dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (09/30/83)
Just got an irate reply to my comments re nuclear waste and uncivil disobedience; unfortunately the author neglected to send his/her address and I can't get a message through by the paths I've tried. Whoever you are, please send a USMail address and I'll be happy to answer. I'll attempt a quick summary of the dispute, in case someone else is interested: The person in question says I'm "not entirely impartial" and "irrational" and claims I told people not to worry about the nuclear waste problem and that if we'd recognized the problem years ago, we could have cut off the waste before the pile got so big. He or she also objects to my comments about democratic means of protest, saying that nuclear power agencies are not directly elected. As I said in my original article, I have serious reservations about nuclear power, and the waste problem is one that (to quote myself) "we MUST solve." But, at the present time, we have so much waste (much of it from non-power-plant sources) that keeping or discarding the nuclear plants we have (including the few under construction) will barely make a dent in the problem and will not make it go away. In simple terms, the waste question is an important issue but isn't directly relevant to the pro-/anti-nuclear discussion at this late date. And, unfortunately, we can't alter the past. As for the minority of antinuclear activists who find it necessary to break the law to express their opinions, I consider their actions damaging to the public image of the antinuclear movement, and therefore unproductive as well as of very questionable ethics. Whether the NRC or a state utilities commission is directly elected hardly determines whether we live in a democracy. (Would you propose storming a Social Security office because its denizens are appointees?) We can express our views in the media and at the ballot box; unlike Gandhi and King, these avenues are open to us. Civil disobedience is justified as a last resort. Engaged in for self-gratification, it is both damaging to the society and to whatever cause it seeks to further. Finally, we'd all be well-advised to eschew ad hominem tirades. Since I have no connection with the nuclear industry (other than paying my electric bill), I don't see what reason I'd have to be "less than impartial". As for "irrational," well, I think I'll hold out for "loony-tunes." Peace, D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
dya@unc-c.UUCP (10/01/83)
References: ecsvax.1310
Here ! Here ! Finally, a rational commentary by a rational individual on
the "problem." I, too, am sick and tired of individuals who attempt to
use value judgements on an issue which is value free (due to the incredible
amount of technology which is involved, most of the decisions made which
have brought about nuclear power are value free, i.e. scientific). As
far as I am concerned, no one has the philosophical right to complain about
nuclear anything as long as they derive marginal utility from it.
--David Anthony { ....duke!mcnc!unc-c!dya }dya@unc-c.UUCP (10/01/83)
References: ecsvax.1310
Full-Name: David Anthony
Here ! Here ! Finally, another human being who can comment rationally
about a needlessly overworked issue. Of course, no one wants to get irradiated,
just as no one wants any other unfortunate consequence to deprive people of
life or limb. However (this might be getting a bit political for net.physics)
the main problem is that nuclear technology has been built up solely (well,
mostly) on value-free scientific judgements. That is (as Marcuse would say)
the forum in which scientific enquiry and judgement does not carry anything
other than its intrinsic value, yea or nay.
What I want to know is how a bunch of civilly disobedient pseudointellectuals came to have such a profound understanding of an incredibly simple, but
incredibly misunderstood, issue.
Furthermore, why does such a technologically advanced society have a
political system which is based solely on value judgements; even when cost-
benefit analysis (or other scientific methods ) could yield the superior
result.
If those who really understand nuclear power and the diminuitive risk
which it poses to society (very diminuitive, compared from dying from a
subdural haemotoma after striking one's head on the tub after slipping in
it) want it, why aren't they active in the political process?
What we see from those who are civilly disobedient is nothing more
than anti-technological backlash. They have found an issue which is emotionally
laden, and are exploting it not on the merits, but something else which
I cannot identify. Those who cannot cope with rapid progress oppose it.
Enuf said.
.....duke!mcnc!unc-c!dya