More & More Evidence Exposing 'Cozy' Relationships Between Pro Nuclear Lobby & Universities

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/

From the article:

Strong words.

But they're not Landsberger's. Nor are the other 633 words that appeared in the Statesman that morning under Landsberger's byline. "It was something which was written for me," Landsberger told me later on the phone. "I agreed with it, I went over it, read it a couple of times, took all of 15, 20 minutes."

The op-ed was ginned up, assembly-line style, by a Washington, D.C., public relations firm that the nuclear power lobby retains to tilt public opinion in favor of the stalled Yucca Mountain project. (Unmentioned in Landsberger's plea for official rectitude are the myriad of unresolved scientific, technical, and legal questions about the viability of burying high-level waste in Nevada.) Besides reading and approving the column, all Landsberger did to take credit for authorship was insert his name and position at UT, and forward it via e-mail to the Statesman – even that address provided by the PR firm. (He also sent the column to several other Texas newspapers, none of which printed it.)

On Tuesday, the Statesman published a letter from Landsberger apologizing for his misrepresentation.

Landsberger says he doesn't know who actually wrote his column. He received it, via e-mail, from an employee at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. (Landsberger emphasized that he believed the employee, whom he wouldn't name, sent him the column as a private citizen, rather than on behalf of the national lab.) Nor was this the first time; when it comes to deceiving newspaper readers on behalf of a stealth nuclear lobbying campaign, Landsberger is an acknowledged recidivist. "I've been doing this four or five years," he says. "They [op-ed columns] come from Oak Ridge maybe two or three times a year, particularly when there's a hot-button issue."

Landsberger's accomplice is Theodore M. Besmann, an Oak Ridge employee since 1985. Besmann is a prolific correspondent. Beginning at least as far back as 1978, he has had published under his own or others' names dozens of nuclear love songs in newspapers across the country, from The New York Times to the San Francisco Chronicle to The Washington Post to the Houston Chronicle to The Christian Science Monitor ("Nuclear: The Environment's Friend," appeared in the Monitor in 1994).

None but a blockhead, Samuel Johnson said, writes for free. Ted Besmann is no blockhead. He moonlights as a paid consultant to Potomac Communications Group, the Washington PR firm that works for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's stentorian voice and lobby. The NEI's current primary concern – besides beating the congressional bushes for tax breaks and subsidies for nuclear power – is opening the atomic garbage dump at Yucca Mountain. Many of the nation's 103 reactors are running out of on-site storage space for their spent fuel rods, the NEI says, and may have to close if the Energy Department doesn't soon open the Yucca Mountain facility.

To spread its message, the electric utility-funded NEI relies on generous campaign contributions to key members of Congress, virtually unbridled access to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and academic "experts" who prostitute their reputations and those of their universities.

_______________________________________

'Prostitute' is the applicable word here.

Directing Public Opinion

To what extent do US Government employees, as a part of their paid job activities, actively manage 'the news'.

How many of these federal employees might be employed in federal law enforcement agencies?

Suppose that a reader opinion expressed in a blog or op-ed is considered unacceptable by these federal opinion influencers.

In what ways would these federal employees respond? Would the response be coordinated or individual in nature?

Plagiarism is academic dishonesty

Interesting, very interesting

Say, don't college freshmen get expelled for plagiarism?

Plagiarism is academic dishonesty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38708-2004Apr24?language=printer

"I started searching LexisNexis and other databases for op-eds written by academics the NEI touts as experts. I printed out a healthy sampling, grouping them chronologically and by subject area. Searching on key phrases led me to other academics' op-eds. Once sorted, it didn't take a forensic crime lab to determine that one person's literary DNA is all over those articles.

Take the argument that the increased use of nuclear power leads to fewer greenhouse-gas emissions. Op-eds on that subject, for instance, ran between 1997 and 1999 with different bylines in three newspapers. Each writer dismissed the claims of "environmentalists" or "skeptics" that greenhouse-gas emissions "can be reduced" without nuclear power. "They are dreaming," said one op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 2, 1997. Yes, concurred another in the Record of Northern New Jersey on Jan. 5, 1998: "They are dreaming." And Dallas Morning News readers awoke on April 5, 1999, to learn from Landsberger that those lazy enviros were still in the sack: "They are dreaming," he wrote."

http://journalism-issues.blogspot.com/2005/10/advertising-fairs-report-o...

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/

Truth

Is where you find it. Truth is not an abstract in the mind. Analyzing human behavior IS an abstract. Whatever the funding and company kept, UCB NSE has consistently shown a consistent effort to test (critical for trend data and modeling) while the plutocratic media both ignored the event and buried any mention of fallout. The other corporate errand boy, the EPA, ran from the scene of this international crime. Many of us watched in disgust as they turned, sprinted, and became opaque. As an independent agency tasked with working for the public good the EPA has now shown themselves as deeply compromised. Flexible budgeting for increased demand from the public for dialog would have been a start. Instead we have an insult added to the injury.

The environmental damage done in the areas tested by UCB NSE shows pervasive and possibly profound fallout distribution when the potential for bio accumulation, on-going fallout from increasing criminal burning of radioactive waste and on-going emissions from fukudai are considered. It is STILL early days for the fukudai disaster. While not perfect, a great deal of the data we have so far, and much of the public dialog, has been courtesy of the UCB NSE testing and this forum.

The real test for USB NSE will be in figuring out how to maintain funding when the vast majority demands an end to all things nuclear. Perhaps this forum is also their laboratory.

I suggest we continue a critical focus, mindful of vested interests, AND continue our exploration of this disaster.

This is not evidence at all.

This is not evidence at all.

You mean it's the latest evidence trickling in.

Piling high upon what we've known for a very long time.

http://fairewinds.com/content/nrc-coziness-industry

Not that your baseless rejection wasn't thoroughly compelling lol

You reference a news article

You reference a news article from years ago and a congressional report from 24 years ago. Neither show cozy relationships between nuclear lobby and universities. There are very few scientists that are against nuclear power because the science is pretty clear that it is an extremely useful power source. Universities tend to agree with what the nuclear power industry wants because the only people who would be against nuclear power at universities would be the environmentalists. But they are against everything.

Is that right?

"You reference a news article from years ago and a congressional report from 24 years ago. Neither show cozy relationships between nuclear lobby and universities."
_______________________________________

(This is a wonderful illustration of the kind of 'blinders' that you have to wear in order to make these defensive cases for the Nuclear Industry)
_______________________________________

Which of the 2 links I provided is a better example for your statement?

1) The one titled: Will Shill for Nukes - Decommissioning the nuclear lobby's phony op-ed campaign

(By William M. Adler, Fri., April 16, 2004 From the Austin Chronicle)

OR

2) The US House Of Representatives Report titled "NRC Coziness With Industry" Which Conclusions begin with:

"Over the past several years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has demonstrated an unhealthy empathy for the needs of the Nuclear Industry to the detriment of the safety of the American People."

?

Which one of those 'better' make your case?

I hope you choose the 2nd one and lay claim that 'the report was not about the Nuclear Lobby or Universities- it was about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing the dirty work of the Nuclear Industry."

To which I would reply- "...well it's a good thing none of the Universities or Lobbyists do business with the Nuclear Industry or it's errand boys, the NRC, isn't it?!"

You do realize the NRC

You do realize the NRC changed after Chernobyl. Claiming that 24 years after Chernobyl the NRC is the same as it was, is clearly you wanting to hold onto an idea which is no longer true. Have any evidence of a cozy relationship from modern times?

You do realize the tide is turning?

I can't speak for the person you are debating with, but I can tell you that the tide is turning. See the thread " TAKING IT TO THE STREETS Nuclear fears reawaken mass anger".
After the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters, why would any thinking human being still argue for nuke power?
TWO horrific disasters, and some close calls, aren't enough?