trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/23/83)
Response to Alan Wexelblat: Fully rational individuals can still disagree on objective matters (leaving aside such things as taste, etc) if they have different information, or if neither has complete information, but neither has realized it yet. One can say that, given enough time, two fully rational individuals could resolve their differences by sharing their information or discovering that they did not have sufficient information to make a conclusive decision. "Primarily" rational people (most people) - may be rational much of the time, but have not fully integrated their knowledge in the matter under consideration. Thus, they may not realize unwarranted assumptions that they have made. Generally, if one is not an expert in some field, one would be unwise to assume that this is not the case! However, again, given time and a rational willingness to accept reality-based information, they should come to an agreement - though a lack of knowledge might go un-noticed due to common false assumptions. In the case of radioactive wastes, one is dealing with a huge number of unknowns - what does the future hold, how long can the best containment systems last, and so on. In such cases, one might choose to not do the thing, or to do it with continued surveillance over the period of time. An "eternal" fund could be created that would pay for keeping track of the stuff and installing new monitoring equipment when necessary. All in all, this is a complex subject, which we are not likely to be able to resolve here. Tom Craver houti!trc