PT3, S2, Q16. Nuclear Dumping Site question

Comments

• Achen165 Member

  May 2020 edited May 2020 656 karma

  What indicates that in spite of policy indicating that only less populated regions are to be identified and used as nuclear dumping grounds, there is no threat to the people nearby? What indicates that there are not any misgivings about safety via policymakers?

  “No reason for not” = there is a reason to...identify specific dumping sites.

  (C) By distinguishing less threat (being fair here, the argument didn’t specify any nature of what constitutes the “threat.” It doesn’t necessarily have to be to physical health resulting in illness, it could mean social harms i.e. economic/bureaucratic) results when the less populous areas are distinguished as nuclear dumping sites, the policymakers are ensuring that there is no threat to human health, and are thus not mistaken/deceiving in their claims that there is no threat to human health. In other words, their decision to have specified dumping grounds ensures that no threat results to people nearby if in fact, there are no people living nearby (assuming that in less populated areas, there may be isolated geographical regions, say perhaps a forest, where no humans are living. Thus, the policymakers are not lying and not mistaken in their claims although they have policy for identifying where to dump, while simultaneously claiming no threat to human health.