Re: [Phys-l] The West Wing

[jbellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>]

Many years ago a friend got interested in what drove people to be, at  
the time, strongly pro-solar and anti-nuclear.  It turned out to have  
little to do with technology as such and more to do with power and  
the size of the technology.  Solar was small, local and comfy, and  
nuclear was large dark and powerful.  So how do you address that issue?

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On May 24, 2006, at 11:55 PM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> I don't know about industry, but my experience at the U is they've  
> gone
> overboard the other direction;   mainly, as I discovered, because  
> of the
> IRRATIONAL public fear.  I think a bit of scientific accuracy would
> result in a lessened evil belief.
>
> bc, who attempts to add a bit a of rationality when he demos and  
> mentors
> high school radiation experiments.
>
> p.s.  Anyone see the China Syndrome, which fortuitously(?) was  
> released
> w/ 3 mi. island?
>
> p.p.s. I couldn't believe it;  EH&S managed to talk the advanced lab.
> out of their 2 Ci Pu-Be neutron source!!!!!
>
> John Clement wrote:
>
> > I don't think it just a liberal bias against nuclear power.  The  
> > general
> > public is quit afraid of radiation.  I also have a friend who  
> > worked for a
> > short time at a nuclear power plant as a radiation physicist, and he
> > witnessed outrageous disregard for safety, including an elevator  
> > located
> > where there was a radiation leak.  He came away from the  
> > experience fairly
> > anti-nuclear power because he thought that power companies were  
> > incapable of
> > maintaining a high standard for safety.  To my knowledge he still  
> > works as a
> > physicist at Los Alamos.  This was in the early 70s.  Has industry  
> > acquired
> > a higher regard for safety since then?
> >
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
> >
> >
> >
> > > > "The message which was
> > > > delivered is the PC liberal dogma that anything nuclear (or  
> > > > should I
> > > > say "nuculer"?) is evil, and scientific accuracy could be  
> > > > justifiably
> > > > sacrificed given the unquestionable nobility of that message."
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l