Opinion ID: 2295717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: nader's forces working destructively

Text: Ralph Nader and his cohorts are at it again, working overtime to sabotage American efforts to achieve energy independence and economic balance. Their target is nuclear power, a subject about which  as any reputable scientist will tell you  the sum total of Nader's knowledge could be comfortably stuffed in a frog's ear. In this endeavor, Nader is being aided and abetted by Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, D-Conn., who not too long ago devoted some 250 devastating columns of the Congressional Record to demonstrate conclusively that Nader falsified and distorted evidence to make his case against the automobile. In recent articles for the New York Times, Ribicoff displayed an amazing ignorance of the facts when he called for breaking the nuclear habit. Now Nader and his eco-freaks know what they are about to this extent. They want to shut down most of this country's industrial plants and send us back to the spinning wheel. Because Nader believes in this, he assumes that the American people agree. As he said not too long ago, If they had to choose between nuclear reactors and candles, they would choose candles. (That candles are far more polluting than light derived from fossil fuels hardly troubles the man.) As usual, Nader is using fright-wig tactics to coerce the country into dropping its nuclear power program  a program which, to our cost and sorrow, he has been able to slow down at a time when it is most needed. He screams that the risks of accident. . . are at a point of catastrophic consequence unparalleled in the history of mankind  a statement blatantly at odds with the fact that not a single member of the public has been hurt in the operation of a nuclear power plant. Nader's analysis of the workings of such plants has been characterized by Morris Hulin, a respected nuclear engineer, as bordering on complete falsehood. And when an Atomic Energy Commission official some time ago challenged Nader and other unreasoning critics of nuclear energy to a debate based on precise facts, not overstated generalities, Nader, in typical fashion, ran away. What bothers Nader and his eco-freaks is that today nuclear power is cleaner than fossil-fuel power, and economically competitive. The dangerous breakdowns he cites in nuclear power plants are for the most part in the non-nuclear aspects of their operation and, in point of fact, occur less often than similar breakdowns in conventional power plants. The Nader-Ribicoff alternative to nuclear power is the use of solar energy  a Rube Goldberg dream which they argue is just around the corner. It all sounds very pretty. But no scientist looks at solar power as anything but a very remote possibility. The economics of solar power, moreover, would bankrupt the country  which, of course, does not concern Nader and company. It would require a solar energy plant 20 square miles in area to produce the energy we can get today from 9,000 tons of coal. And the cost of solar electric system, as of now, would be in the $40,000-$80,000-per-kilowatt range. Nader might think of this the next time he turns on a 100-watt bulb. The Nader drive to turn back the clock and drive this country to economic suicide would be laughable. But John Gofman, president of the Task Force Against Nuclear Pollution, working with Nader, has developed what he terms a boot in the butt approach to lobbying. Gofman says frankly that he and his eco-freaks are out to diselect members of Congress who oppose their efforts to outlaw nuclear power. His organization is collecting signatures from those impressed by the scare propaganda, and Gofman predicts that by the next election, the drive may be strong enough to influence half the Congress. Two months ago, they had already sold the anti-nuclear gold brick to 120,000 gullible citizens. But be not dismayed. When the lights go out, you can always light a candle. HARRIS, Associate Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I am convinced that the trial court, in granting both defendants' motions for summary judgment, applied the correct standard (actually the very standard the majority ultimately endorses) and decided the issues correctly. [1] Therefore, while I concur in the majority's affirmance of the ruling in favor of defendant-appellee Copley Press, I respectfully dissent from the majority's reversal of the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee de Toledano. In addition, I register perplexity at the majority's traversing such a long and tortuous path to arrive at the point of expressing the summary judgment standard for such cases. In my view, the majority enmeshes itself in a needlessly extended discussion, injecting confusion into an area of the law which has appeared clear to virtually every court  including the trial court in this case  that has confronted the matter.