I've heard the stats both ways, and agree there is a mid-ground. The problem is a lack of agreement on the data, which stems from an extreme lack of trust.
Which in turn stems from secrecy and shenanigans by NRC and others over the years.
If all these agencies and individuals came clean with honest data in all situations it would help.
If these agents were paragons of unassailable virtue, some people might say, "ok, we trust our grandchildren's future to them, they wouldn't lie to us, or be wrong".
Unfortunately, even if those providing us with reassurance were sincere, we all know it's possible to still be completely wrong, especially about long-term hazards.
Too often, the goal of gov't reassurances isn't the safety of Americans, it is the furtherance of gov't bureaucracy.
We've gone from wartime footing during the cold war where nuclear expansion was seen as necessary to our survival, to post-Cold War where the less radiologic hazards, the better. |
