Re: lochbaum on nrc website

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 11/1/01 8:09:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, blc+@pitt.edu writes:



> You should understand that Lochbaum makes his living by opposing
>
> nuclear power. If he should change in that opposition, he would
>
> immediately lose his job, and he has no experience that would help him get
>
> another job.


Well, maybe he should get himself a real job.  Seriously, this may appear to be off-topic, but it is not far off.  My quarter-century experience as a volunteer in Sierra Club and other enviro organizations showed me that the creation of paid advocacy positions by activist organizations  creates a dangerous environment for rational policy making.  Most of us volunteers had "day jobs" which meant we volunteered for what we believed were worthwhile causes, and STOPPED volunteering when we didn't think the cause worthwhile (like me).  If your paid job is activist advocacy, as Bernie Cohen says, you are going to do anything you can, including distorting and lying, to keep it.


How is this different from business advertising (which after all plays pretty fast and loose with the truth)?  If we applied caveat emptor  to both ads for Sony and the "ads" for UCS, the effect would be the same. There are certainly some ads that infuriate me as much as Lochbaum does.  But much of the public that realizes full well that Sony is trying to sell something doesn't realize that Lochbaum is selling something as well.  UCS's return isn't directly in money, which makes the organization appear ethical and virtuous, while it  is actually no more ethical or virtuous than the proverbial used car lot.


Therefore, we MUST keep calling these folks' bluff.  We must keep pointing out that they are paid flacks, and that they have so alienated the scientific community that they probably can't get other jobs that are as interesting as the ones they have.  The other thing we can do is try to dry up the sources of funds for such organizations.  My husband and I refuse to invest in the so-called "socially conscious" stocks because they are anti-nuke (and anti-genetic food and ...)


Well, enough from me.


Ruth

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com