Re: rational tantrums

[antatnsu@pacbell.net]

I sympathize with both Dan and Bernie and all the rest of us who see the
problem, but don't know the solution.  To me we are in a war with the anti
nuclear/environmental/global warming/all other anti everythings people.
They have a hidden agenda and will do/say/write anything, true or false, to
win the war.  We MUST do the same.  Those who say we shouldn't lower
ourselves to the other side's level, miss the point.  If we don't, and
remain "pure, scientific, detached and honorable,"  we play into their
hands.  This is a battle for people's minds.  It is very complex.  However,
if  "our side" does not have a coherent battle plan, we will loose in the
short term and maybe, horror of horrors, in the long term.

I do not see a coherent battle plan.  I do not see a dynamic leader for our
side.  I do not see a large organization with LOTS of money fighting the
antis at every step.  All I see are a few small groups doing good work, but
almost totally ineffective against the well financed, well planned, well
organized anti group.  The Greening Earth Society puts out good information
and is obviously well financed.  Access to Energy puts out excellent
information, but only to a few tens of thousands of people.  The Health
Physics Society is beginning to lobby, but only on subjects having to do
with things nuclear. ANS has its science teacher project.  The Heritage
Foundation, the magazine Reason, and others also put out good information,
but are not coordinated.  NEI does something, but I don't know what.  There
are lots of little efforts efforting away with little success.

Governments won't help until the people tell them to, and sometimes not even
then.

We need a leader in the private sector who can develop a battle plan, draw
like minded organizations and people together, raise hundreds of millions of
dollars, operate world wide, have a cadre of hundreds of lawyers and
generate such enthusiasm as to motivate hundreds of  thousands of supporters
to be vocal.  Only such an organization will have any hope of winning the
war.  Our opponents are too strong, well organized and financed for us to
win if we continue to be fragmented as we are.

Having said that, I will continue, as will all the others, to do what we
have been doing.  However, laments about failure won't go away until we
start to win on a much larger front than we are presently ( if there are any
"wins" at all).

Sorry Melissa if this is off subject, but it needs to be said and does have
implications for radiation protection.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

Dan Burnstein wrote:

> I read the correspondence below with a sigh.  Underlying is the unspoken
> question, how could rational scientists be
> anti-nuclear?  Maybe the answer lies not in nuclear power itself, but
> its history of stonewalling PR and assertions that:
> - accidents cannot happen and if they do happen they are due to human
> error and are outlying data points,
> - nuclear power is inherantly safe and cost effective.
>
> For the longest time the nuclear industry has had a polarized friend or
> foe mentality.  It has assumed that foes are either fools
> or those who make or raise money based on the partisanship of the
> fools.

snip

>   > To: Multiple recipients of list
>   > Subject: the RADSAFE tantrum re Lochbaum/NPR/UCS
>
begin:          vcard
fn:             Al Tschaeche
n:              Tschaeche;Al
org:            Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:          CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard