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?
Showing posts with label third way. Show all posts
Showing posts with label third way. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)