From the blogs

I used to work in the nuclear power business (Shoreham, NY) and came to realize after attending more than a few commercial power license hearings even well reasoned cautions were always intended to function as obstructions. Once a complaint lost it's value as an obstruction it was rapidly abandoned for the next insurmountable issue.

If environmentalists (which I assume includes the author of this "cautionary" piece) wish to regain any credibility with technical people, they might consider whether their global warming narrative might require reconsidering the use of nuclear power. Either that or just embrace your Luddite heritage and carry on in your best Cassandra tradition (after all "greens" have been heralding the end of the world for years).

- Night2night, New York Times "Green". September 1, 2010

Can scientists be advocates? Yes they can be both, at the same time, provided they do not step beyond science in their advocacy. Indeed critics of climate science can go beyond science in their advocacy, If mark of the scientist advocate is the recognition of probability in their assertions. Science deals with an uncertain world, in which a probability exists that the science my be wrong. That means that scientists must be open to new evidence, but it does not mean that scientists should ignore the preponderance of evidence. And in issues like climate change the preponderance of evidence does not lie with climate change theory critics. Likewise, the preponderance of evidence does not lie with the critics of nuclear power.

- Charles Barton. The Energy Collective, Pondering the Role of Scientists. August 31, 2010.