How should US nuclear respond to a favorable Trump administration?

[Marlin]

How should US nuclear respond to a favorable Trump administration?


https://medium.com/third-way/how-should-us-nuclear-respond-to-a-favorable-trump-administration-ac349b3364a1#.utkwjwhh2

[Ksheed]

How should US nuclear respond to a favorable Trump administration?


https://medium.com/third-way/how-should-us-nuclear-respond-to-a-favorable-trump-administration-ac349b3364a1#.utkwjwhh2

Did you read this garbage before you posted it?

[Marlin]

Did you read this garbage before you posted it?

Yes, I post news not necessarily my opinion. It is the perspective of an anti-nuclear environmentalist convert so I would expect some deviation from a long time nuclear supporter. He cites Rod Adams a long time nuclear insider and advocate whom I would believe you would agree with more.

http://atomicinsights.com/

[GLW]

Did you read this garbage before you posted it?

as evidenced here, from the article:

....Because unless people believe you on your values, your facts and evidence can go to hell....


if ever there was an arguement against universal suffrage, the above should be it,...

[Ksheed]

as evidenced here, from the article:

....Because unless people believe you on your values, your facts and evidence can go to hell....


if ever there was an arguement against universal suffrage, the above should be it,...

What it really means.... Because unless people agree with you on your values, your facts and evidence can go to hell....

[Ksheed]

Yes, I post news not necessarily my opinion. It is the perspective of an anti-nuclear environmentalist convert so I would expect some deviation from a long time nuclear supporter. He cites Rod Adams a long time nuclear insider and advocate whom I would believe you would agree with more.

http://atomicinsights.com/

I guess we may vary on what we classify as "news". Sounds more like a hidden agenda, opinion piece to me. I guess I was surprised since you posted it without a disclaimer. The author loses all credibility for inserting half-truth statements (at best) that are intended to intensify political infighting. 

I hope instead you will seek positive developments for the sector. I acknowledge you have a responsibility to do so and the world badly needs it. But at every step, tell us why. Tell us the values that underpin that call and then be consistent with those values. Tell us what makes it worth it and tell us what you will not stand for. If in a position of relative strength, defend, visibly and vocally, those in relative weakness. Defend science and the crucial role of evidence and open discourse. Defend human rights. If the actions and attitudes of the administration towards select groups, such as women or those from Muslim nations are antithetical to your values, call it out.

[Marlin]

I guess we may vary on what we classify as "news". Sounds more like a hidden agenda, opinion piece to me. I guess I was surprised since you posted it without a disclaimer. The author loses all credibility for inserting half-truth statements (at best) that are intended to intensify political infighting. 

I agree but not to listen to opposing sides on perspective is not having an open mind on the issue. If it were not for carbon he would not be as much of an advocate. I am a Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic so am in opposition to the author in his reasoning for becoming a nuclear advocate but he has identified an eternal problem with nuclear and that is public education on the science. We do agree that nuclear is the greenest power source but for different reasons. I don't want to go much further in this to prevent sending it to PolySci, but this would be a good discussion on left right perspectives.