O Colman, now you're being captious :-)
I don't think so. Is it "captious" to object to Gaianne's ex cathedra pronouncements replete with "fascist"? I think Colman was pointing out that unsubstantiated bombast can be applied to whatever one wishes (even icons of this blog...).
Like Migeru, I too want an explanation of why nuclear is supposed to be "naturally" secretive, or police-state or fascist, or wherever else one wishes to ratchet the rhetoric up to.
These are arguments I'd have accepted without further thought thirty years ago. I'm not happy now with the lack of information concerning accidents today - but it seems to me nuclear shares that culture with other industries, in other words, that it's not sui generis a natural characteristic of nuclear power. And, (after having opposed the nuclear roll-out in France in the '70s), I have not noticed France becoming a police state or fascist or even a weensy bit less democratic than before (FWIW !). So these are arguments I'm frankly dubitative about today. And Gaianne's type of rhetoric doesn't further thought and discussion.
just give Sarkozy some time... I'm sure he'll be working on it :-) The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
it seems to me nuclear shares that culture with other industries, in other words, that it's not sui generis a natural characteristic of nuclear power.
Hm, I don't see the logic. Isn't it that it is sui generis for nuclear as well as others? With a gradation due to "stakes as well as odds", e.g. the stakes are higher, both in terms of accident and in terms of financial/livelihood involvement? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
