A Thought Experiment

[drplokta]

Suppose that you saw the following statement in the media, and after a little research discovered that it appeared to be well substantiated. How would you react? What do you think would be the general public reaction?

Radiation released from nuclear power stations continues to exceed safe limits in central London, and is causing over 4,000 deaths from cancer per year.

It's not true of course. But let's change a few words, and we get a statement that is true (as far as can be determined):

Particulates released from diesel vehicles continue to exceed safe limits in central London, and are causing over 4,000 deaths from asthma, lung disease and heart attacks per year.

So, what's your reaction to that one? And the public reaction? Is there a difference? Why?

Comments

[alexmc.livejournal.com]

So you are saying that in private hands nuclear power stations would get more inspections and thus be safer?

Hmmm.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

Would the stations necessarily get more and better inspections because they are publicly-held? Any government-run business would have budgets and financial targets to meet just like commercial operations do, and the High Heid Yins would be under similar pressures to make the balance sheets look good come end-of-year.

As a private business the government inspectors can be as heavy-handed as they like with restrictions, limits etc. When the inspection team's boss is an old Civil Service College buddy of the head of British Nuclear Power Pty. then maybe stuff will be brushed under the carpet to give them a chance to fix things before the next inspection, as a favour to an old friend.