The anti-nuc literature

[Holloway3 <Holloway3@aol.com>]

In refuting the worst of the anti-nuclear literature, I don't think it is
necessary to thoroughly refute all aspects of a particular book or
publication.  That would take an amount of labor equal to writing a book, and
since it would hopefully be more carefully done than the original book,  it
would probably require more effort than that expended by the original author.
I don't think that is necessary and certainly few of us have time for it.
But what is needed is simply to show that the 
author was not accurate in certain selected areas that were chosen for close
examination.  That will be enough to give the public an idea of the quality of
the book.  The goal here is not to reach scientists, but the public.