Murphy still rules
Sir: Andrew Kenny (Nuclear power? Yes please', 11 February) misses the real objec- tion to nuclear power, because he does not give a proper analysis of the notion of risk. As gamblers know, risk depends not only on the size of the odds, but also on the size of the stake. Thus, when laying a bet of £5, one may be justified in taking on very unfavourable odds; but, when betting one's shirt, one's wife and one's children; one had better have pretty good odds in one's favour. But, whatever the odds in one's favour, such a bet is.rightly regarded as wild, irresponsible, and a sign of com- pulsive folly.
Now I am reasonably willing to accept that the odds against a Chernobyl-type accident in Western Europe may be vast. However, what we are risking is vaster still. If for instance — forfend the thought! — one of the Scottish nuclear plants were ever to reach melt-down, and the wind were in the wrong direction, the fall-out could kill a very large number of people and render the lands of Scotland and northern England uninhabitable and un- cultivatable for a generation.
Whatever the odds in his favour, no gambler in his senses would contemplate so high a stake: the lives of his family, and his fellow-citizens, and the survival of his country. After all, we all know Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, you may be sure that one of these days it will.
Graham Dunstan Martin
21 Mayfield Terrace, Edinburgh
Previous page
