Emerson Lynn On Politics

Politics vs Truth

    It is axiomatic that when a nuclear power plant requests a 20-year extension beyond its 40-year design that the public be assured of its safety. Few things could be more obvious, and, as such the Vermont Legislature passed and the governor signed legislation to conduct such an audit.
    The audit is to be done by the Department of Public Service and a Public Oversight Panel. The law requires that the governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Pro Tempore each pick one member, then, the three picked have the option of selecting the other two. 
    Together, they are to produce an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee’s safety, and address the fundamental issue, which is whether the Legislature should vote to extend Vermont Yankee’s license for another 20 years.
    Considering the fact that Vermont Yankee provides Vermonters with a third of its energy, and at a price far below that being bought on the open market, the assessment is critically important to the state’s energy/economic future.   
    But for an assessment to have validity, those who put it together must be above reproach in terms of required skill sets, objectivity and honesty.
    That validity is at risk – if not already thoroughly discredited.

    Senate Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin announced this week that his selection was Arnold Gunderson, a former nuclear power industry executive whose opposition to nuclear power is well documented.
    Here is Mr. Gunderson’s viewpoint in his own words: “Vermont is known for its purity: its clean air, clean lakes, fresh snowfall and four-season tourism. We are known for our natural organic foods, pure maple syrup, flavorful honey, fresh eggs, creamy butter, a variety of rich cheeses and natural yogurts, ice cream, maple vodka, fall foliage, hiking and skiing. Now try selling Vermont’s purity to tourists and consumers when we are stuck with a nuclear waste dump or suffer the results of a leak or accident at an aging Vermont Yankee.”
    Vermonters do need to know that Vermont Yankee is safe. But is Mr. Gunderson capable of convincing Vermonters that he has no bias, that he can look at Vermont Yankee objectively?
    Consider the concluding sentence in the same article written by Mr. Gunderson: “I would rather see windmills on ridgelines and solar panels reflecting across all Vermont roofs than risk the environmental purity of our state to the silent menace of radioactive contamination.”
    And we are supposed to believe that Mr. Gunderson himself isn’t the contaminant in the process?
    Gaye Symington, Speaker of the House and Democratic candidate for governor, appointed Peter Bradford, who also has credentials as someone intimately familiar with the industry, and who also has a demonstrated bias against nuclear power. Consider the following quote from Mr. Bradford: “Nuclear power’s asserted comeback rests not on a newfound competitiveness in power plant construction, but on an old formula: subsidy, tax breaks, licensing shortcuts, guaranteed purchases with risks borne by customers, political muscle, ballyhoo and pointing to other countries [once the Soviet Union, now China] to indicate that the U.S. is ‘falling behind.’”
    And this passes for a credible observer whose task it is to tell us whether Vermont Yankee is safe, or not?
    If the three people selected are to pick another two and if the majority rules, can we then expect that the other two will hold a similar bias?
    The point of the law was to inaugurate a scientific process whereby Vermonters would be able to trust the information provided. That has been jeopardized by Ms. Symington’s and Mr. Shumlin’s selections. Instead of a process driven by scientific inquiry, it will be driven by politics.
    With Mr. Shumlin involved that should be no surprise. He has steadfastly opposed Vermont Yankee at every turn for the past two years. Ms. Symington is not too far behind.
    But what’s odd is that their political strategy may end up neutralizing their cause. If they were intending to use Mr. Bradford and Mr. Gunderson to oppose the relicensing of Vermont Yankee, they may have just lost.
    If we know at the outset that both oppose Vermont Yankee specifically, and nuclear power in general, then why should Vermonters trust anything they write or say?
    That puts Vermonters in the worst of all spots. The issue of Vermont Yankee’s safety is paramount in any discussion as to whether the nuclear power plant should be relicensed. Yet, Mr. Shumlin and Ms. Symington have worked to discredit any conclusions the panel may promulgate.
    This is precisely the sort of political behavior that Americans find so abhorrent. People want to know that they are being told the truth, that they can depend on the information provided as being honest. 
    It may be that Vermont Yankee is unsafe. It may be that Vermont Yankee would fail the tests as outlined by the statute. But by selecting panel members with severe biases, that truth could be ignored. We may never know. All Vermont Yankee needs to do is put forth the obvious – that the conclusions can’t be trusted because those doing the work can’t be trusted.
    What has been gained?
    Nothing.
    Once again, politics triumphs and the truth suffers. Mr. Shumlin’s and Ms. Symington’s biases also may have been exposed. Are they so fearful of the truth that they needed to stack the deck?
by Emerson Lynn

   

Comments

[G. Cross]

Guess Emerson forgot to mention one other litle fact about this panel. According to the BFP Governor Douglas made the following appointment:

"Gov. Jim Douglas appointed Lawrence Hochreiter, a Pennsylvania State University professor who worked for Westinghouse, a leading firm in the nuclear industry, for 26 years."

Selective reporting again???

Emerson writes: "Once again, politics triumphs and the truth suffers."

The inability to marshal change for one's benefit is the stuff of captive minds.

Politics triumphs truth and captive minds triumphs good politics.