I am thinking of a Nuclear Compass. We can basically take each of De's talking points (and sub-points) and ask people to state whether they (strongly) agree or disagree with each of them [4 options only). Then I can run a statistical analysis and construct a spectrum of opinion.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

you mean her ability to round up information that is not in your energy proposal for the dems?

<snark>

if the so-called pragmatists win out on this one, and billions that could have gone into renewables and conservation get funnelled into these retro-behemoths, at leat we can keep our eyes open through taking on board the human import of what the history and facts betray, (as antidote to the gyroscopic spin we will be subjected to by the corporate media).

are you disputing any facts here, jerome, or asking deanander to be more 'fair and balanced'?

we already have plenty of aplogists for nukes repped here; i for one am heartily relieved to see dodo and deanander speaking up for sanity.

without them this site would be sad indeed, as would the majority's tendency to 'amory lovins' on this issue.

while bush distracts us with his 'wot' we are in another much bigger one, a war on ignorance, ignorance that leaves us terribly manipulatable, and totally unprepared for what looms ahead.

you laugh at britain's absurdly slow response to her obvious coming shortfall, but aren't we all in similar boats in the rest of europe?

if this was the blitz, we would drop everything and work together unpaid to protect our loved ones.

i think we need to do the same now, but instead of bomb shelters in the underground, we need to insulate our houses and provide micropower sources on as wide a base as we presently provide water and the phone.

if there were the will, it could be done.

until the consequences of our gullibility stare us in the face even more, diaries like this, (and intelligent discussion around their points,) are pretty much all we have to fight back against the westinghouses and bechtels (and their puppet shills like t. bliar) who don't give a ff about anything else than their own blind, greedy profits.

sorry to rant, but this issue really galls me bigtime.

humans without any bias don't exist, or are decision-incapable.

you stand up for your beliefs here, and your bias to wind is one of the giant magnets keeping me glued to your site.

thankyou for this, and i'll thankyou even more, if you were to adopt a line closer to deanander and dodo's.

some things are harder to put in graphs!

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

absolutely -- "objective" journalism is something I neither aspire to nor believe in, though "trying to be fair" is on my list of desiderata.  my own bias is openly advertised in the title and in my previous short comments on energy, food, transport etc.:  in favour of light/low, light/high, or heavy/low tech, against heavy/high tech;  against Taylorism, monocroppery, massive centralisation and authoriarian control;  pessimistic about Peak Oil and geopolitical stability over the 50 year timeframe;  pro-localisation as a hedge bet against social/econ disruption and dislocation due to PO;  against gigantism and Pharaonic projects, whether financial, architectural, or energy-related;  absolutely incredulous (read:  flabbergasted) about infinite-growth economic or energy models;  and optimistic about the viability and satisfaction of life at greatly reduced burn rates.

all the above positioning on various meme grids adds up  to a skepticism about nuclear energy which I'm trying to describe and discuss.  and where else but ET is there any chance of having a civil and informative discussion?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...