Thanks for the comment and pointer to your blog (which I have come across before).
However, I must take issue with your assertions that I / CMD discourage dialog, that Patrick Moore has been open about about his industry ties, and with your apparent conclusion that Ms. Cravens can't both be a novelist and someone with PR value for the nuclear industry.
As I can tell you from analyzing Mr. Moore's public events and media appearances (see [:node/5833|here]), much more often than not, he fails to disclose that he is a paid industry consultant. Sometimes, the lack of disclosure may be due to sloppy work by reporters or editors, but this is not the case with his live interviews or with his op/ed columns (one of which just ran [http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/27/na-greenpeace-founder-goes-nuclear/ in Tampa], with no disclosure). It's also concerning that CASEnergy's own press releases (most recent one [http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/PressRoom/NuclearEnergysResurgencePromisestoSpurJobG/tabid/247/Default.aspx here]) describe the group as "a grassroots coalition" that "support[s] nuclear energy," with no mention of NEI's role in founding and funding the group. As an example of real disclosure, just imagine if Mr. Moore mentioned his current role as an NEI consultant as often as he mentions his increasingly-distant past as a Greenpeace activist.
I hope you agree with me that dialog is characterized by fair and honest exchanges, not an uncritical adoption of one party's views.
I have responded to Ms. Roth's critiques before, in emails and in an earlier post here, but will summarize again.
First, I fully understand that "radioactive waste" is a larger category than "spent fuel" and that most (but not all) of the waste nuclear plant operators have to deal with is spent fuel. That does not in any way contradict the point I made in my article, which is that environmentalists use different language than nuclear industry reps when they discuss the same issue.
Second, I also understand that people within the nuclear industry sometimes refer to reprocessing spent fuel as "processing and recycling." However, as a quick news article or dictionary search will tell you, it is extremely uncommon for general audiences to refer to reprocessing spent nuclear fuel as "recycling." And again, that does not contradict the point I made in my article, which is that at the NEI conference, pollster Craig Smith discussed how the intentional use of the word "recycling" (instead of "reprocessing") may help boost public support for nuclear power.
The link to the DOD website provided stating there were over 8,000 documents only has a small page of documents from 2007-2008. Where can the remaining documents be found or did the DOD already take them down?
Here is the link in the article that claims to have over 8,000 documents
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/
Nancy E. Roth
Washington, DC
I want to point out that in our correspondence Diane never addressed the errors my first communication pointed out about her interpretation of the words "recycling" and "spent fuel." In her report she cast them as part of an industry whitewash of nuclear fuel technology. Even the title, "When Recycling Isn't" exhibits her misunderstanding of the process--and, what's worse, conveys that misunderstanding to its readers.
A little bit of background research would have helped Diane understand what she was writing about. For example, in case other readers are wondering about this, I thought I'd provide this url for a Department of Energy website that defines "spent fuel" and "high-level radioactive waste." I found this by Googling "spent fuel definition." There are lots of other sources of information about it as well.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml
You could also Google "nuclear fuel recycling" and immediately come up with a statement from the American Nuclear Association, a professional association for nuclear scientists and engineers, which clearly describes the process. Here is that url as well:
www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps45.pdf
It took me all of about 10 minutes to come up with this basic information.
Diane has not told me whether she ever looked these terms up. Maybe she has. But if so, she did not acknowledge it to me, and no correction has appeared on her blog.
If a reader of my publication, Fuel Cycle Week, points out an error in fact or understanding we are quick to acknowledge and correct it in the next issue. We work very hard to get our facts straight, and consider that our first duty to our readers.
I challenge PR Watch to uphold the same standard for its readers, and admit to its readers that the report contains important errors. And, ummm, correct them.
I think your readers would also find interesting my coverage of the same topics as Ms. Farsetta. My blog on nuclear energy, now two years old, reaches 6,000 people monthly in 70 countries.
I'm not affiliated with NEI nor CASEnergy though I do write about the nuclear industry for publication as well as on my blog. I blog at http://djysrv.blogspot.com <strong>Idaho Samizdat</strong>
After reviewing the talks and materials presented at the NEI meeting, I came away with a far different view of the meeting. It was a realistic appraisal of the challenges facing the industry. As far as "public relatons" is concerned, I fear that Ms. Farsetta sees zebras where I see horses. Any industry promotes itself to its own members. I don't see any effort to distort the facts. The keynote speeches were remarkably candid in their explanation of the challenges facing current nuclear utilities and those that want to build new plants.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/05/nei-tackles-facts.html
Patrick Moore is definitely a man on a mission who has been bitterly criticized by some members of the environmental community for changing his mind about nuclear energy. His affiliation with CASEnergy isn't a dark conspiracy. He's very open about it. Would that all people who promote a point of view were so transparent? Isn't that a quality your group promotes?
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/05/greenpeace-founder-brings-pro-nuclear.html
Ms. Cravens is after all a novelist at heart who in mid-life has switched gears and gotten into the business of addressing critical issues of energy policy. Her ability to communicate is what makes her so interesting. See my interview with her here.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/cravens-speaks-in-idaho-falls.html
Dialog makes more sense than distortions. I encourage Ms. Farsetta to read more on the industry so that her next piece, unlike the barn burner in the Progressive, encourages dialog.
Pages