Note to Bull. Atom. Sci.

I used to parrot the "prophylactic principle": hazards that no reasonable person would worry about for their own sake might still be considered unacceptable when spread across large populations.

But in fact this principle, in its unadorned simplicity, is nonsense without a comparison with the consequences of NOT allowing the miniscule hazard.

For instance, some 5-8 million people die every year from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels; if a new fleet of reactors reduce this number by just 10%, there would have to be over half a million "extra" cancer deaths annually due to reactor-produced radiation just in order to break even. Do you seriously believe that is likely?

Then we might choose to consider the politically polarized issue of Anthropic Global Climate Change -- if it is really as serious as some claim, its consequences will kill billions in a few decades. So of course we choose NOT to consider it.

BAS is risking its soul by parroting the lies of the anti-radiation fanatics. Shame on you!


Jess H. Brewer
Last modified: Sun Apr 19 16:50:28 PST 2026