CMEP letter

[Aledpc@aol.com]

Subj:	Frontline
Date:	97-04-03 22:42:15 EST
From:	Aledpc
To:	cmep@essential.org
CC:	howrdroark@juno.com

Bill Magavern:

I have just read a copy of the letter that was sent to "Frontline".  You
suggested that the "Nuclear Reaction" program is pro-nuclear and "Frontline"
should not "pretend that the piece is fair and objective."  I would first
ask when you produce a document, that I am sure would be anti-nuclear, do
you proclaim that it is fair and objective and without an anti-nuclear bias
or agenda?  Or, do you come right out in the open and announce that the
material is "anti-nuclear"?  I have not yet seen the program, so do not take
these questions as support for their "fair" or "pro-nuclear" position.  

If you did do a fair reporting of facts, which is not limited to the
accurate representation of facts that support your argument, but also facts
that are relevant and may not support your agenda, your reports would not be
"anti-nuclear" and would therefore be non-biased and "fair."  Unfortunately,
material presented in that fashion would be inappropriate to the intentions
of Critical Mass.  After all, Critical Mass is not attempting to promote or
accurately present nuclear power, but to demonstrate any shortfalls of the
industry.  

In your letter, you make the point that others, who have not successfully
implemented nuclear programs, are abandoning the prospect of nuclear power.
This does not inherently mean that nuclear power is bad, but that for one
reason, or another, the authorities in the other countries have elected to
chose other options - wisely or not.

America has chosen not to implement strict drunk driving laws, unlike
Europe, but that does not mean that our decision not to progress in that
area is in our best interest.  In reviewing the argument, presented in your
letter, that Germany, Great Britain, and Italy have turned away from nuclear
power as evidence as to why the United States should also, I wonder if you
would likewise suggest that all of our policies should be dictated by the
actions of other countries.  If so, we would never of had a tax cut in 1981,
we should desert the progress we have made in human rights, and we should
appeal the safety standards for our automobiles.  We cannot summarily decide
that if other countries make decisions, for their own reasons, not to go
forward with a technology that the technology is decidedly bad for the
United States.

It seems to me that most anti-nuclear material that I have read is extremely
biased, unsupported by reputable scientific studies and reputable experts
yearning to make a name for themselves.  I struggle with the idea that just
because a presentation of facts may cast a favorable or unfavorable light on
a subject that it is necessarily slanted.  If the facts are erroneous, I am
sure that you will counter the position with a fair, unbiased, and
technically accurate rebuttal without playing on the fears and emotions of
ignorant, unsuspecting, yet trusting people that tend to oppose ideas that
they do not understand.  Most anti-nuclear documentation relies on these
unfortunate attributes of the general population.  The suggestion that a
sincere attempt to educate the populace about the reality and history of the
nuclear power industry or of its record of safety within the United States
as being "unbalanced, elitist, obsolete, and inaccurate" is irresponsible
and petty.  It is fortunate that some equivalent to Critical Mass did not
exist to convince people that they were afraid to fly and that thousands of
people would die in these unregulated contraptions at the time Wilbur and
Orville were promoting flight.  Shoot, people actually do die in planes, but
to my knowledge, nobody has ever died as a result of the American nuclear
power industry.  Maybe you missed the boat!

I would suggest that the possibility that intelligent individuals might
desert the anti-nuclear agenda when presented with facts is the root of your
objection to any argument that appears to be opposed to your viewpoint or
agenda.  This is what upsets those that are truly guilty of trying to
manipulate the thoughts and fears of the people they profess to be
championing.  I believe that the anti-nuclear industry is only concerned
about censoring the flow of information to the people so that the people
will believe the terror that the anti-nukes promote and in reality have no
interest in presenting accurate facts to the public.  If they did, the
Critical Mass Energy Project, Greenpeace, and other antagonists, would not
have much to say.  If you are sincerely interested in protecting the fragile
American people from insult, you will quit trying to tell them what to think
and why.  You will let them make their own educated decisions and will honor
those decisions.  Most thinking individuals would resent the pompous idea
that you are the self-proclaimed voice of the people.  

I would be very interested in learning about this history that has proven
these "rational" saviors of our communities to be correct.  Of course, the
history I would be interested in would be applicable to the nuclear industry
as established in this country.  Chernobyl doesn't count.  If your ideas are
valid, they can be expressed and evaluated against standards and practices
implemented within our country and industry.  After all, the communities
that "are being protected" are here, and the industry that you wish to
dismantle is here.  

Feel free to write back.  I know that you were a little disgruntled with the
response you received from "Frontline", and I am sure you will honor myself
and my ideas with the kind of response you expected from "Frontline".