Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Interview with Bernie Cohen on nuclear risk in perspective

["Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@home.com>]

Scientists, agonizing over their role in development of the A-bomb, created
and endorsed the LNT myth to create fear of fallout (cancer and genetic
effects), to stop further bomb development/testing.  It's now so easy for
anyone to exploit our exaggerated fear of radiation and radioactivity to
stop further development of nuclear energy.  Why is everyone is so concerned
about the safety of nuclear plants?

And the ultimate irony is that low doses are beneficial to health!

Jerry

P.S.  I wrote a paper on this subject for the CNS annual conference last
month.

----- Original Message -----
From: <AtomicRod@aol.com>
To: <jerrycuttler@home.com>; <ans-pie@nuke-ans.org>;
<cdn-nucl-l@informer2.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Interview with Bernie Cohen on nuclear risk in
perspective


> Group,
>
> The excerpt originated on the CNS mailing list, but it is germane to ANS
PIE
> also.
>
> 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.
>
> Rod Adams
>
> In a message dated 7/7/01 11:12:21 AM, jerrycuttler@home.com writes:
>
> >  Lehr: How did America's exaggerated fear of nuclear energy and
> radioactivity
> >first develop, and how have the fires of fear been fanned over the past
> >two decades?
> >
> >  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
> >groups.
> >
> >  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
> environmental
> >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."
> >