|
Yes, I'm sorry, I did misunderstand your point. You are dead right about the perception, but to deal with it, you can't "explain why it couldn't happen here", because it could.
You have to convince people that it's a necessary development, and that everything possible is being done to mitigate the risks. Couple this with a campaign to show the statistics as objectively as possible. Properly presented, they will speak for themselves.
If necessary, governments have to grasp the nettle and force it in over public misgiving, as the French have done, possibly under public ownership. I think we are helped by the fact that, although those misgivings are very real, the majority of people are in fact in favour of, or at least neutral towards, nuclear power. There are fewer 'anti's living in the vicinity of existing nuclear power stations in proportion to the rest of the population, largely because they see the local economic benefits.
Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of difficulty reconciling that with my idea of democracy. Although it won't be the first government initiative that's been forced in against public opionion in this way, it may well be the one with the benefits and potential hazards the furthest apart.
The message to hammer home always is "There is no choice". |
|