FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Bob Nichols
Oklahoma City, OK
405-749-5888
bobnichols@cox.net
SURVEYED CITIZENS EXPECT NUCLEAR DISASTER
(Carlsbad, CA) September 11, 2002. Russell Hoffman today announced that a survey found that an overwhelming 94% of respondents felt that a catastrophic accident at a nuclear facility was "likely, very likely, or extremely likely". 80% think a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant is likely.
Mr. Hoffman of Carlsbad, California has been concerned with nuclear issues for several decades. He is a software entrepreneur and nuclear activist. He said "The survey shows that people informed about the nuclear power industry expect a nuclear accident or terrorist attack on a terrifying scale in the near future."
Hoffman continued "a majority of respondents feel we are doing worse in the year since the tragic events of 9-11-01."
When asked if US citizens would "freeze in the dark" if all the nuclear power plants were shut down tomorrow, respondents said "No" by an overwhelming 94%.
###
The survey was conducted by Hoffman at his own expense, and Hoffman is solely responsible for its contents. No gifts or other things of value were offered to the respondents. Respondents are a group of individuals, mostly in the United States, knowledgeable about nuclear issues.
==============================================================
September 11th, 2002
Dear Reader,
The results of the survey of the anti-nuclear movement have been accumulated and counted. The survey was sent to known participants in the "anti-nuclear" movement (a term few of them actually like, although this was not specifically asked in the poll). Everyone was encouraged to pass the survey on to others in the movement. Nearly 40 people took part in the survey. The tabulator thanks them all.
The tabulator was gratified to see that this movement draws inspiration from a wide variety of experts in diverse disciplines. No single person or organization stands out as "the leader of the movement". For individuals, the most votes went to Drs. Helen Caldicott and John W. Gofman. For organizations, NIRS and Public Citizen received the most recognition.
There was overwhelming agreement that Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard "Rich Rad" Meserve's participation in the nuclear industry's "Nuclear Renaissance" meeting shows bias on the part of the NRC. That meeting is ongoing as these results are being released.
A majority of respondents feel we are doing worse in the year since the tragic events of 9-11-01. However, feelings were much more lopsided when respondents were asked, in a different format, about the chance of a horrific failure of the current movement some time in the next decade -- namely, by a catastrophic meltdown, or a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.
Almost 95% of respondents felt that a catastrophic accident at a nuclear facility was "likely, very likely, or extremely likely". Among those, the largest group felt it was "extremely likely".
Concerning the possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power facility, 35% of respondents felt that the likelihood was at least 90% in the next decade. Over 80% felt that such an attack had at least a 50% likelihood.
Whether or not such a terrorist attack would be successful (whatever exactly that means) was not asked. However, it should be noted that nuclear power plants are practically unguarded, especially compared to the maniacal attacks that could be set against them, worse even than the madness we saw one year ago today.
Clearly, this nation is not responding to nuclear threats adequately. A successful attack on a nuclear facility would be among the most horrific of all possible attacks.
Many of those who responded to this survey have studied the nuclear industry for years or decades, and in some cases for more than half a century. Many of the respondents have fought legal cases in the nuclear arena, and have brought dozens or even thousands of people into the movement, and have studied and written about these problems for decades. Many of the questions required an advanced understanding of nuclear issues. The fears of these knowledgeable activists should scare everyone in America very deeply.
Only two activists said "yes" to Question #10 ("If all the nuclear power plants were shut down tomorrow, do you think we would "freeze in the dark?"). A few qualified their answers somewhat, as shown in the detailed results.
There are some interesting divisions among the activists. There was no overwhelming consensus regarding which is worse, among three of four horrific future scenarios (Question #9). Most respondents felt that a Jumbo Jet crashing into a Dry Storage Cask was less horrific than the other choices. Questions about the relative likelihood of each scenario were not asked. (In a phone conversation, one respondent correctly noted that, for two of the suggested scenarios, it would "depend on the winds", but incorrectly stated that this was ONLY true for two of the scenarios. (It would (or could) be true for all four cases.))
I have not been able to identify all the people or organizations who have been named as leaders, and so it's possible a few fraudulent responses were sent in. At least one would-be respondent (from Canada) was unable to cast her vote because of "technical difficulties". Even with these various problems, I believe this survey contains a lot of information the movement can use to reflect on itself, and to decide its future. I hope it will be used that way -- I hope the experts will use this survey to get a better understanding of what the citizens need to know, and I hope the citizens will use this collection to find experts they can trust. (In the online data presentation page, we will try to link to as many of the organizations' and leaders' web sites as possible.) The URL for the entire data collection is given below.
