Bob Kerns: Thinking

Emilia Asks About the GOP Religion and Hate

A bright 15-year-old young woman asks:

 

My response, lightly edited:

Well, I can't actually answer the "why so many", which is at the crux of this, but I can provide some relevant background.

Tyndale's Unicorn

Let's start at a beginning: The Bible, translated to English.

 

In 1526, William Tyndale published the first English translation of the Bible. This was not popular with the oligarchs of the time, and escaping to Holland did not help. He was executed for heresy: strangled, then burned at the stake (I guess it's better in that order!)

 

But that wasn't the end of it. A couple years later, King Henry commissioned the Great Bible. And Protestants who had fled to Geneva, under John Calvin, produced the Geneva Bible. This is the Bible that W. Shakespeare knew and used.

 

These were based on heretic Tyndale's!

These and a couple of others were the basis for the King James version—a true committee work. James set 47 scholars to the task, in response to complaints from the Puritans.

 

Tyndale was still dead. Unicorns were still in it. It would be centuries before that was thought odd.

 

But meanwhile, off in Geneva, John Calvin and his friends had a bunch of arguments, about things like predestination and how that could fit with salvation. If God knows our futures, do we have free will? Is sin our fault? Is it predetermined who will be saved?

 

When I come back, we'll briefly visit Holland, and England again, then jump to the US in the 19th century. There are some interesting twists ahead.

 

A visit to Holland

OK, back. later than expected, 'cause daughter was later than expected. Do your parents a favor and come home on time or let them know, 'k?

 

So the bit about predestination wasn't a detour. It's why we're visiting this history. I'll sew that up after we cover planes & TV!

 

Meanwhile, back in the late 16th century, we return to Holland, to consider Jacobus Arminius. Trained in Geneva by a successor to Calvin, he had a different take on predestination. I'll simplify as "free will exists, kinda".

 

On to England, where Arminius's ideas had taken hold in the Church of England. John Wesley, an ordained Anglican, his brother Charles, and a friend Whitefield, began to preach outdoors to reach miners and others who would not enter churches.

 

Evangelism begins.

A pamphlet referred to them as "The Oxford Methodists", so Wesley himself adopted the term. They became a sort of a church within the Church of England.

 

Wesley was invited to the colonies. What he started during his time here, became separate & evangelism took aim at natives

 

But Calvinist ideas came, too, with denial of free will. Life is as God ordained; sinners are damned, the saved are blessed, end of story.

 

This is more compatible with the notion of slavery. Perhaps you can see where this is headed, already?

 

It's not that Calvinism supports slavery. But if you take that idea of predestination, and give a little twist, you can convince yourself that slavery is God's will, just like everything else. Sinners and the saved are pre-determined, as God willed.

 

Wealth as Religion

Religion is often no match for creative rationalization. But Calvinism and Arminianism coexist. The notion of hard work = saved, laziness = damned takes root, alongside evangelism. Of course, there are many divisions and variations, such as Baptists and Anabaptists. Do you baptize infants?

 

The Anabaptists like the Amish and Mennonites don't play a large role in our story, but the Baptists reenter.

 

But now we come up upon the Gilded Age. The age of western expansion, railroads, and steel.

 

And Andrew Carnegie, a self-made man, rose to the top of the heap.

 

Now, Carnegie was a religious man, and a great philanthropist. 3000 libraries, half of CMU, and more. He was a major benefactor of the Tuskegee Institute, for Black education.

 

And he wrote a booklet, "The Gospel of Wealth".

 

In this, he argues for the accumulation of wealth, and subsequent philanthropy.

 

But let's give that idea another century to percolate. I promised you airplanes. And on that track, I must correct a small error. The Mennonites make a brief appearance, by kicking out Martin Boehm.

 

In response, Reformed pastor Philip Otterbein welcomes him and they found the United Brethren. They flourish.

 

In 1889, the same year as Carnegie's Gospel, there's an argument. One of the bishops leads the conservatives off on their own.

 

We'll join up with the majority later.

 

Airplanes

I meant to mention, the United Brethren had taken a strong stand against slavery, but slavery has now ended. But we're still talking about white-lead churches here. I'll come back to that.

 

Meanwhile, meet Bishop Milton Wright. His sons invented the plane. More planes later!

 

A Trip to Los Angeles

In 1903, the same year as the first flight, William Seymore moved to Houston seeking to further his religious education, where he connected with Charles Parham, who'd rebelled against his Methodist education & pioneered speaking in tongues, faith healing, etc. The Jim Crow era racism made it difficult for Seymore, who had to sit outside the classroom door to circumvent the laws. But he and Parham preached frequently together outdoors.

 

They are the founders of the Pentecostal movement.

 

In 1906, Seymore was invited to preach in Los Angeles. Los Angeles proved fruitful, with the Azusa Street Revival drawing large crowds. The ideas took root and spread, most especially in the black communities.

 

But our story lies with the white branch. And we return for a while to the United Brethren majority who did not join Wright. In 1946, right after WWII, they joined up with the Evangelical church, to form the Evangelical United Brethren.

 

Meet my grandfather, Rev. Dragoo.

Meet my father, Rev. Kerns

Meet bigot Steve King (IA-R). He grew up half-way between my fathers' and grandfather's churches.

And I went to the same school as Rep. King's mother.

 

And I have no idea where he gets his hateful ideas, nor why he got elected. Hopefully @Scholten4Iowawill put an end to that. [Ed: Nope, sigh] [Ed: Maybe 2020?]

 

So we haven't quite arrived at our toxic destination.

 

In 1968, the EUB and the Methodist churches merged to form the United Methodists.

 

And Pentecostal televangelist Oral Roberts became an Elder, believing this made him a part of the United Methodist clergy.

 

And now we can begin to see the pieces come together, answer just out of reach.

 

Prosperity gospel. Predeterminism. And jet planes. And coming up, a surprise personal encounter with bigotry.

 

Praying for Dollars

Televangelism as big business was really started by Pat Robertson, in 1960. He started as a Southern Baptist, but far outside their mainstream. He tried to become a lawyer, failed, so became a minister, founding the Christian Broadcasting Network.

 

This was too profitable, so it had to be spun off to avoid his non-profit status. CBN begat CBN Family, which was spun off and sold, became ABC Family, Disney family, and now Freeform. Contractually bound to perpetually air CBN's 700 Club.

 

We're starting to get at "so many"!

 

Robertson founded Regent University. And, in response to the ACLU, the ACLJ. A Regent U student, Jay Sekulow, became their lead counsel. Argued 12 cases before SCOTUS on "religious freedom".

 

Sekulow's family now controls ACLJ and became rich.

 

Jay Sekulow is Trump's Mueller lawyer.

 

Oral Robert also founded a university. Named it after himself. A Houston preacher's kid (like me) named Joel Osteen studied TV communication there. No degree, no divinity degree. But took over his father's church after his death, and built an empire, and bought the Compaq Center, a stadium, to be his new church.

 

It wasn't big enough, so spent millions expanding it. Includes TV studio. Bought a huge mansion.

 

And of course, TV evangelists need jet planes. Remember Carnegie's Gospel?

 

This is all part of the message. Riches are a sign of God's blessing. Wanna be rich? Get blessed. Donate!

 

Tying It Together

So let's look where these threads have brought us.

 

We have a truly massive reach, pushed by really big money, and penetrating deep into politics, even the presidency.

 

We have a religious justification for the accumulation of wealth, and wealth as a sign of religious and personal worth.

And we have predestination. The notion of predestination slots with people's ideas about others. They're poor? It's because they're not chosen. They'e not worthy.

 

LGBTQ? Born that way?

 

Predestination to be that way. And to be damned.

 

These ideas slowly spread into the more mainstream traditions. In I think 1992, I attended a Methodist service as part of my parent's anniversary celebration. At this service, a lay delegate gave a report on the Methodist conference—at which they ruled out gay marriage and ministry. That was disturbing enough, but he delivered it with glee. Adding to the dissonance was he was dressed and groomed to perfection, to a degree I would have guessed he was the very thing he feared. I'm not guessing at his sexuality, but the futility of his fears.

 

Had it been any other occasion, I would have stood and protested, and left

 

But we have a theme here. Remember Tyndale? Remember predestination justifying slavery? With predestination, you can if you choose, write off anyone you disapprove of. LGBTQ? They belong to the devil.

 

Remember, the Methodists were Arminianist. They still reject that formulation of predestination. But it has become pervasive, thanks in part to the power of televangelism. The Azusa St. Revival was just a foreshadowing, with no marketing power.

 

And the poor? They will be with us always because it is Gods will that they be poor, and that they're not worthy.

 

Maybe God is telling them they should work harder.

Maybe gays aren't trying hard enough to be straight.

