Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Message-ID: <551@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Aug-86 11:31:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.551
Posted: Mon Aug 18 11:31:05 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 08:16:10 EDT
References: <546@gargoyle.UUCP> <521@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 55
Xref: watmath net.politics:18396 net.sci:1521

[Wayne Throop]
>    Q. Do I trust Beckmann's analyses?
>    A. No, he too obviously has an axe to grind.
>
>    Q. Do I trust Ehrlich then?
>    A. No, he's just grinding the other side of the same axe.

In my postings on nuclear power, I have tried to make the point that
there are knowledgeable and highly intelligent people on both the pro
and the con sides of the issue, and that it is not the case, as some
of the pro-nukes have it, that informed opinion is all on one side
while the lay public that fears nuclear power is uninformed and
hysterical.  I have also pointed out that people who make their
livings directly or indirectly from nuclear power may be biased in
its favor (which is apparently inconceivable to Michael Stein).

Instead of citing the views of scientists who command wide respect,
(Bethe, Weinberg, Weisskopf, Flowers, etc.), some of the pro-nukes
foolishly base their case on the writings of the strident
propagandists Petr Beckmann and Bernard Cohen.  I quoted a biologist
who is highly regarded by his scientific colleagues, Paul Ehrlich, in
a review of some of their work, to give some idea why Beckmann and
Cohen may be regarded as propagandists in the invidious sense.  The
response was ill-judged attacks on Ehrlich.  

It is when the lay public reads such claims as "plutonium is only ten
times as toxic as caffeine, and less so than botulin toxin", "after
300 years of waste storage the nuclear industry will be cleaning up
the earth", "there is absolutely no connection between nuclear power
and nuclear weapons", "hundreds of people are condemned to premature
death every time a coal plant is built instead of a nuclear plant",
"most opponents of nuclear power are Luddites who oppose technology
and progress", "Ralph Nader says nuclear reactors can blow up in a
nuclear explosion" (Nader merely echoes the views of nuclear experts
such as Brian Flowers who assert that fast breeders can undergo a
nuclear explosion, although such an event ["Hypothetical Core
Disruptive Accident"] is highly unlikely), "Amory Lovins
misrepresents his educational background" (he doesn't), "there is no
danger worth worrying about from reactor sabotage or theft of
plutonium", "[any of the AEC's notorious lies]", "the NRC is doing
its job and has everything under control", "nuclear power is the
`safest' energy technology", "Chicago must increase its electricity
bills by 30% (with severe consequences for the city's economy) to pay
for several new reactors, even though none of the existing nukes was
used when the record for power output was set in July", or any of the
propaganda generated by the US Committee for Energy Awareness -- when
the public hears this sort of claim, which has been characteristic of
the nuclear industry from the *beginning*, and discovers later that
some of the claims are exaggerated or false, it is small wonder that
the industry loses all credibility in the eyes of the public.  In the
last few weeks you have seen, in the microcosm of the net, a
demonstration of of why the public distrusts nuclear power to such a
degree.

Richard Carnes