:::Benjamin K. Sovacool is perfectly entitled to his views, but he is working in the law department of Vermont, and has done a fair degree of legal advocacy against nuclear power/ he is a lawyer - http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Our_Faculty/Faculty_Directory/Benjamin_K_Sovacool.htm?child=x13226 and clearly anti-nuclear at that, having spent his time in India lawyering it up against nuclear power, and writing an anti-nuclear book with many unsubstantiated claims contained within, such as selectively quoting what MIT actually said. Science and Technology Studies is a social science, not a hard science.  
 ::: Fundamentally, I ask, what are his science qualifications that would lead anyone to assume his opinion matters in respect to the field of Safety engineering? or even nuclear engineering - Safety code (nuclear reactor), that warranted the previous editors pushing him into the lede of a safety article? 

 ::: As I've said, I don't mind leaving him in the lede of the article as it stands now, as the selective quoting that he chose to reiterate in his anti-nuclear book naturally segues into what the MIT actually said, and a discussion on safety by actual qualified hard scientists in the field - MIT - who do have a modicum of authority to discuss nuclear safety. 

 :::The article, IMHO, is more than fair at including the two anti-nuclear advocates statements, who you know, don't have any nuclear engineering qualifications at all. 
 :::