Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

7 Comments

  1. It’s as I’ve always believed. Maybe up to 70% of nuclear’s public receptiveness problems is based on a nuclear-hostile media that blatantly exaggerates relatively minor incidents, accentuates on speculation and nightmares and doesn’t ever report anything positive with anything nuclear (give cancer treatment a pass out of self-interest)..

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  2. If the pronuclear movement wants media attention we have to get spokespeople that will create a draw themselves, with the message being secondary (at least at first).

    What we need is some sexy S.F. babe to take up the mantel and bring a bit of star-power to the field.

    1. @ Don:

      I have only the knowledge of an interested bystander without technical education, but something stares me in the face: if reprocessing has all these drawbacks stated by the IEER, why has France been doing it for decades?

      The proliferation risk argument seems spurious: the US already has nuclear weapons, how will reprocessing there result in more countries with nuclear weapons?

      I have the strong impression there are several other false arguments and straw men in the IEER story, and I hope Rod or one of the regular commenters will fill us in.

      Aslo, the name of Makhijani is a red flag to me.

      By the way, I didn’t find a link to the IEER report, and have only read the PRnewswire release.

    2. Hm, strange story from IEER. IMHO, they’re putting a spectacular slant on a variety of issues and half-truths. Begging to be picked apart and hung up to dry on the town square I say!