From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Sep24.213140.15596@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
	<1992Sep24.215507.3581@vexcel.com>
	<1992Sep24.231320.17163@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
	<1992Oct1.065732.20168@netcom.com>
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:30:11

In article <1992Oct1.065732.20168@netcom.com> aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge) writes:

   whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:

   >In article <1992Sep24.215507.3581@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   >>If A. Lovins is a fine example of what you are talking about, then I
   >>think you may be talking about something different from the rest of us.

   >From the comments I've had to respond to, I'd say this is the case, and since 
   >I believe I began this thread, allow me to recapitulate:

   >The anti-nuclear movement is not entirely comprised of volunteers without
   >significant financial incentive for doing what they do.  At the core of the
   >movement is a well-networked industry whose leaders, like those of any 
   >industry, receive considerable money and power from their position.  Failure
   >of the nuclear industry to recognize this early enough is probably
   >contributing to its public reception woes today.


   >-- 
   >Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"

	   Where would you get the impression that the nuclear industry failed
   to understand what they were facing? 
	   Why would you think that people (the
   citizenry) must use inefficient systems to oppose the highly capitalized
   and well organized efforts of the nuclear industry. There is no law that
   states that I have to send my money to an ineffective organization and most
   volunteer organizations are going to suffer from a lack of ongoing
   commitment by individuals. People have thier own work to do, lives to lead.
	   Contributing money to environmental organizations allows them to
   build and maintain the staff (of scientists, lawyers, information workers,
   and media professionals) necessary to counter the well organized efforts of
   the nuclear industry.

Believing that the propaganda efforts of the nuclear energy are well
organized is a triumph of ideology over experience.  The only outfit
promoting nuclear energy today in the public media is the Committee
on Energy Awareness whose ads one sometimes sees.  Compare the space
they get with the amount occupied by green propaganda, both paid for
and free.

A long time ago utilities using nuclear power used to praise them in
their bill inserts.  However, the public utility commissions are now
substantially in green hands and forbid that.  Instead they *require*
them to promote what the greens want, e.g. using less electricity.
The utilities will do whatever the regulators say.  If solar energy
is expensive, they utilities will make more money if they use it,
because since the regulators love solar energy, they will let the
utilities pass the higher costs on to the customers and make their
customary percentage profit.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.energy