. . . AND VERY DUMB

The strict road from arbitrary initial premise via flawless logic to a resulting inference is used only by computers and mathematici-ans. (By changing the premises, but not its flawless logic, it is easy to make a computer conclude that setting an Olympic swimming record is a symptom of acute pneumonia.) Non-mathematicians reason somewhat differently. They check both their premises and their logic against the observed facts: if the inference does not match them, at least one of the two must have been false.

Most people, of course, do not reason at all: they are content to parrot whomever they wish to trust. That allows the disinformers to use false premises, faulty reasoning, or both.

Take Donella's article mentioned in the editorial. It is not easy to separate the pain [?] from the chaff in this multiple convolution of baloney, parroted from the sages at Lovins's fink tank. They have, of course, determined that the Greenhouse effect is what causes the present hot summer. Let's grant her that; we went through that fallacy last time. And let's disregard her kindergarten economics of shutting down 40 coal-fired plants by changing to more efficient light bulbs (produced, presumably, by wind-mill-run factories and introduced by decree of the Supreme Soviet, because people are too stupid to save their own money). Gingerly removing other such wisdom that makes Donella a worthy colleague of Dartmouth music professor Cole, the gist of the palaver is, first, that nuclear power is "ineffective in combating greenhouse warming because it only provides electricity, which accounts only for one third of fossil use."

What Donella is telling you is that if you can repair only one third of a leaky roof, don't repair it at all. Repairing the roof will drain away money with which to buy an umbrella: that will shelter, you from the rain not only at home, but also in your car. (How many coal-fired plants could be saved by making roofless cars?)

Indeed, her second point is that "nuclear power is so enor-mously expensive that it drains money away from better options."

Here the data (premises) are false. Although the investment cost of nuclear plants has been driven up artificially by delays and politics to incredible levels, the lower fuel costs still keep US nuclear power competitive with coal. Plants built before the witch hunt started (e.g. those of Edison Illinois) produce nuclear power at 40% of the cost of their coal-fired plants; the average US nuclear kWh costs only a few percent more than coal even now. No US nuclear plant, not even Shoreham if it goes on line, produces power as expensive as oil-fired power.

In Europe and Japan, the cost of a nuclear kWh is significantly smaller than that of a coal-fired one. The cost advantage ranges from a minimum of 20% (Britain) to 72% (Belgium).

But of course Donella is not thinking of either coal or oil; she is thinking of solar panels at $5 per peak watt; when the price decreases fivefold to $1, you will be able to run your clothes dryer for free after a mere $10,000 investment for 500 sq.ft. of panels and their installation. That's her better option. You live in a city and don't have 500 sq.ft on the roof?

Don't be silly, everybody has a roof in Dartmouth.