Obviously, I agree with you, or I wouldn't be a nuke supporter. My problem isn't with nukes, or any potentially hazardous technology. My point is that we can't really afford to ignore the conflict of interest posed by industry leaders who we also depend on to mitigate the risks of their technologies. Of course, no one wants to put their big investment at risk, and no one deliberately wants to operate a hazardous establishment or a losing proposition. These men aren't monsters or idiots. It's just that we cannot expect those with that much involved and invested to be truly objective about their business, and certainly not about our business.

We all have a tendency to want to believe certain things because it is in our benefit for them to be true. In any activity where the truth is not immediately obvious or demonstrable, it is natural to want some outcome to happen, and this affects our objectivity. This happens in science, the law, government, business, medical diagnosis and treatment, and even in computer programming. We all have a stake in problems being solved a certain way, either for financial or personal or ideological reasons. This is why we have procedures and protocols, and rules and processes and laws to help make these decisions for us and to disperse the public decision making as much as possible.

I think it is a no-brainer too: we can't let complex, potentially dangerous technologies and highly expensive society-changing decisions be completely entrusted to individuals and organizations whose expertise and interests are purely financial and commercial. I realize you have problems with that point of view, but to me it is second nature. My account of the public relations campaign that attacked "The China Syndrome" when it brought up inconvenient truths is one of those incidents which convinced me of this as a young man, especially since it occurred in a geographical location, time frame, and area of expertise in which I was intimately involved.

It may seem humorous and ironic to a conservative commentator that "The China Syndrome" may have indirectly led to environmental policies which are now causing liberals much hand-wringing and distress. I see it in a different way. I think it is tragic that the smarmy double-dealing and ruthless self-serving propaganda of the industry contributed to the ruined reputation of that industry in this country, and also encouraged the inevitable wacko groups that are so easy to point to as examples of the error of your opponents. But the point remains: if that movie had never been made, TMI would still have had an accident and the industry would still have PR headaches. Jane Fonda did not hamstring the nuclear power industry. They did it to themselves.

As far as smarmy double-dealing and ruthless self-serving propaganda is concerned, I have been quite sensitive to it since those days be it about the environment, the economy, public policy, or the war. Having a conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong, but it does mean I'm going to be very skeptical. That's why one of the first themes I brought up after I started posting here was "Follow the Money".