Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants

[caraher]

197. Outrage?

More like annoyance, really.

If I'm engaged in a "smear campaign" it's a horrifically disorganized, one-member movement. I really don't care overall about pushing public opinion in either direction regarding nuclear power as I'm highly ambivalent myself.

But I do care that people tell the difference between genuine concerns and implausible scare stories. There are plenty of people on DU ready to talk back to the "radiation is good for you" pro-nuclear propaganda. Fewer are equipped to critically examine claims that reinforce suspicion of nuclear power, the more common attitude among Democrats (as you've documented quite a few times).

The problem with attacking criticisms of shoddy work that supports your own views, especially in the case of nuclear power, is that it tends to reinforce the other side's false claim to have all the science on their side, and helps their efforts to portray opponents as scientifically ignorant (and thus unworthy of attention). The case against nuclear power should proceed along lines I know you're familiar with - economics, waste disposal, problems associated with various nuclear fuel cycles, possible nuclear weapon proliferation worries and yes, the very real effects of accidents. That should provide plenty of fodder for persuasion.

But when opponents of nuclear power run across the work of Mangano and Sherman or Busby, they need at least to be aware that their results are well outside the scientific mainstream. You can argue the merits of the research. You can claim the mainstream consensus is a byproduct of "regulatory capture" (I think a lot official figures for Chernobyl deaths, for instance, are indeed lowball estimates; I think the Union of Concerned Scientists get it about right). But DUers should advance these arguments knowing that most scientists who examine it find the work problematic, and they should do so knowing why those scientists are skeptical (short of simply claiming a vast scientific conspiracy).

I just want DUers to refer to these kinds of claims with some awareness of the pitfalls of citing them, rather than taking them as widely accepted science.