To understand what we can do together, we must know ourselves. If we still need such a survey next year, I hope activists will recognize that the more responses we receive, the more we can find out about each other's goals, hopes, and fears, and the more we can know what kind of force we are, and thus, how we can work to influence our fellow Americans and citizens around the world (a number of nations were represented in the survey).
Hopefully, this survey will help us to rescue our planet, which is so full of arrogant "nuclear engineers", "health physicists", "nuclear physicists", and other promoters of the nuclear "solution".
Hopefully, this movement will be capable of stopping a global suicide by one, two, and even "many" nuclear "accidents". They are NOT accidents if everyone knowledgeable knows they are going to happen! That is the case here today.
Until this movement succeeds, we hope to make this an annual survey of the anti-nuclear movement, for the betterment of the movement.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Tabulator
Carlsbad, CA
"I'm NOT a government spy -- but I did work for the U. S. Census once (in 1980)!"
================================================
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
================================================
Below is ALL the raw data from the nuke activists' survey, September 11th, 2002.
Some additional notes about the survey results:
Note: #1: The many names given in the first three answers in the survey have not been alphabetized or otherwise ordered, other than to move those leaders with multiple votes towards the top of their groups. Otherwise, the names are in essentially random order. Unfortunately I cannot verify everyone on these lists who should have prefixes and suffixes to their name, but I've made some effort to get as many of these as possible.
Note #2: The "bonus questions" appeared later and later in the survey as 2nd, 3rd, and 4th requests went out asking for respondents. They were not answered by as many people and their "margin of error" is presumably significantly higher than that of the initial 10 questions.
Note #3: The tabulator regrets the scientific loss of data for having pulled his own name from the response tally, when it occasionally -- very occasionally -- appeared, but thanks those who included him or his web site in their responses. He did no voting, himself, nor did any members of his family. He also apologizes for any errors which might have occurred in processing the data, and takes sole responsibility for those errors.
Note #4: If you voted directly (some votes were conveyed through other activists), you should have gotten a return email from me indicating your vote was included (or not, in the case of the pro-nuker who tried to vote). If you did not get such a confirmation, please contact me.
Note #5: Three new completed forms and one bonus question came in after the deadline but before this document was completed; they have been included.
Note #6: This document is available online here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/2002/survey1.htm
================================================
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
================================================
(1)
Name your three favorite living scientists who have influenced your own anti-nuclear ("pro-DNA") opinions: (Each += 1 vote (above the first vote))
Dr Helen Caldicott + + + + + + + + + +
Dr. John Gofman + + + + + + + + + +
Dr Ernest Sternglass + + + +
Dr. Arjun Makajani + + + +
Dr. Judith Johnsrud + +
Dr. Michio Kaku + +
Amory Lovins +
Rosalie Bertell +
Dr. Jay Gould (Tooth fairy project) +
Chauncey Kepford
Dan Hirsch
Dr. Rudi Nussbaum
Steven Weinberg
William Au
Peter Bunyard
John P. Shanon
Karl Grossman
Noam Chomsky
Janette Sherman
Steve Wing
Carrie Dickerson
Dr. Gale Biggs, Meterologist
Dr. Harvey Nichols, Biologist
Dr Alexi Yablokov
Dr.Yuri Bandazhevsky
Professor Woods (The respondent wrote: "My Junior College professor years ago")
Gopi Krishna
David William Crockett
Alan Muller
Gary Zukav
Richard Wolfson
Jim Watson
The guys at Yale's Dept of bio-physics.
And:
Dr. Edward Teller as Dr. Strangelove + +
Several people wanted these people mentioned for the record, although all are deceased:
Joan Egloff Seeman + (dec.)
recently deceased Alice Stewart + + + + + + + +
recently deceased Edward Martell + +
Dr. Carl J. Johnson + ("sorry, is deceased")
Dr. Karl Z. Morgan
Dr. Albert Einstein
(One respondent put two entries down and added: "Myself, as my opinions were formed so long ago that most professors and authors that nurtured these positions are dead.")
(One respondent wrote these three names/comments:
Prof. Dr. Hans Peter Dürr ("head of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear
Physics and long time anti-nukes")
Dr. Lothar Hahn ("former head of the Oeko Institute Darmstadt, now head of
the GRS (Gesellschaft fuer Reaktorsicherheit))
"Someone whose name i cannot reveal here, because it is a whistleblower
who gave us important information concerning work on the Temelin NPP... in
this case a pro-nukes person, by the way...")
(One respondent wrote: "My influences were derived mainly from my own reading and my professors of biology, chemistry, and environmental studies")
(One respondent complained of the first two questions that they had many more names they would like to add.)
(2)
Name your three favorite living activists (may be the same people as in Question #1) who have influenced your own anti-nuclear ("pro-DNA") opinions:
Dr Helen Caldicott + + + +
Carrie Dickerson + + + (One respondent added: "The greatest person I have ever known is Carrie Dickerson who saw the evil before it could overtake Oklahoma.")
Noam Chomsky + +
Karl Grossman +
Ralph Nader +
Norm Cohen +
Dr. John Gofman +
Dr. Arjun Makajani +
Dan Hirsch +
Paul Leventhal +
Dr. Michio Kaku +
Tom Hayden +
Harvey Wasserman
David William Crockett
Alan Muller
Chief of the Yakimas Russell Jim
Dr. Rudi Nussbaum
Steven Segal
Amory Lovins
Michael Mariotte
Dee D'arrigo
Paul Gunter
Pam Solo
Bob Del Tredici
Jackie Cabasso
Dr. Toupadakis
Dr. Judith Johnsrud
John P Shannon
Rosalie Bertell
Frieda Berryhill
Lauren Moret
Ray Shaddis
Peter Bunyard
Shelton Walden
Vladimir Slivyak
John Stevens
Dan Hirsch
Susan Elofson-Hurst
Paula Elofson-Gardine
Paxus Calta ("NIRS, WISE")
Jan Beranek ("hnuti DUHA / Friends of the Earth CZ")
Eva Hlasova ("South Bohemian Mothers")
Stephanie Fraser
Starhawk
George Crocker
Pamela Blockey-O'Brien
Pat Ortmeyer
Rita Kilpatrick
Amy Goodman
Judy Treichel
Director Michael Miller
Marylia Kelly
Mr. Kim R. Grice
Jackie Cabasso
"My professors"
Mrs. Joan Egloff-Seeman (dec.)
(One respondent wrote: "None (with respect to all activists working for peace and disarmament)")
(3)
Name your three favorite organizations which have influenced your own anti-nuclear ("pro-DNA") opinions:
NIRS + + + + + + +
WISE / LAKA / NIRS (one entry)
Public Citizen + + + + +
CASE Citizens' Action for Safe Energy + + +
Greenpeace + +
Union of Concerned Scientists + +
IEER + +
Citizens Against Radiotoxic Pollution (CARP) +
FOE Friends of the Earth +
Physicians for Social Responsibility +
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space +
Abalone Alliance "(I'm biased) :)"
Downwinders
American Friends Service Committee
CND (England)
German Green Party
Environmental Information Network (EIN)
Livermore Action Group "(defunct)"
National Downwinder Alliance; Portland, OR
SECC
Environmental Information Network
Committee for Nuclear Responsibility (Gofman)
Womens' International League for Peace & Freedom
Unplug Salem
Earth First
Green Party
Critical Mass
Indigenous Environmental Network
Georgians for Clean Energy/Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia
Nuclear Energy Information Service
American Peace Test
Citizen Alert
The Ecologist Magazine
The PEACE House (OKC)
KRF
Grannies for Peace
VietNam Veterans Against War
North American Water Office
[Bulletin of?] Atomic Scientists
Federation of American Scientists
FOR
"not sure"
"My own work" (refers to the respondents' work)
One respondent listed these three:
NRC/DOE/Federal Government
State of Nevada Yucca Mountain Task Force
Nuclear Control Institute
Another respondent listed these three:
-U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1st Radiological Safety Support Unit, Eniwetok
1956-
-A.E.C.-
-N.R.C.-
One included these folks, with the comment shown:
NRC - The Enemy of Democracy
(4)
Has the anti-nuclear ("pro-DNA") movement gained ground, or lost ground, since the 9-11 tragedy?
_*****_*****_____ WE ARE DOING BETTER
_*****_*****_*****_*_ WE ARE DOING WORSE
BOTH: __**___________
DON'T KNOW: __**_________
(One respondent wrote: "Unfortunately here in the Czech Republic and in Central Europe ... it lost ground. But this is largely unrelated with 9-11.)
