Just ran across this editorial from an Ontario (Canada) paper, which is another unfortunate example of the polarization of nuclear pro- and anti-sentiment.
Demonizing one side or the other, even if the science favors one, doesn't move the train forward.
From my third-way perspective, the folks proposing the move certainly know the scientific risks; the folks opposing recognize the lack of social trust, and raise the concern for irreversible consequences (even if very small). The two sides don't agree, to be sure, but I think they're speaking different languages (no pun intended to our bi-lingual neighbors in the Great White North).
What if we could speak in trust AND risk terms?
No comments:
Post a Comment