Comment by K. Maute: Another "expert" talking out of both sides of his mouth. Spouting that there needs to be a fair and balanced analysis of fact then concluding that no ban is needed while the analysis is conducted. It's similar to VUI saying let the science speak, and when it does as was the case in the Viirginia Beach study, it wasn't their kind of science. "The committee needs to provide a fair and balanced analysis of the science and the technology. We need facts, not fiction. We need peer reviewed studies, not anecdotes." "...it makes no sense to keep the ban in place." Is this the same Randy Randol? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arthur_G._Randol_III, Arthur G. Randol III, known as Randy Randol, was a lobbyist/senior environmental advisor at ExxonMobil until retiring at the end of 2003. In 1998, Randol was a member of the 1998 Global Climate Science Communications Team whose leaked memo laid out plans for a climate disinformation campaign. In 2001, Randol lobbied for the removal of Robert Watson as IPCC head.[2], [3]; Watson was replaced with Rajendra Pachauri a year later. The memo, titled "Global Climate Science - Issues for 2001", can be seen on the NRDC's website.[4]
To the editor:
I am a nuclear engineer and a member of the Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment. We are committed to assuring that the policies adopted by Virginia are based on rigorously peer-reviewed science and realistic economics.
The committee needs to provide a fair and balanced analysis of the science and the technology. We need facts, not fiction. We need peer reviewed studies, not anecdotes.
RANDY RANDOL
Richmond,VA
To read more nuke myths:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/feb/23/scientist-mining-ban-not-needed-ar-860468/
