----------
Sure would be nice. But read my correction post, John Costello's note, and WDK's.
See the devil is in getting the details right. For a science journalism piece it is essential that those details are worked in, in such a way that they cover and support the main thrust of the piece. If there is the slightest mistake credibility disappears, the piece is dead, and all corrections are ignored there after.
The real problem here is that the details are confusing because nature is not exactly straight forward and simple---as a read through of the reasons for U-235 fission reveals. I got it wrong. If that had been in any were but a relatively friendly e-mail list, it would have erased all the rest.
What is really needed is a serious nuclear science organization to put out a fact sheet that covers these stupid political and foreign policy controversies and does it clearly, simply and well---gets it right and never backs down.
On the other we have seen that kind of effort fail many times before, starting with various scientific organizations' factual reports on radiation hazards, nuclear weapons and energy development, and toxic clean up reports. Look at what happened to the endless warnings on global warming. Hell look at what happen with former UN inspector Ridder's pieces before Iraq was invaded.
The EPA and DOE (DOD, FDA, et al) have become virtual machines of political and corporate propaganda that can manufacture a blizzard of obfuscating materials within a day or less of publication of any clear, simple and meaningful information. The hordes of lobby groups, think tanks, and specially manicured media spokesmen and women hit the streets like an army. A week goes by and any public understanding evaporates in the whirlwind, finally turned into a Clear Channel sneer from the rightwing radio jockeys.
Here is a beautiful example on a related topic. You could title it Greenpeace sleeps with EPA (taken from world-nuclear blogspot):
``Monday, April 17, 2006
Greenpeace Founder Explains Nuclear Support
A convert to nuclear energy's value for the environmentalist cause, Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, has publicly laid out the case that convinced him about the need for more nuclear energy. Amid international alarm about Iran's nuclear program and debate over the US plan to resume nuclear trade with India, Moore weighed in on the issues with an article in the Washington Post that was followed by an informative on-line debate. His public position is part of a trend that has split the traditional ecological movement in the United States as some activists embrace nuclear energy as the only realistic option for averting the possible doom of catastrophic global warming....
Moore now is the head of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd, a consulting company. He is co-chair, with Christine Todd Whitman, a former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an industry-funded group that supports increased use of nuclear energy. Speaking to a national audience via the Washington Post, Moore made his basic points with the cogency that enabled him to co-found Greenpeace in the early 1970s...''