1. Maybe ANS and NEI have been going about this the wrong way…

    Any chance of recruiting Taylor Swift to endorse Diablo Canyon? 😉

      1. I Bill Nye is on the massive resource extraction / energy output side. Better that he stay home.

      2. Bill Nye is an idiot (sorry, but there’s just no other way to put it), who was barely qualified to run even a children’s show, which has been defunct for almost a generation. He has had his 15 minutes of fame. If you followed anything he said during interviews after Fukushima, you know that he is doesn’t have the first clue when it comes to the stuff that he pretends to talk about. The howlers he let loose would have been funny, if they had not been so damaging to the reputation of nuclear power.

        Nye is all bow tie, no brain.

        Neil deGrasse Tyson is a pathological liar who just needs to crawl back into his hole and keep his childhood fantasies of being the next Carl Sagan to himself. I originally had hope for him, but then I learned that he was yet another panderer who just can’t tell the truth. The last thing that nuclear power needs is a liar like Tyson on its side. Fortunately, Tyson doesn’t appear to want to take up the cause anytime soon. It would probably hurt his image with his Greenpeace and Sierra Club fans, and he knows this.

        1. Ditto on Nye and triple dittos on Tyson (an infamous political sucker-upper here). No redeeming air support either way. The real shame of it is that the media homages them hook, line and sinker, What’s vexing to me is trying to get otherwise sympathetic celebs out to help hawk nuclear is like pulling teeth. Another group under the radar are producers of so-called science shows on cable. One grand example was Modern Marvels feature on nuclear reactors with deep ominous rumbling background music in gear and constant (almost warningly) mentions on safety, safety, safety, like it’s okay, we barely got Godzilla all bound up in chains! One big insult show was How Things Work on how the clean city of Toronto got that way thanks to clean reliable energy from — Niagara Falls! Zero mention of nuclear’s major contribution there. One must believe that the producers are either incompetent or — what else can they be?

          James Greenidge
          Queens NY

    1. Taylor Swift? Why not? I get the impression she’d like to push young women toward highly functional technical fields. I’d certainly put her out front on the best side of the ledger, as a thinker in contrast to the ossified baby boomers seen testifying against Diablo Canyon.
      If Taylor Swift came out in favor of Diablo Canyon, that’d throw the whole “environmental” extraction support industry into a convulsive fit. It would cancel the nasty effect of hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s certainly give her a positive public lift too.

  2. So good to see the pro side had an equal footing. Maybe not having a celebrity voice but rather scientific endorsements is a much better way to gain credibility after all!

  3. I don’t think it’s a real benefit to rely on celebrities. There is a reason that so many in the entertainment business have multiple broken marriages, substance abuse problems, screwed up kids and other assorted troubles. Why should their voices carry any weight?

    Celebrities appeal to the shallow. The unthinking. The emotional. In other words, the anti-nukes.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts