Re: Why nuclear is a "no-win" in the USA

[Fox@acsh.org (Michael Fox)]

radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu,Internet writes:
Jim Goodgame asks,  

>OK Mike, so what do we do about it?

Response:
The answers are simple but hard to execute.
1.  Understand the political issues, over and above the scientific issues.  For
example a Washington State Congressman told me several years ago (this was
behind closed doors in D. C. and quite private---he was a D with lots of
antinukes in his district):  "Personally, I support nuclear energy. It makes a
lot of sense for a variety of reasons.  But in the State of Washington it is
political suicide to publicly support nuclear energy."  A lot of other state
and federal leaders have told me as much.  Think of that statement.  We can't
even have rational debates on the subject.

2.  Understand that a political leader makes his/her political calculations
based on 2 factors only. These are:  1. votes and 2.  money.  If a particular
statement will offend large segments of voters or offend potential large
contributors, the statement will not be publicly made.  Notice that merit has
nothing to do with these decisions.  This was the basis of my stating that
there is no lobby for common sense inside the beltway.  Common sense will
prevail only when it results in  lots of campaign money, or voters, or both.

3.  Understand the power of the environmental movement.  Since the
environmentalists have had a 30 year head start implementing their skillfully
implemented agendas, they have immense amount of both money and power.  They
now enjoy employment in the DOE, EPA, and many state agencies.  I know of a
current Assistant Secretary of Energy who asked several years ago:  "What is an
isotope?"  A know nothing lawyer with immense amounts of pwer and influence. 
Its repeated many times now in government.  

The Greens have annual revenues in excess of $500,000,000, probably more.  This
amount exceeds the total of the revenues of both the Democratic and Republican
National parties.

4. Understand the values, beliefs, agendas, funding, tactics, control, and
guiding principles of the environmenal movement.  If football teams have
scouting reports of opposing teams, we should at least have an inkling of  the
nature of the opposition.

5.  Learn the political lessons/ tactics from the opponents

6.  Understand the media---A newspaper editor told an audience one time that
"It isn't the media's responsibility to print the truth.  It's the media's
responsibility to quote liars accurately!!"  Tell that one to your children. 
Ben Bradlee, past editor of the Washington Post said about the same thing:  "We
don't print the truth.  We don't pretend to print the truth.  We only print
what other people tell us".  This is the nature of the beast who oppose this
technology.  We need to learn about this.

7.  Understand the potent but loving, trusting, fawning relationships the
Greens have with the media.  For scientists research means  spending months in
the library.  Research to a journalist means spending an hour on the phone (the
more ideological journalists will have Ernie Sternglass's, John Gofman's, or
Alice Stewart's phone number handy, making the "research" easier).  As a
general rule the more glib the quote the more quotable. 

My take on the BNL is somewhat different from what I've read. They screwed up
by promising perfection.   One of the tactics the ideologues have used against
the nuclear industry is to demand perfection.  (I recommend reading Saul
Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as a starter).  We all know that perfection is
not achievable, with less than an infinite amount of resources and time spent. 
Then if the Greens are lucky  or strong enough to demand a Secretary of Energy
or an underling to do their bidding, they will get a promise to achieve
perfection.  After this, the stage is permanently set.  Every time
imperfections are discovered, a news conference is convened. and the fun goes
on.  A recipe for guaranteed adverse publicity on a regular basis.  For the
record we have exit signs over public doors in Richland containing 20-30 Ci
(not pCi) each of tritium.  Similar amounts are in remote airfield lights in
Canada and Alaska.    

This fight can be won but it must be fought early, intelligently, and
aggressively.    Furthermore, we have failed to communicate to the public
anything about the costs of pursuing perfect safety, anything about the
horrific unfairness to those at risk from real health threats (such as
potential benefits of nuclear medicine), anything about the trivial risks
associated with tritium, anything about the lunacy of pursuing zero risk,
anything about how the public is getting fleeced by any number of legitimate
and not so legitimate interests.  There is plenty to illuminate to and for the
public.
There's much more but you get my drift.
Fox   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
              The American Council on Science and Health
          1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor   New York, NY 10023-5860
                 Tel: 212/362-7044   Fax: 212/362-4919
                      URL: http://www.acsh.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------