[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Interview with Bernie Cohen on nuclear risk in perspective
The excerpt originated on the CNS mailing list, but it is germane to ANS PIE
Let's build on Ruth's comments regarding foundation money and that of other
donors. It is not conspiracy theory, but pure logic to suggest that the
explosive growth of the antinuclear movement has SOME relationship to the
explosive growth in nuclear power and its very real threat to the BUSINESS
interests of competitive fuel suppliers.
Based on recent discussions, I know there are many members of the list that
are free market advocates and that there are even some independent
businessmen. (Charles Rombough, for example.)
We would strike a real chord with media people if we pointed out the FACT
that nuclear power took and retained a huge share of the electrical fuels
market from oil, and was beginning to displace other fuels when construction
ground to a halt. We should remind reporters just how important the balance
between supply and demand is for a commodity like heat (the common
denominator for all fuels).
Reporters, especially young ones without fixed beliefs would be very
interested in hearing about how big business BENEFITS from the stoppage of
nuclear construction and how they would benefit if a few reactors could be
shutdown because of a perceived lack of storage space for "spent" fuel.
In a message dated 7/7/01 11:12:21 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Lehr: How did America's exaggerated fear of nuclear energy and
>first develop, and how have the fires of fear been fanned over the past
> Cohen: Nuclear power was going through an explosive growth period in
>the early 1970s. At the same time, environmental activism was developing,
>leading to the formation of numerous politically oriented environmental
> To compete for dues-paying members and financial support from foundations,
>these new environmental groups were looking for issues that would attract
>public interest. They focused on nuclear power, for several reasons:
> a.. It was a new industry.
> a.. It was an industry sponsored by very large corporations, an enemy
>the environmentalists were generally accusing of putting profits ahead
>of public safety, etc.
> a.. It was related to fearful nuclear weapons.
> a.. It was developed with very extensive analyses of potential
>impacts, and those analyses were widely available in publications. All
>the environmentalists had to do was omit the fact that the impact analyses
>showed very small probabilities of environmental harm. The environmental
>groups reported dangers "may happen," implying that they "will happen."