Maybe my religion requires me to hate those who would help.

 

It's a long story. This is just one of the challenges we face. Evangelism was never about this kind of thing, any more than it was about slavery, which it opposed

 

But it was the original viral message, and it can be weaponized.

 

And that is one of the things we face today.

 

Christianity is not unique in this. And I don't write this as an anti-religion screed. But it is the context for why so many of today's evangelicals can countenance very unchristian behavior. There's history, precedent, and ideology.

 

Best of luck in coping with it.

 

The GOP Religion

In response to some nonsense or other from Steve King [R-IA4], in November 2017, I wrote the following.

My father was an Iowa country preacher. So was my mother's father. I never saw the slightest hint of such attitudes, heard the slightest whisper. I don't recall ever being taught that women need men's protection -- just the Golden Rule -- treat everyone as you'd like to be treated yourself.

My father and grandfather were in the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB), a Wesleyan denomination that with an intervening split and merger, once counted the Wright Brothers father as a Bishop, and ultimately were an offshoot of the Church of England.

In 1968, they merged with the Methodists, also Wesleyans, gathering most Wesleyan tradition into one church.

In the same year, they also gathered one Oral Roberts, formerly a Pentecostal minister, founder of Oral Roberts University.

The Pentecostal denominations are descended from the Azusa Street Revival -- a long-running Revival meeting in LA in the early 20th century. Speakers in tongues, "holy rollers", and believers in the near-term Second Coming. Not exactly predestinationalists, but they believe in an all-or-nothing salvation. When Christ (soon) walks again on earth, you will be saved, or you will be damned.

The Methodists gave him more freedom of operation, and in the negotiations, expressed a fair bit of envy of his evangelism (aka "recruitment successes").

I graduated high school in 1972, from Correctionville, a town where my dad had been brought in to handle the merger of two congregations, plus a third in Cushing, an even tinier town to the west, in the same school district.

Fast forward 9 years. Joel Osteen graduates high school in a Houston suburb and attends Oral Roberts University, where he studied, not divinity, but Radio and Television Communications.

Rewind to the year before the merger. Representative Steve King graduates high school from Dennison; he lived in the tiny town of Kiron, about the size of Cushing, that I never even heard of. This was the neighboring district to the Southwest -- and halfway between my father's and my grandfather's churches. We drove within a couple of miles of it a couple hundred times in my youth, but like Cushing, it was off the main highway.

Go back a couple more years. My elementary school (Grand Meadow) (neighboring district to the north). Population 13 at the time. Had just merged Back a generation. Steve King's mother attended the same school, prior to the merger that sent me 13 miles further north for junior high. Flash forward to present day, two more mergers, district is now 400 square miles.

Back to the main thread of the story. 1999. Joel Osteen preaches his first sermon. Becomes pastor of Lakewood, the Charismatic/Pentecostal church founded by his father in 1959. Later that year. Forward 4 years, Lakewood leases the Compaq Center, former home of the Houston Rockets. Payment in advance for the first 30 years of the lease -- $11.5 million.

Also in 2003, Steve King is elected to the US House of Representatives.

They spend $100 million to renovate and turn it into a mega-church, adding 5 stories in the process, and a television studio, and move in in 2005. Five years later, Houston sells it to them for $7.5 million.

2011, Steve King on the floor of the House: “Well, if you applied that preventative medicine [birth control], universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization.”

Today, Osteen is noted as one of the leading ministers of the Prosperity Gospel. Donations continue to pour in, funding his lavish lifestyle. Manny Pacquiao, former world-Champion boxer and current Philippines Senator, recently gave him a $86 million jet.

I grew up in parsonages, owned by the church, each not unlike the homes our parishioners lived in. mostly older. Only one still survives; the rest have been abandoned and torn down.

Joel Ornstein and his family live in a $10.5 million mansion.

I'm not jealous. I have a nice home in one of the most expensive counties in the nation. Our next home will be smaller, not bigger.

I'm appalled.

My father would have known what to do with $10.5 million dollars. Heifer International would likely be where it would go, to help feed sustenance farmers. He grew up a farmer, plowing the land with a team of horses. He knew the good that a donation of livestock can do.

Steve King was raised a Methodist.

This is the GOP.

This is the GOP Religion.

Anonymity, and On Teachers Blogging

Recently, I commented on two topics, which intersect. Kent Pitman posted on the topic of anonymity on Open Salon, and I responded with a few of my thoughts on that topic.