(Another person checked both and wrote: (In some ways I believe we are doing better, some worse, as in not taking advantige of the repubs being as evil as they are but quite a few of them questioning Dubya)
(One respondent wrote: "It's too soon to tell")
(One respondent added: "Stayed The Same: SAME")
(One respondent checked off "better" and added. "not necessarily by our work though". Another who checked off "better" added that if "about the same" was a choice, "I'd probably pick that")
(One respondent wrote: "Neither quite fits; I think that despite the pro-nuclear push of the present US administration, there'll never be another nuclear power plant in the USA -- unless the small vestige of democratic process we have is completely squashed (and this could happen). The anti-nuclear movement has in its favor the economics of nuclear power, the reality that nuclear power is polluting and non-sustainable, the terrorist threat, and the unsolved waste problem.")
(5)
Please rank these events by order of importance since 9-11 for the anti-nuclear ("pro-DNA") movement:
_________ NRC LIES ABOUT NUKE PLANTS RESISTANCE TO AIRPLANE STRIKES --SAYS THEY CAN RESIST SUCH AN ATTACK (SEPT. 11TH, 2001)
1_*****_*****__________
2_*****_***_______
3_*****_**___________
_________ NRC BACKS OFF ON LIE ABOUT NUKE PLANTS' RESISTANCE TO AIRPLANE STRIKES (ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER)
1_*****_**___________
2_****____________
3_*****_*****_*****_*_________
_________ NRC IGNORES SPENT FUEL POOLS, DRY STORAGE CASKS, AND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES IN CLAIMING HIGH RESISTANCE TO AIRPLANE STRIKES (ONGOING).
1__*****_*****_**_________
2__*****_*****_****_______
3_____________
(One respondent marked #3 as "1" and wrote: "Easily the most important." (This person also marked #1 as "3" and #2 as "2".))
(One respondent checked nothing off and wrote: "None of them had influence on the anti-nuclear discussion outside the USA...")
(One respondent wrote: "It's impossible to judge the importance of these events because very few people, other than anti- or pro-nuclear activists pay any attention to what the NRC does. In the overall scheme of things these are all so uninfluential that differences between them are meaningless.")
(6)
The nuclear industry is about to hold a "Nuclear Renaissance" meeting. The word "Renaissance" means "rebirth". In your opinion, does NRC Chairman Richard "Rich Rad" Meserve's planned keynote address at the meeting strongly imply that the NRC is not an unbiased regulator, but fully supports an expanded nuclear program in America?
_*****_*****_*****_*****_*****_*****___ YES
_*________ NO
(Two respondents didn't check anything off but wrote comments:
One wrote: "I think the NRC is biased in favor of nukes".
Another wrote: "Oh come on dude")
(One respondent checked off "Yes" and wrote: "Why do you bother to ask?", while another who checked off "Yes" added, "of course",)
(One respondent wrote "What else?" in the "YES" column. It was tabulated it as a "yes".)
(7)
In your opinion, what is the likelihood of a terrorist attack on our nuclear facilities in the next decade?
____________ % (0%=IMPOSSIBLE; 100%=INEVITABLE)
_*****_______100%
_***_________95%-99%
_***_________90%-94%
_****________85%-89%
_*__________80%-84%
_*****_*_____75%-79%
____________70%-74%
_*___________65%-69%
____________60%-64%
____________55%-59%
_**__________50%-54%
____________45%-49%
____________40%-44%
____________35%-39%
_*__________30%-34%
_*__________25%-29%
_**_________20%-24%
____________15%-19%
____________10%-14%
_*___________5%-9%
____________0%-4%
_*_________ ? (one person put a question mark in this box)
(One respondent wrote: "difficult to predict/ dangerous to make this type of
predictions". They checked off "likely" for the next question.)
(One respondent wrote: (Foreign government led terrorists 30% US government led terrorists 99.9%).)
(One respondent wrote: "all we can do is pray")
(8)
In your opinion, what is the likelihood of a catastrophic accident at a nuclear facility in the next decade?
_*****_*****_***__ EXTREMELY LIKELY
_*****_**___ VERY LIKELY
_*****_*****_*__ LIKELY
_*____ NOT LIKELY
_*____ IMPROBABLE
_____ IMPOSSIBLE
(One respondent checked off "LIKELY" and placed question marks on "EXTREMELY LIKELY" and "VERY LIKELY")
(One respondent didn't check off anything, but wrote: "I don't know about the next decade but it seems that this is the inevitable way in which the nuclear age will finally end.")
(9)
Rank these events in order of which you think would be worse (1=most severe; 4=least severe):
_______ A MELTDOWN OF A REACTOR NEAR A MAJOR CITY
1_*****_*___________
2_*****_*****_*______
3_*****_***_________
4_**______________
_______ A NUCLEAR BOMB OVER A MAJOR CITY
1_*****_*****_*****_**___
2_*****_**____________
3_*_________________
4_***________________
_______ A JUMBO JET CRASHING ONTO A SPENT FUEL POOL
1_****___________
2_*****_**________
3_*****_*****_***___
4_***____________
_______ A JUMBO JET CRASHING INTO A DRY CASK STORAGE UNIT
1___________________
2_**_________________
3_*****_*_____________
4_*****_*****_*****_****__
(Two respondents check "1" for all four (not tabulated, above). One of these added:
(G Dub getting re-elected would be all of the below listed))
(Another respondent didn't check any of them and wrote: "Don't know science to evaluate realistically.)
(Another respondent put question marks next to the first three entries and a "4" next to the fourth. That entire question's response was left out of the tally.)
(10)
If all the nuclear power plants were shut down tomorrow, do you think we would "freeze in the dark"?
_**_____ YES
_*****_*****_*****_*****_*****_*****__ NO
If yes, please explain why you feel that way:
"The question is simplistic. Would we all "freeze in the dark" - likely no;
would the economy, lifestyles and the health and security of the nation be
affected - absolutely yes. There would be deaths and deprivations directly
attributable to the immediate loss of twenty percent of electric generation
in the United States regardless of the source of that generation. Depriving
any system of twenty percent of its energy input produces sytemic (sic) effects."
"Short term pain because of America's consumption habits; adapting to new
circumstances+ concerted alternative energy effeorts would solve the problem."
(One respondent didn't check off anything but wrote, "Depends where you live")
(One respondent checked off "NO" but wrote, "Because we live near DOE's NREL, one of us worked as a secretary in the alternative fuels technology section. There are other renewable technologies available. The major oil and nuclear companies have paid to keep this from becoming a well known or usable energy strategy because it will be "bad for their business", so they'd rather pollute us as a consequence. Besides, why should they allow nonpolluting technologies that are harder to charge for become a reality, when they only care about their "profit margin", not the consumer.")
Here is bonus question #1:
(11) Please indicate, by rank, which of these news items were the five most media-censored nuclear news items since the 9-11 tragedy, among those listed (1 = most censored, 2 = second-most censored, 3 = third-most censored, etc.):
(Note: In the tally below, one person checked off all entries with either "1", "2", or "3". These marks are indicated below with a "#" in the appropriate group. A few numbered all entries, and these have been indicated in parenthesis for the higher numbers.)
__ NRC ignores spent fuel pools, dry storage casks, and transportation vehicles in claiming resistance to airplane strikes
1_*****_**_#________
2_***______________
3_*_______________
4_________________
5_****______________ (14)
__ Licensing streamline Part 2
1__#____________
2__*_____________
3__**____________
4__**____________
5__*_____________ (9)
__ Removal of public docs from NRC services
1_#______________
2_**______________
3__*_____________
4__*_____________ (10)
__ 60 billion dollar Yucca Mtn dump
1_______________
2__*_____________
3__**_#__________ (17)
__ Energy policy push
1__***_#_________
2_______________
3_______________
4_______________
5__*_____________ (18)
__ DOE recycling restarted
1_*______________
2_*______________
3_**_#______________ (6) (6) (8)
__ South Carolina blockaded plutonium from Rocky Flats
1_______________
2_**_#____________
3_______________(8) (8)
__ Utah judge nearly allows hlw as llw
1_*______________
2_______________
3_*_#____________
4_*______________ (5) (8) (12) (One respondent wrote: "??" for this entry -- perhaps unaware that hlw stands for High Level Waste and llw stands for Low Level Waste.)
