|
Table 1: Differences between pro- and anti-nuclear positions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Pro-nuclear position |
Anti-nuclear position |
|
|
|
||
|
Belief that major elements of the future are predictable; certainty about general projections of various energy sources. (For example, renewables demonstrably have the practical potential to remain only relatively minor players in world energy supply.)
|
Belief that major elements of the future are predictable; certainty about general projections of various energy sources. (For example, renewables demonstrably have the practical potential to dominate world energy supply.) |
|
|
Absolutely certain about the future role of nuclear power (a major and important one), and issues such as nuclear waste (not a difficult technical problem).
|
Absolutely certain about the future role of nuclear power (no role at all), and issues such as nuclear waste (a technically insoluble problem). |
|
|
Arrogance born out of belief in infallibility of own analysis.
|
Arrogance born out of belief in infallibility of own analysis. |
|
|
Belief that the public is irrationally frightened of nuclear power. If only people could be properly educated they would become more pro-nuclear and support the nuclear industry.
|
Belief that the public is irrationally complacent about nuclear power. If only people could be properly educated they would become more anti-nuclear and support anti-nuclear campaigns.
|
|
|
Characterisation of opponents as either fools or charlatans.
|
Characterisation of opponents as either fools or charlatans. |
|
|
Belief that government is not to be trusted to take wise decisions as it is too much influenced by the anti-nuclear media and pressure groups.
|
Belief that government is not to be trusted to take wise decisions as it is too much influenced by the nuclear industry and its supporters. |
|
|
|
||
© copyright The Uranium Institute 2000