Re[2]: nuclear power / environmentalists

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

This was another one I was not going to get into, but I guess I can't help 
myself.  I was very very active, and quite prominent regionally, in the 
environmental movement (officer and outings leader in Sierra Club, etc) until 
1985, when they threw me off the National Energy Committee because I reviewed an
EIS for Babcock and Wilcox, made some suggestions, and refused to say the 
facility would give everyone for miles around cancer.  Similarly with PUREX at 
Hanford.  I could go on and on with stories, details of threatening phone calls,
etc..  Suffice it to say that much of the now so-called "environmental movement"
has been coopted by people who are making a political career out of being 
anti-nuke.  Organizations like Greenpeace and NRDC come to mind.  One item: in 
1984 I was interviewed to be executive directure of the Nuclear Information 
Resource Service, a DC-based nuclear power intervenor group (i.e., they sue), 
and I learned with my own ears that 70% of their budget comes from the 
Rockefeller family (nnedless to say I didn't take the job).  Another item:  
Greenpeace wanted me to review a study on some waste ponds that emitted radon, 
and quite literally told me what to say, so I refused to do it for them.  If you
all want to hear more, let me know.  The people of good will, of whom there are 
many, are often suckered as well.

Ruth Weiner
Sandia National Labs
Just my own opinion, not Sandia's or anyone else's
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: nuclear power / environmentalists
Author:  BartlettM@health.qld.gov.au at hubsmtp 
Date:    12/19/97 12:16 AM
     
     
>>1) Since it is common knowledge that nuclear power is clean and does 
>>not contribute to global warming, why aren't we being begged by the 
>>environmentalists to build more plants.
     
>The problem is that there isn't a single coordinated environmental 
>movement. There's an anti-nuclear movement, an anti-coal burning 
>movement, an anti-solar movement, an anti-wind farm movement, and >now 
a tear-down-the-dams anti-hydro movement. Not only do none of >these 
groups talk to each other, they don't want to or care to.
     
Am I the only one on this list who finds the frequent trenchant comments 
about 'environmentalists' unhelpful at best, and offensive at worst?  I 
don't mean to get stuck into either of the individuals I've quoted above 
- these are just typical of comments frequently made on this list.  I 
also don't want to get into an argument about the usefulness or 
otherwise of the past and present environmental movement since this 
would be very off-topic.  I would just point out,  that there are many 
people of good will and good understanding  concerned about, and 
involved in, various environmental issues.  Treating them otherwise will 
not help them to trust our professional expertise - and lack of trust, 
IMO, is *exactly* why nuclear power/all forms of radiation are 
politically pariahs in our societies.
     
Marissa Bartlett
bartlettm@health.qld.gov.au
     
     
=================================
Dr Marissa Bartlett
Dept of Nucelar Medicine
Royal Brisbane Hospital
Herston   4029
Australia