Skip to main content

Who's who in opposing credible information on new baseload energy?

You gotta love truth in advertising.

If I were opposed to a new power station no matter how safe, clean, reliable, or necessary it were, no matter how much benefit it brought to a community, how could I chose a name for an organization that would communicate exactly that?


How, for that matter, could I get people to rally to my cause?

Could I make frightening insinuations without actually making any false accusations?

Could I put up a website introduced with a bunch of ominous questions, to encourage my readers to reach my own scary conclusions, absent any facts?

Could I come up with a name for my new organization that made it clear I planned to deal in fear-mongering rather than facts?

Could I tell people the site was run by anonymous concerned citizens (sounds friendly and credible enough) rather than use any names that people could associate with a history, bias, or performance?


Maybe none of these questions matter, really. Or maybe someone at Panic Calvert Cliffs.org would have some reasoned, rational, factual answers to these questions. I'm guessing those answers would put to rest any concerns you could have that any group of people would try to ban together in order to generate dialogue based on fear rather than information. No one would trade in fear and emotion when the factual information supported their cause, and then hope to be taken seriously on ... anything.
You think?
I do not doubt his/her/their sincerity. It is possible to be deeply, entirely sincere and still be mistaken. I know I have been so, in the past. But here in this blog you can see what I've had to say, because my name is attached to all my blog posts. As of this writing, you cannot see who might claim responsibility for the new organizaion named PANIC.

As most of the people of Southern Maryland already know, there is a simple response for this (as well as a good reason the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy outsold the Encyclopedia Galactica):

(but the rest of my advice is always, of course, check the accuracy of the information available to you, by independent sources, whenever possible)

Labels: , , ,

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Kelly:

I think that PANIC's first question - "Why is the cancer rate so high in Southern Maryland?" - has a rather simple, old fashioned answer. After all, Southern Maryland is still a tobacco growing region that includes a town named Marlboro! I travel through that region fairly regularly and drive past the tobacco barns and the trading houses. Fortunately, many of those are abandoned now, but the lingering effects of that cash crop will remain for quite some time.

The cancer rate might also be affected by the enormous coal fired power plant on the northern side of the Nice Bridge where Route 301 crosses the Potomac. It could also be affected by the fact that Maryland is downwind of a lot of West Virginia and Virginia based coal plants and has one of the worst "non attainment" records of any state on the east coast.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …