How to be an Errorist: if anti-nuclear content was factually true it wouldn’t be anti-nuclear


I see far too many anti-nuclear press reports. It truly looks like all the big media journos have their favorite UCS and Greenpeace contacts in their Rolodex. And it is a fact that “Fear Sells”, whether clicks or newsprint. So I had a chuckle today when I read this little essay How to be an Errorist from the Northwest Energy folks. They were motivated to write this June 17, 2015 by the satirical New Yorker piece “Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans.”

While the story is made-up, many of these fact-resistant folks seem to be radically opposed to nuclear energy. This normally wouldn’t be of great concern, anyone can believe what they want. But when that ignorance (deception?) is given legitimacy through public policy discussions, then it can create a problem for society as a whole (impeding the development of new nuclear energy resources to combat climate change comes to mind).

So, I have a challenge for you Dear Reader: please email or Tweet me if you have encountered an anti-nuclear article that is factually correct. I’ve been scratching my head trying to remember such an instance — but I can’t think of a single case. If the content was factually true it wouldn’t be anti-nuclear.

1 thought on “How to be an Errorist: if anti-nuclear content was factually true it wouldn’t be anti-nuclear

  1. I’ve never seen one that was factually correct.

    It drives me crazy that there are a large number of folks who think the UCS has any credibility at all, because I remember the 70s when the UCS’s entire claim to fame was buying full pages of lies in Scientific American. Anyone with a modicum of physics education could pick out the lies in those ads. The UCS started out as liars and they continue to this day, yet media agencies will use them as “neutral” sources. That’s just crazy. And sad.

Comments are closed.