Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,356 posts)
12. It wasn't a misquote so much as the obvious interpretation
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 06:57 AM
Feb 2012

Really, only Strauss could have known for certain what he really meant, and since Eisenhower was keen to get the US a full-scale reactor at the time he had no incentive to correct any misapprehensions. (And he was also constrained by the secrecy of the project at the time.)

And sure, industries will allow favorable misinterpretations to linger, but that's also something we should count against them. If there were a rumor that cigarettes cured cancer and people took up smoking because they had the disease, wouldn't the tobacco industry share at least some culpability for profiting from that misapprehension?

Personally, I don't have a major beef with the nuclear industry over "too cheap to meter." Whether nuclear makes sense or not as a technology doesn't really depend on past sins of commission or omission regarding PR. But it certainly affects perceptions of the technology and the reputation of the industry.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Nuclear somersault: New E...»Reply #12