Joanna
Chuck Grimes wrote:
>Is there any way to package this information into one paragaraph and
>send it to every local newspaper that we & lurkers know about? Joanna
>
>----------
>
>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...''
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>