The main problem with the cunlear debate is that you have two different arguments, from two different positions, arguing from two different perspectives. Pro-nuclear tend to be more technical and based around facts first (logic, reason, openness), and anti-nuclear tend to be ideological/thological and based on facts to fit (moral, emotive).We have one side arguing against cunlear in their own thological realm (ethics, morals etc.) and the other arguing in their own technical realm. Studies on peoples perception of risk (critical issue for Nucelar) highlight the impulsive, first reaction, emotive response dominates the rationalised, timely, logical response. Due to the emotive nature of the ideological debate the anti-nuclear side will always get that first response reaction, and the technical side pro-nuclear will have to wait their turn. Because the thecnical side of Nucelar can be rather technical in a engineering aspect it will always lose out to the emotive anti-nuclear response due to digestability of the technology.One of the main reasons why Nuclear got off so well in the 50s and 60s was the promise of a new hopeful future, new amazing technologies, and that emotive feeling of hope and goodness. Look at the 70s and 80s, and the negative emotive side won out. Fear trumped Fact.It seems to be a question of digestible education, emotive feeling, and trust in technocrats.Just something I've observed with the Nuclear debate.
