The Nuclear Monologue

The monologue is becoming deafening. In the past month alone, Nader held his annual "Critical Mass" pow-wow; We almost lost Detroit, the stupidest book since Poisoned Power, was plugged everywhere; a number of conferences, often at taxpayers' expense, masqueraded as nuclear debates (they were, again, monologues); Hollywood was dipping into its bottomless blood bank to produce a nuclear disaster film (which cannot possibly match Earthquake, Inferno, Juggernaut, Tidal Wave and the rest of such uplifting entertainment without deliberately lying).

It is beyond the possibilities of a monthly newsletter to respond individually to each of these insults to human intelligence; but we note two arguments that are ever present in the monologue.

One is to present the issue as a moral one, which rids the critics of the odious obligation to study the facts. "Reactor safety has been used as a red herring to preempt public debate," writes Lorna Salzmann, an official of the Friends of the Earth, without dying of shame. One should not hesitate to take up the "moral" challenge, for the anti-nuclear anarchists are morally bankrupt: Their morality condemns thousands to death each year by the lack of nuclear power, which replaces more dangerous methods of power generation.

The other basic argument that rids the fanatics of facing the facts is the "conflict of interest" fallacy: Nuclear engineers and scientists have a career at stake, and therefore their expertise is biased and should be ignored.

The argument is, for one thing, false. Nuclear power is only one of very many careers open to nuclear scientists. (Medical diagnosis and therapy instrumentation is one of many alternatives.) For 21 years, the American Nuclear Society refused to endorse nuclear power, because it was more critical of its safety than the Johnny-come-latelies, and for more responsible reasons than unbridled lust for power. Only two months ago, satisfied at last, the ANS endorsed it as the safest form of power generation.

But the argument is also vicious. It implies that a physician cannot be trusted to cure his patients, for he makes a living only if they are ill. It implies that the police favors crime, for without criminals they would not be needed.

We do not doubt that there are crooks among nuclear engineers, just as there are among nudists, tightrope walkers and diabetics. But brains capable of concocting that type of argument must be more than crooked; they are repugnantly sick.