And then came the case of Natalie Munroe, a teacher in Pennsylvania, who has been suspended with pay for blogging anonnymously, and talking (without naming herself, her school, or her students) about the frustrations in her work.

While I definitely feel there's a need and role for anonymity, I think there' is great strength and value in the courage to stand up and speak publicly.

I reproduce here a comment I originally made on an Education Week blog yesterday.

---

Back in 1979, Brian Harvey left the MIT AI Lab (or was it the Stanford AI Lab? I forget the chronlogy), to teach computers at the Lincoln-Sudbury High School in Massachusetts.

I was a devoted reader of his semi-regular email list on his experiences there. This was about as close to a blog as you could get back then. We didn't have Google back then, of course, but we did have a more open environment, and his writings were discoverable -- in fact, I suspect that's how I discovered where he'd gone and that he was writing about it, and asked to be on the mailing list.

I learned a lot from this. Had he been gagged, I would not have learned a thing. He also wrote in other contexts about his experience and lessons learned, for example: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/freedom.html

Schools are already far too much a secret society, with the public, parents, and even the students themselves being outsiders. Of course there are issues. If my kids were specifically blogged about by a teacher, I would have some concerns about that, even if not by name. Not "Thou shalt not blog about my kids", but issues of fairness, motivating kids, and privacy arise, and must be handled with care.

I don't know that  Ms. Munroe crossed those lines. According to Ms. Munroe (who I heard speak on the radio earlier today), those quotes that are making headlines, like "not as smart as she seems", were from a list of alternate check-off report card items she'd like to see -- satire and humor.

And you know what? Although I can't check her blog now, since it's been taken down -- I believe her, because that one is not original -- I've seen it before, in just such a list.

Did the press manage to get that?  Apparently not. Aparently, satire, irony, and humor are utterly lost on our modern "press" in their rush to the most sensational headlines possible. One can only imagine what their teachers thought about their reading ability when they were young!

I think the reaction is plain backwards. I think teachers should be encouraged to communicate about what happens in the classroom. Carefully, of course. But -- if a student acts up in class and disrupts learning for the entire class, I'd like to hear about it from the teacher, and not just from my kid's viewpoint.

I can be a better parent, and a better citizen of our school district, if I understand better what goes in in the classrooms, and the minds, of our teachers. And our students could be better students.

But -- there has to be some respect and some professionalism. If Ms. Munroe failed anywhere, I'd guess it was most likely here.

But within those bounds, the more blogging the better. Given the nature of the world our children are growing up in, I would argue that we really should REQUIRE our teachers to blog weekly.  It would be a tremendous opportunity for education, for kids to see their environment, and their behavior, challenges, and progress blogged about. Done right, it could be a tremendous motivator.

And most importantly, it would be leadership by example, about how to write, and how to write about others with civility and respect.

If Ms. Munroe erred in her conduct on her blog, I strongly suspect that the anonymity under which she operated was a major contributing factor. I would expect that she would have written a better blog had she not been hidden behind the veil of anonymity, and had the expectation that she would have to stand by her words into the distant future.

Because the internet has preserved posting I myself wrote back in the 1970's. I learned long ago to regard everything I write as potentially permanent and public. I've also learned the courage to speak my mind, to allow others to disagree, and to disagree with respect. I've learn some skill in calming online arguments, bridging communication gaps, and refocusing conversations.  And most importantly, I've learned the courage to quickly aplogize when I have erred, or have simply allowed myself to be misunderstood.

And always, under my own name.

I would like our teachers to be able to teach this generation of students some of the same lessons.

Publishers: Stand up to the Texas State Board of Education

Eric Mann pointed me at a Credo Action-sponsored mailing campaign to the major textbook publishers.

This is a way YOU can make a lasting difference in our education system.

They provide you with a pre-written letter you can send, but allow you to send your own instead. So even if you don't agree with Credo Action's politics, and even if you don't like their letter, I urge you, please take a moment and send something.

Here is what I sent. Please write, either via this link, or directly. Please feel free to steal anything you like from my piece.

Dear sirs,

As an MIT-educated parent, with a life-long interest in education, I have watched with increasing horror the ever-escalating manipulations by the Texas State Board of Education.

There are times when a company must walk away from business. Times when the indirect costs far outweigh any profits. Times when the lasting damage to ones reputation is more important than the bottom line today.

Now is that time.

If we -- no, if YOU allow this blatant manipulation, we will all be poorer for it. I can think of no greater harm to be done to our educational system, than to allow this bunch to insert their propaganda into the nation's textbooks.

But it's not enough to supply an alternate version for a state which appears to have slipped into an alternate reality.

It is time to take a corporate stand, that you will have NO PART IN THIS.

I do not believe the Texas State Board of Education will continue have this extremist makeup for much longer. I think any books you were to make for them would have a very short lifespan, anyway.

But if you take a stand for intellectual honesty -- a PUBLIC stand, I believe you will hasten that day. You'll help put the issue on more Texan voter's radars.

I actually think you'll have a chance to make up for any lost sales, when those damaged-goods propaganda pieces that most parents would cringe at giving their kids, are urgently replaced with real textbooks again.

Please stand up to these folks!

Our children are counting on you.

The Other Bob Kerns Can't Save You

BGuzzardi at The Conservative Reform Network blog complains that Representative Allyson Schwartz is to the left of Obama and is proud of her role in creating "Obamacare", calls her various names, and gives no specifics. They argue that she's too far to the left for her district.

But it goes on to call for disseminating her voting record, and features a prominent (though ill-formatted) link to her 2010 earmark requests to the Appropriations committee. Specifically, the call on "the other Bob Kerns" (GOP Chair for Montgomery County, PA) to send her record to everybody they can think of.

I don't know if she's too far to the left for her district -- they did elect her, after all. The best answer to that would be to fairly and accurately make her record known, preferably with primary sources, and let the voters decide that issue.

I'm all in favor of that -- as a general rule, not just in this specific case. The problem is, here it's a knee-jerk response, responding to the "left", using maximally divisive language. That might get you warm feelings from your equally-outraged friends -- but that's no way to get any change. 

So I thought I'd challenge them, and see if they'd consider actually taking up the core fiscal issue rather than pursue the left/right thing. Because if the GOP-controlled Congress taught us anything, it's that the left has no monopoly on spending our money in inappropriate ways.

Appealing to my partisan counterpart won't fix the problem. From where I stand, he's part OF the problem. I say this, without a clue as to whether I'd agree or disagree with him on any issue. I say it because, despite having followed him for some time, I still don't KNOW how he stands -- except that he stands for party discipline over any HINT of cooperation with "the other side".

So he's part of the problem.

So this is is my response. At the time of writing this note, my comment awaits moderation. I don't know if it will appear there or not, but this is my challenge to conservatives everywhere:

No, I’m not the above-mentioned Bob Kerns — though the appearance of “my” name brought me to this page.

I’m not a big fan of my namesake’s brand of partisan politics. Nor am do I approve of your brand of rhetoric filled with spite and derisive labels, rather than actually contributing meaningful analysis to the discussion.

But nonetheless, I agree with you on one very key point. Namely, that an informed electorate is essential to our democracy.

I think you’re confusing left and right with up and down. Left and right is just a distraction the politicians use to keep you from noticing how they’re spending your money and controlling your lives. The so-called “right” politicians do it AT LEAST as much as the so-called “left” ones.

Here’s what I suggest: Go through her list of 2010 earmarks. For each one, ask yourself: “Is there a solid reason for this to be FEDERALLY funded?” Research to lower repair costs on fighter jets doesn’t look like it would work too well as a local initiative. Funding local conversion to electronic healthcare records? Bzzzt!

Do this for ALL politicians, regardless of party. At the state level, look for similar grabs from local governments. Out here in CA, our local school districts are in thrall to Sacramento, and suffer financial chaos as a result.

Don’t worry about left-and-right. Look to see if they’re buying local votes with federal dollars. Look to see if they’re rewarding companies and other interests in exchange for campaign dollars.

THIS is what will get our democracy back. Holding politicians accountable for the money, for the growth of federal programs, and for the “favors” they do. If you want to change Washington, change the political economy.

Don’t be distracted by left-right. The left working WITH the right can make a difference — but of course, that’s not what they want.

Put aside the divisive, angry-at-each-other language, and focus on the core issue. Be a real conservative, not a fire-breathing dragon. Embrace the calm voice of reason, rather than outrage. But put it front and center, and give it a microphone!

(And sometime, go read George Washington’s farewell address, especially his warnings about political parties).

Into the Teeth of the Storm: The Blizzard of '78

I wrote this for the group "I Survived the Blizzard of '78", but Facebook won't let me post it there, so I'll post it here and post a link there.

