>>but it is >>certainly worth pointing out that there are dangers to many, if not >>all, new technologies. In fact, in my opinion, glossing over the >>dangers of new technologies is one of the big flaws of most >>environmental advocates: they claim to be touting their pet >>technologies as a solution to this or that older more environmentally >>hazardous technology, but they often eschew precautionary principles >>in evaluating the new technology. > >Hm. A certain type of alleged environmental advocate perhaps, I'd >certainly not say "most". These are the main culprits. IMO: > >http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2223 >Controlling Technologies -- Part 1: The Importance Of Surprises > >http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2227 >The Importance Of Surprises -- Part 2: Waste Management Forever
Advocates of nuclear energy are not at all examples of mainstream environmentalists who ignore precautionary principles, but of industrialists who have ignored precautionary principles. But indeed, they have clearly ignored precautionary principles in the case of a relatively new technology and are a good example of that, and the linked article is excellent IMO. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/NsdPZD/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
