<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/11/2013 09:55, John Grigg wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGSKFy2Ez+LDP7dCPErw-ccbR1xa74jFufiuDV32crzNpfYsmg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Can the situation in Japan really be this potentially
nightmarish?!!! Doctor David Suzuki declares...<font><br>
</font>
<h5 class=""><font><span style="font-weight:normal"><span
class=""><span class="">"I have seen a paper which
says that if in fact the fourth plant goes under in
an earthquake and those rods are exposed, it's bye
bye Japan and everybody on the west coast of North
America should evacuate," <br>
</span></span></span></font></h5>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sounds like he is not applying much critical thinking here. Compare
to Chernobyl, which was about as bad as it can possibly get: yes,
measurable contamination over vast areas, but actual harms still
very debatable, and an exclusion zone that is pretty tiny.<br>
<br>
The problem with exaggerating in order to get people to take an
important problem seriously is that it both breeds fatalism
(consider nuclear armageddon), and when you are found out you
undermine taking the problem seriously because now claims the risks
were exaggerated have a good factual basis. <br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University </pre>
</body>
</html>