Understanding the Lie of the Anti-nuclear Activist

While reading my Google Alerts today, I came across a gem of a blog entitled, Understanding the Lie Of The Nuclear Cycle.

It occurs to me that there are plenty of reasons to be against just about any source of energy, be it fossil fuels (CO2), nuclear (waste), or even wind (ecological impact), solar (toxic waste), or hydro (migratory fish). But when the facts aren't sensational enough to stir up emotional opposition, the anti-(fill in the blank) need only make something up.

Take cancer rates for instance.

We've all heard the far-fetched claims of often-debunked pediatrician-turned-nuclear-expert Helen Caldicott before: Cancer rates are higher around nuclear facilities. But the questions she can never answer, even when asked face to face: If your claims are true, then why do medical studies, such as the one performed by Johns Hopkins University of over 30,000 nuclear workers, show no increase in cancer rates - even for the people who work closest with this radioactive material? Why aren't the thousands of nuclear workers who have been working in commercial nuclear power plants for the last 40 years not dropping like overripe grapefruits? And why do the people of France, where 80% of the power is provided by nuclear, have the *lowest* cancer and infant mortality rates and the longest life expectancy in all of Europe? Why is that?

Probably some French-government cover-up or Bush conspiracy, huh?

Understanding the Lie of the Anti-nukes: If the facts aren't compelling enough, just make something up.