. (And yes, I do admit that deciding responsibility based on age is better than not having any test at all.) But, having flamed, I feel obligated to come up with some alternate suggestion. Well, we could send all prospective "adults" (using that word to mean someone who is mature and responsible) to a retreat for a few days. There, they would each be given responsibilities, and they could be tested with situations where their desires conflicted with their responsibilities. For example, there could be constant parties at the retreat, a Club Med style environment, where responsibilities would take away from play time. There could even be shills who would encourage participants to shirk responsibility (such people certainly show up in real life). Then, anyone who keeps up with his or her responsibilities would become an adult, and allowed to drink, drive, vote, get married, etc. Actually, given that sort of test, an alternative way to qualify for adulthood might be to graduate college, or to support onesself completely for a year. These are just off the top of my head; my point is that I believe any test for responsibility would have to make people demonstrate responsibility, not just answer questions. As for the specific case of drunk driving, something I'd certainly support is a crackdown on offenders, including taking away their licenses. If we can't test for responsibility in advance, we can at least recognize a lack of responsibility when we see it and make the appropriate adjustments. But I'd sure support a practical responsibility test. Anyone else have any ideas? annette ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 4 May 1985 14:35:05 EDT From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa Subject: More Rails Across the Galaxy At an Industrial Affiliates dinner last week, Raj Reddy gave a talk "Superchips and AI." This was a repeat of his ISSCC85 keynote. He thinks that within 10 years, a "super cruise control" option will be available on cars that will drive the car itself on existing roads. The driver will be able to to engage the control and go to sleep, read, watch TV, etc. Lest you think this is completely off-the wall, compare the requirements for a super cruise control to the Strategic Computing Initiative's Autonomous Land Vehicle. The ALV goal is a vehicle that can travel over on- and off-road terrain at up to 60mph, using vision and maps for navigation. The analyses that I have seen indicate that while this is tough to do by the 1992 goal, it is certainly not impossible. The computing power will definitely be there, although cost may be a problem. This sort of solution was one of the things I found interesting about the movie "Runaway," an otherwise ordinary thriller starring Tom Selleck, Cynthia Rhodes, and Gene Simmons. The writers postulated that rather than equipping each car with autopilot hardware, you'd bring along a robot driver whenever you didn't want to drive. I found this view of the world 20 years from now much more believable than any other movie I've seen. I think robot cars on ordinary roads are much more likely (and much cheaper in the short run) than cars on rails. [I'm sure that this will happen/become possible at some point. Indeed I suspect that the state of the art could now give you a robot driver for the freeway in good weather. But I still think that there's still time time for a whole (fairly long) generation of transportation between now and then, and railcars are possible with off-the-shelf technology. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 85 12:57:51 EDT From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Rail cars and high speeds again Josh, Obviously I missed the boat on the original rail car proposal. However, note that in item 4, i said rails would be more unreliable, not more dangerous in bad weather. I.e. rails would be flooded over, snowed under, get clogged with leaves, etc. Although I have heard the two seconds following rule, it is completely at odds with what they teach you in driver education, one car length for each 10 MPH (90 feet for a 15 foot car doing 60 MPH or 88 feet per second). However, your statement: "Thus at any speed, a lane's carrying capacity is 30 cars per minute." is still wrong. Let's use your 2 seconds following rule (which works out to about one car length per 5 MPH). At 10 MPH, a 10 mile stream of cars (1173.3) ... At 60 MPH, a 60 mile stream of cars (1624.6) ... At 100 MPH, a 100 mile stream of cars (1676.1) ... ... will pass a fixed point in one hour. Note that your 30 cars per minute figure, if it was intended to indicate 30 cars per minute passing a fixed point, corresponds to 1800 cars per hour. I suppose your figure is correct if cars have no length. Your discussion about the 11,000 MPH speed limit was quite amusing. I would certainly cast my vote in favor of such a speed limit. However, current technology has a long way to go, inasmuch as there are no roads or brakes or cars designed to go that fast. In reality, 200 MPH is probably the upper bound for most interstate highways in the US. -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra!, ihnp4!] pegasus!mzal [I suspect that if you want to do 200mph (and I do...) that airplanes would be cheaper than the cars+roads that would be workable at that speed... --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 1985 10:56-PDT From: king@Kestrel.ARPA Subject: that obscure woman who heads the copyright office For those who are riding the Voyager spacecraft out of the solar system and haven't heard, the head of the trademark and copyright agency, a woman copyright attourney, is accused of having coauthored a book alleged to have some extremely racist passages. I wonder several things: 1> who spent the time required to ferret out this fact? To find this out concerning someone so obscure, they either must have been incredibly lucky, or they must have done as thorough a job on everyone. Did someone actually read every book coauthored, or allegedly coauthored, by every Reagan appointee? If Reagan wants to silence his critics, he should appoint prolific authors to minor bureaucratic posts! 2> is this the worst (highest <badness>*<official's importance> product) Reagan appointee? 3> what violation of civil rights did the IRS get away with because a journalist was reading all publications described in 1> rather than reading some Freedom of Information Act reports from the IRS? ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------