Risk Assesment High Priesthood

I am reposting some of my earlier writings. I've had some of them disappear from the face of the net, and I'd like to preserve some that I think have stood the test of time.

This post I made in 1991 to the Risk Digest mailing list. While my focus then was primarily environmental risks, I think it has a lot of relevance today, as we discuss health insurance, which is inherently about personal risk management, and the role of government and corporations, which is about the managing an entirely different kind of risk.

In particular, I think that people on the relative right on this issue perceive the risk of government vs the risk of corporate differently than the people on the left do. Largely, this can't be reduced to "right" vs "wrong", because it is based on individual value systems -- a "pricing model", if you will, for risk of, say, undesired government action. These value systems are, in turn, informed by personal estimates both of the likelihood of misaction, and of the degree of intractability in addressing it.

[Sadly, Phil Agre has gone missing, with hundreds, if not thousands of friends concerned about his wellbeing.]

Risk Assesment High Priesthood

Robert W. Kerns <[email protected]>

Tue, 3 Sep 91 22:22 EDT

In regard to Phil Agre's remarks on PR and the Risk Assesement field: I too am
offended by most of what I see in this area. (Note: What I see is a biased
sample, and not representative of all research done in the field). I consider
the field to be seriously contaminated by self-serving interests, to the point
where I don't trust ANY conclusions presented, unless I'm also given the data,
methodology, and chain of reasoning.

The most fundamental flaw in my view, and one I haven't seen discussed except
peripherally, is the assumption that risk can be reduced to comparing numbers
of deaths, with all deaths being equal. Whenever the public at large doesn't
agree with this, "public reaction" is labeled as being irrational. It is the
strong parallel here between religious dogma and Risk Assesement
"professionals", which leads me to term this a High Priesthood. Time and time
again, I see results which are surprising when viewed from a "all-deaths-equal"
viewpoint, used to argue that people's perceptions of risk are flawed.

I KNOW there's value to scientific methodology in analyzing risk, and I would
like to make use of it in forming my opinions. But when most of what I see
masquarading as analysis is contaminated with this religious assumption, I am
really thwarted in using Risk Analysis.

To take one oft-cited example, coal vs nuclear, and twiddle with it a bit to
make what I'm talking about clear. (Numbers invented; I'm illustrating a RA
concept, not comparing coal and nuclear).

 Coal: 5 death per 10,000 man-years.
 Nuclear: 1 death per 10,000 man-years.

Sounds like Nuclear is the clear winner here, right?

But let's consider a couple scenarios:

1) Coal: Equal geographic distribution of risk over area of benefit.
  Nuclear: Risk concentration around the plant.

2) Coal: Constant, predictable rate of deaths.
  Nuclear: Low rate, except in rare accident, resulting in very
  high cost of health care, entire families wiped out.

The results I've seen indicating that people's perception of risks are "skewed"
to me indicate that people are more adverse to risks with particular
characteristcs:

* Unfair distribution
* High concentration; that is occasional disaster is worse than
  continual high risk.
* High subsidiary cost, such as an area of land rendered
  uninhabitable, or high health-care costs.
* Low amount of individual control over individual risk factors.
* Risks whose assesements are based on questionable data or from
  sources whose veracity is suspect.

To me, this seems to be a much more rational approach than reducing
the debate to numbers killed by coal or nuclear.

From this, you might assume that I am wildly pro-coal and
anti-nuclear, which would exagerate my position considerably.
(I'm anti-coal, and consider chemical waste to be more serious
than nuclear. Nuclear waste decays, but heavy metals are forever!).

I see the same phonomena operating in assesement of air-travel risks, where
people are more concerned with air accidents, which wipe out entire families,
and over which there is little personal control and choice, than over
automobile travel, which is far more dangerous. This concern is viewed as
non-rational, but I find it eminently rational. Killing off and injuring large
numbers of people at once overloads our mechanisms for dealing with tragedy, by
overloading emergency health-care, wiping out large segments of families,
wiping out entire upper-level management of companies, or rock groups, or
what-have-you.

There's more structure to risk than a single scaler value; deaths per 100,000
deaths per {man-hours,passenger-miles, etc.}, and these scalar numbers are not
what society tries to optimize.

Real scientific research would try to go to the next step, and model and
quantify what people really DO try to optimize.

But it's easy to look scientific if you ignore this and say "see, it all
reduces to this number, which scientifically PROVES it."