Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree that balance is good, and that in truth, nuclear power is very safe, but consider what happens if there is a major release of radioactivity. How is this article going to look then? I think you'd agree it would weaken the credibility of pro-nuclear campaigners.

Lying for the sake of truth is a bad idea.

As it stands, a meltdown is a definite possibility (not necessarily probable.) Perhaps a better stratergy would be to say "It might meltdown. In which case the reactor will be ruined, but no radioactivity will be released. Or the primary vessel might be damaged, in which case this would be a Chenobyl style disaster, except we have already evacuated the area as a precaution, so the estimated death toll would be 10 (or 100 or whatever.)"

I'd say people fear what they don't understand; having lots of people, especially scientists and politicians, say "there's nothing to worry about" only increases peoples' worry – especially when bits of the plant keep exploding.



>Lying for the sake of truth is a bad idea.

This isn't lying, it's accurate according to the information that we have acquired over the last 60 years on the use of nuclear technology. Should these predictions turn out to be incorrect then the information we have needs to be updated. I'm hoping it turns out well, there are of course no guarantees but the chances of things going even further south are low.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: