| > I don't recall disingenuously talking about nuclear power from only the technical side I apologize for my wording. It wasn't directed at any specific individuals. > "Technology has failed to take certain kinds of failures and human errors into account, therefore technology can never be expected take enough failures and human errors into account to be made safe" is a very defeatist attitude I never said that. I am not personally anti-nuclear, but I do tend to see people pop up that sweep issues under the rug in their pro-nuclear comments. To be fair, these aren't necessarily the academics that are working in the field. [ [Also to be fair, I think that it's worth taking people whose livelihood is tied to the industry with a grain of salt too. Sure, they don't want the industry to sink, but that doesn't mean that they won't sweep issues under the rug that they don't think are relevant or that will "Never Happen" or that "The Liberal Media Will Blow Out of Proportion."] > Straw man. I wasn't intending it to be. I was just stating a fact. > 3. How is that relevant to commercial GMO development? Well, GMO stands for genetically-modified organism. It's not always food-/crop-related, so I tossed that in. |