Originally Posted by LX
No controls whatsoever? I think numerous tests that show no signs of any problems is significant. And my dog was not cured. She did not have any need of a cure. She needed to have a physical injury that led to other problems corrected. Note the process. Everything else was ruled out. As with my wife's pain. Nobody went running to alternative medicine looking for a solution before seeking extensive testing and medical opinions. And the doctors and vet advised us to go ahead with chiropractic treatment. If these things represent hating science, then I'm very confused.
I think you help me make the point I intended to make here. There are limits to the ability of science to make the decisions that govern us. Certainly science informs, but there are value judgments that need to be made. One value judgment concerning nuclear energy is that it opens us up to enormous problems for future generations, thus making it an open and shut case for some people. I don't take that extreme position myself, but I find it troubling that such a position can not be taken without being accused of "hating science". And I do think that if not science itself, that some body of decision-making abilities needs to be able to limit scientific progress going forward. Not all science has been beneficial. And the powers that it might be able to unleash in the future could prove fatal to life on this planet within my lifetime. Putting all my faith in the ability of science to inform me of the problems that science has caused, when it might be too late, doesn't exactly warm my heart. There has to be some room for some attempt at forethought without being chastised.
LX i understand where you are coming from and it's also where the majority of the people's ideas comes from. however, we have to take into account a couple of things.
1) nuclear energy is the most efficient source of energy available today. (fact).
2) you pointed out that nuclear energy could prove fatal to the health of the global community. fact as well, however we do have to take into consideration where previous nuclear disastors have occured. chernobyl, ukraine. long island, u.s. Japan. 2/3 cases above happened due to mis-caring about the dangers of nuclear power. chernobyl was a downright embaresment to the world, and japan did not
have all the safety precautions it needed considering its geographic location. the darlington and pickering plants in canada have 12 sources of containment and fixture if something were to go wrong. so the argument shouldn't be to ban nuclear power plant completely but rather who to let use this power because it is not something to take lightly
3) yes nuclear power may have a negative effect on peoples lives in our lifetime however you must reallize that w/o it, to meet our consumer needs of electricity, we would have to go back to burning fossil fuels like in the 1960's. fossil fuels have a forseeable negative effect on the earth in the near future while nuclear provides predictions of disasters happening thus we are forced to make a decision until the science behind cleaner energies improves. since nuclear is a much "cleaner" power than the burning of fossil fuels, we will have to stick by it as our lifeline for now.