What does one do when ones entire public identity is invested in opposing nuclear technology… Yet everyone else just won’t stop discussing it evenhandedly?
When my Radio National Ockham’s Razor segment was announced, this nuclear opponent offered a preemptive critique in an article comment thread.
Here I quote Robyn Williams’ introduction. Hard to know for sure, but who could it be that he’s upbraiding?
Nuclear! As soon as I mentioned last week that today’s talk will explore our nuclear options there were protests from the anti-nuke lobby. As if it is not appropriate to mention such possibilities. Now, this is wrong.
This opponent had no interest in identifying me before this. It’s probably quite confusing seeing an ABC radio segment matching up with a federal senator’s proposal for a next generation nuclear industry in the context of a royal commission. I’m as surprised as anyone how it all happened at the same time. But from my perspective the timing cannot be better. It must be nightmarish from the other.
A brief word on Caldicott and life cycle emissions, both of which are reliably referenced. As recently as September last year Caldicott was citing this discredited and entirely fictitious diagram in support of her fringe views.
But apparently she would be a suitable authority to invite to counter all of Senator Edwards‘ recent claims. She insists that the Chernobyl accident means certain death for up to a million Europeans, relying on the most questionable of unscientific source material.
And all the while we have a young German radiation researcher showing us reality in the town of Chernobyl: a clean, populated town, serviceable trains, lots of employment – a relatively peaceful part of Ukraine, really!
It is monumentally astounding to see assertions regarding prohibitive life cycle greenhouse gas emissions attached to the nuclear fuel-recycling fast reactor technology put on the record by someone who was as good as personally corrected on this specific subject nearly three years ago.
There’s nothing special about this particular budding intervenor except for the perfect example of the increasingly irrelevant commentary which is interminably provided. And while I still hold hope that Greens leaders can eventually be reasoned with, I fear this breed’s dread of the ‘N’ word is incurable.
Addendum: I noted the poll, that is triumphantly cited in that blog, at the time.
It is a massive, desperate stretch to wave the result around as a statewide rejection of considering nuclear technology.
Oscar you are spot on. If Caldicott is called to question the Royal Commission we must discredit this source ASAP. I realise this is probably a Greens’s strategy but some times we have to fight fire with fire.
It’s long and would need to be edited down to suit a general audience’s attention span, but Gordon McDowell provides plenty of video documentation of Helen Caldicott discrediting Helen Caldicott here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaptvhky8IQ
Godon’s Caldicott montage shows quite effectively that Caldicott has major competence and/or honesty problems and has misanthropic ideological leanings informed by her faulty understanding of technology and the economic forces that are currently driving GHG emissions.
Unable to access because of warning:
The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website’s address.
Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.
Just an FYI from me.
Thank you, Martin. I’m afraid a few people have mentioned the same issue. Such a shame.