__ PFS deal to Utah senators for voting against yucca
1_______________
2_______________
3_#_____________
4_______________
5_**____________ (7) (15) (18)
__ BNFL is bankrupt owns URenco which wants to build new diffusion plant
1_______________
2_______________
3__#____________
4__*____________ (13) (13)
__ Plutonium going to Envirocare's ll Waste dump site
1_***____________
2_______________
3_*_#____________
4_*_*___________ (9) (9)
__ BE nearly bankrupt
1_______________
2_______________
3_*_#___________ (12) (14)
__ PBMR dies with AP1000 Cert being pushed now by BNFL
1_______________
2_______________
3__#____________ (7) (13) (17)
__ TVA goes for opening old Browns Ferry nuke
1_______________
2__***___________
3__#____________
4_**_____________ (10) (11) (12)
__ Plans to build at older sites
1_*_#___________
2_______________
3_______________
4_*_____________ (6) (10) (11)
__ Japan company caught lying about accident reports
1_*_#____________
2_*______________
3__**____________
4__*_____________
5__*_____________ (14) (15) (16)
__ State of California okays dumping n-waste at commercial dumps
1_______________
2_**_____________
3_*_#____________
4_**_____________
5_*______________ (7)
__ Indian Pt. concerns never make it outside of east coast news area
1______________
2______________
3_** #__________
4__*____________
5__*____________ (11) (16)
(One respondent wrote:
"not sure, they were all heavily censored here in Japan!")
(Another didn't check off anything here and wrote, "I do not follow mainstream media." (It should be noted that that wouldn't have helped -- rdh))
(Another respondent wrote, "Note: The above very long list is replete with acronyms, some of which I do not understand (maybe everyone close to nuclear power issues day by day does). Some of these things I am very familiar with, some less so, some not at all. I'm inclined (other than my vote numbers 1 and 2) to vote for items that I deem important that have escaped my notice and thus must be under-reported -- though I get a lot of news, especially on things nuclear, from non-mainstream sources.")
Here is bonus question #2 (suggested by Paula Elofson-Gardine):
(12) Rank the following environmental scams of the past two decades by DOE by order of how disgusted they make you feel (1=most disgusting practice, 5=least disgusting practice (among those shown)):
__ Renaming heavily polluted nuclear sites to sound "environmentally friendly".
1__**___________
2__**___________
3_______________
4_**_____________
5_***____________
__ Refusing to own up to the extent of contamination.
1_**_____________
2_______________
3_**_____________
4_***____________
5__**____________
__ Lobbying for EPA and State regulatory agencies to create more lenient standards for "accelerated cleanups" (a/k/a down and dirty, away we go).
1__**____________
2__**____________
3__**____________
4__*_____________
5__**____________
__ Conducting "prescribed burns" to move contamination off of the sites, and into nearby communities.
1______________
2_**____________
3_***___________
4_**____________
5_**____________
__ Having these sites designated as "wildlife refuges" (a/k/a feelgood nuclear petting zoos) complete with planned tours for the kiddies and hunting of nuclear contaminated wildlife.
1_***__________
2_***__________
3_**___________
4_*____________
(One respondent didn't check any of these off and wrote: " I can't choose. They're all profoundly disgusting/sickening.")
Here is bonus question #3 (suggested by Bob Nichols):
(13) Although it is assumed that people responding to this survey feel that one nuclear catastrophe is one too many, it is nevertheless widely assumed that the nuclear industry is ready to spin-doctor a catastrophic nuclear accident such as a meltdown. But surely they would not be able to put a happy "spin" on multiple accidents. How many catastrophic nuclear accidents do you think it would take to shut the nuclear industry down forever?
___ One
_**__ Two
_*****__ Many (Fill in the number here: ________ )
Comments:
One person simply checked "many" but did not specify how many.
(One respondent who checked "many" added:
"I think that that there will have to be a number of successive TMI type accidents for the nuke industry to not be able to spin itself into happy land, but only one very serious one such as a spent fuel fire to shut it down with extremely hard work on our part in education of what really is at stake."
(Another who also checked "many" added:
"2 nukes or 2 casks, I think_")
(Another who also checked "many" added:
"2 nukes an/or 2 nuclear waste casks")
(Another who also checked "many" added:
"3 NPP and/or 4 reactor core transports The nuke industry can successfully paper-over any less than that because they are really pros at manipulating gullible people. We are amateurs by comparison.")
(One respondent who checked "many" added: "ONE MAJOR ACCIDENT IN EACH "MAJOR" NUCLEAR POWER COUNTRY")
(One respondent who checked 2 added: "I'll Check This Line")
================================================
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
================================================
Tabulated by Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) 2002 by Russell D. Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.