Tuesday, April 18, 2006

"Big Nuclear"

Greenpeace have rebutted a report from the Chernobyl Forum working for the IAEA, WHO and a number of other organisations and UN agencies. While I do not have the means to establish whether Greenpeace or the Chernobyl Forum are correct in their assessment of the death toll from the nuclear disaster one particular piece of logic infuriated me:

"[the nuclear industry have a] vested interest in playing down Chernobyl because it's an embarrassment to them".

Given the membership described above it hardly makes sense to describe the Forum as part of the nuclear industry but even if it was couldn't a similar statement be made about the Greenpeace rebuttal?

"Greenpeace have a vested interest in playing up Chernobyl because it helps their fundraising and campaigning against the modern nuclear industry".

Wouldn't it be easier if everyone debated the issues rather than their opponent's character?


James Aach said...

There's been a lot written lately about both ends of the environmental argument turning their positions into a quasi-religion versus a set of positions based on grounded facts and analysis.

You might find my website interesting. It contains a techno-thriller about nuclear power endorsed by Stewart Brand, one of the environmentalists in the linked article calling for a second look at nuclear. There’s no cost. See the homepage comments for reader reviews. I’ve spent many years in the nuclear industry. RadDecision.blogspot.com

Dave Cole said...

I don't think pointing out that the other side may have vested interests is a bad thing.

Then again, having vested interests is not necessarily a bad thing.