1. Which is more important, the message or shooting the messenger? The fact that you signed your name seems to be a side issue.

  2. I think signing one’s comments with an actual name is an apt indicator of your willingness to stand toe-to-toe with any and all detractors, and demonstrates your confidence in the veracity of your own arguments. The FUD purveyors and self-proclaimed fence-sitters who hide behind those inflated monikers (“Captain” of what, exactly?) come off as drive-by mud slingers who aren’t at all sure of their ability to defend their own misinformation.

  3. I think signing with your name falls under the “full disclosure” category. The detractors are most likely in their 20’s or 30’s where they are accustomed to self-promotion. As a compromise, perhaps sign with your name and leave out the rest? Folks can always google your name and find Atomic Insights easily enough. Then again, some folks would attempt to claim (somehow) that *not* adding your position would be some kind of subterfuge.

    1. You are right that this is useful “full disclosure”, and to be obviously identified as full disclosure, the best is to keep including the reference to Atomic Insights.
      Of cours CaptainD dislikes this, it’s a clear threat to the message he’s forcibly defending in all venues of the Internet.

  4. I agree with the previous commenters. Also if you only annoy a few of 300 commenters I wouldn’t worry about “…it doesn’t help me achieve my mission if I annoy everyone reading a thread.” On all discussion group type internet sites there are folks who participate for the sole purpose of their own personal entertainment in annoying people. Sounds like you just encountered a few. One of the biggest unknowns in participating in comment threads is “who is this person, do they have credibility?” When you sign your name, you clear that up.

  5. Signing your name is correct, appropriate, and honorable. If you have nothing to be ashamed of, do not act as if you do.

  6. Rod,

    Your question goes to the heart of both the issue of nuclear communications as well as nuclear power itself.

    Everyone of us who post pro-nuclear comments will be accused of being internet trolls or shills. Comes with the territory due to decades of the selling of nuclear fear and also due to the anonymity of the internet. I have yet to experience the troll comment from someone who used their own name (at least I don’t remember it if it did happen). Anonymity is a shield for many people who otherwise feel disengaged.

    However the fact that those anonymous posters are engaged is a long term positive in my viewpoint. In my opinion many of the ridiculous anti-nuclear comments are aired at a faster velocity then in decades past. Allows those of us who are engaged from the pro-nuclear side to see the next line of attack from the professional anti-nuclear groups. Some of the Fukushima comments and rebuttals were cycled at a much faster rate than in years past. That increase in speed due to the internet reduces the opportunity that some of the Caldicott-type goofiness takes permanent hold on the average person and for that fact, the average reporter.

    Nuclear power will always ends up being saddled with issues that are directly attributable to other industries such as CO2 emissions or chemical discharges. Fossil fuels are CO2 emitters but because everyone has been taught to be afraid of another Chernobyl then one of the criticisms of nuclear power is that during construction of large nuclear power plants then tons of CO2 is emitted – Oh My!

    Anti nukes love to still throw out leaking tritium meanwhile chemical plants, some in the same regions as nuclear plants, are allowed by EPA regulations to discharge larger quantities of longer lasting chemicals into waterways and the ground.

    The question is who is making that accusation in this case. The individual who made that comment has made his profile private and has over 2600 comments to his pseudonym which I think indicates an active Disqus account. The fact that his response was about having to deal with internet trolls himself says more about his personal opinion of those that chose not to use a pseudonym not of you in my opinion.

    It also goes back to a point that you, Meredith, Suzy and others have made repeatedly about communicating nuclear power issues:

    Putting a name and a face to pro-nuclear discussions and comments has a positive impact. Not immediate but still positive.

    Nuclear power has been in the shadows for decades because of the fear of negative publicity at the C-Suite level which could result in costly oversight activities and negative stock prices. All that secrecy hoopla, partly from the TMI days, then resulted in corporate rules of non-engagement with the public which many of us have experienced at some point in our professional lives. Those expectations and rules are finally, sloooowlllyyyy, relaxing.

    Also nuclear power, as part of the portfolio of power generation sources, has taken a back seat at the C-suite level when compared by profitability levels. Higher profits are possible due to swings in commodity prices of the fossil fuel markets then with straight ahead nuclear power due to its high up-front costs versus the on-going commodity price swings that can be passed directly onto the rate payer . And I am not even beginning to scratch the surface regarding the headaches the non-stop NRC issues create in long term strategic planning.

    So my immediate thought when I read the comment was that the individual is exhibiting a double standard due to their dislike of nuclear power, i.e. they wouldn’t criticize an anti-nuclear person in the same fashion. And they are being hypocritical since they can’t see the double standard they are advocating.

    IOW don’t stop what you are doing. I have used your articles as reference points countless times. I wish Dan Yurman still had his original blog available since he also had a wealth of information to use in discussions.

    (besides there are worse things in life than being accused of being one of Rod’s “minions” which I was once in a past internet discussion.) 🙂

  7. I am continually disappointed with the quality of comments/discussion on Bloomberg. Your post is well written, informative and provides an alternative narrative to the authors. Adding your signature only adds transparency and credibility to the discussion.

  8. I regularly comment on nuclear issues, I never sign my actual name, and I’m routinely criticized for my anonymity. No matter how you comment, you will be criticized for it. It’s a way of denigrating what you have to say when they don’t know how to counter what you have to say.

  9. I am commenting more to say “Thank You” for your blog than to reiterate that I agree w/all the previous commentators that encourage you to keep up the transparency. So…Thank you Rod!
    Tom Hewett
    Denver 😉

  10. Rod,

    I have appreciated the quality of comments here on your blog, both by those who can and cannot sign their name for various reasons. I have seen both styles and frankly it makes no difference to the integrity of the comment. I like comments that have content that can be checked or that shows a personal engagement with the topic. I have run across CaptianD on several sites. He is consistently anti-nuclear. I always keep in mind that I am not addressing the person – who may be impossible to persuade – but those reading who are skimming past the junk comments to find a well thought out and supported comment. There is a good reason why 70% of the public supports Nuclear Power.

    1. If CaptainD was the commenter, then I recommend disregarding everything he posts, except, as David already wrote, to provide another and more rational point of view for the other readers of the comment stream.

      If CaptainD is not a paid shill, he is certainly a person who devotes a vast amount of time to searching for pro-nuclear comments and then poisoning them with information vandalism.

      1. re: Capt D for dishonest,
        I’ve been battling that dishonest liar in the pages of the San Clemente Patch for a couple of weeks now (and numerous times other places including the San Clemente Times). He once made the claim that almost a million people died as a result of Chernobyl (Yablokov nonsense) and boasted it was published by NY Annals of Science. When I responded with the information that refuted that bogus study, he simply slunk off to another web site and published the same crap. I’ve made it a point to hammer him on the issue EVERY single time he posts something. He whines about the name calling but he has earned it.

        I agree with what others have posted on names used. People who disagree with your point of view will find something they can complain about. In addition to being black balled from a lot of the extreme anti-nuke sites on Youtube, I’ve also had folks claim my name is a made up name. My audience is usually not the folks I’m battling…it is those who may be simple spectators.

  11. I use a pseudonym, but I do so consistently & (so far as the concept permits) transparently.

    Meanwhile, researchers from the University of Texas have suggested that the recoverable shale gas is considerably less than previous estimates. I tend to trust petroleum geology from UT — among other things, petroleum production on land owned by the UT system is a major source of revenue. Obviously, the “boom” has already substantially collapsed, owing to the poor economics at anything but high price levels.


Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts