by J.A.L. Robertson
1996 May 2
In
my January submission I argued why I consider the use of nuclear energy, where
needed and cost-effective, to be ethical. There, and in my comments on other
submissions, I have provided rebuttal of arguments to the contrary.
I
believe that my most useful contribution here is an ethical proposition that I
have found in no other submission:
In
making ethical decisions in real life the consequences of the course being
examined and of realistic alternatives must be considered.
One aspect of this is that nothing is absolutely safe, or risk-free,
only safer or less safe than something else. Similarly, decisions are only more
or less ethical.
Contrary
to a common misconception, everyone benefits from the nuclear industry,
including Northern Ontario, aboriginals and future generations (see my February
submission). Also, the STF's voluntarism process would ensure that nobody would
be coerced or exploited.