Mr. Sevoir doesn't need to be directly connected to the nuclear industry for making a point out of the fact that he - and many other physicists - has nearly identical beliefs as the industry communicate.

I think it's a issue of self interest. Of course they want society to increase their budgets and become more interested in their fields of expertise.

At my faculty, those involved with nuclear very often have almost an copernician view of the possibilities within their field. They basically believe that the resource base is infinite and that all technical problems (e.g. waste) undoubtedly will be solved.

Sometimes it's hard to tell - did they teach econ classes in a previous life?

Martin Sevoir's speciality is particle physics, not nuclear. He, together with scientists from various specialities, conducted an impartial investigation into the issues surrounding nuclear power under peer-review.

They did indeed use data from the nuclear industry as this tends to be high quality, being independently audited or peer-reviewed. They also consider data from nuclear detractors (Storm/Smith), geologists (Ken Deffeyes) and the companies that actually mine the uranium (Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton).

The fact that a study with no hidden agenda weighed the evidence and concluded that the anti-nuclear arguments were lacking and that the nuclear industry's have substance is noteworthy and I'm glad you acknowledge it, Miquel.

Interesting, so global warming isn't happening then, right? After all, only those pesky climate scientists say it is, and of course their research funding under the extremely liberal Bush administration is linked to them finding critical environmental problems that will cripple the fossil fuel industry, right?

How about peak oil, clearly that isn't happening either, as only the geologists and scientists say it is. For every scientists who believes this, Exxon can show you 50 hairdressers who do not.

Science isn't a popularity contest. 99.99% of the people who know anything about the field concluded that the Reimann hypothesis was true about 100 years ago, and yet a mere vote isn't enough, they still are trying to show it.

Here's my idea. If some tenured professor who answers to nobody (even his students perhaps), and spent his life studying a field you haven't the foggiest clue about says a thing is true, and the rest of these scientists agree with him, and they put their research out there where you could review it if you had the skills and inclination, perhaps it is more prudent to believe that it is probably true than to believe that it must therefore be false.

The greens and the right wing could really learn from each other, well, already have I guess. The greens complain about the wingnuts dismissing every shred of scientific evidence with respec to global warming, while simultaniously doing exactly the same thing with respect to nuclear power. Funny how life works.

Pardon, I now see that my post omitted some statements.

The observations I shared with TOD, which I'm quite sure other physicists on TOD share, was mainly about the behaveor and the way they argue. There is no room for doubt and they uncritically postulate that all problems will be solved within the necessary timeframe.

It's a slighly unintelligent and counterproductive retoric because it repels many people who may potentially be in favour of nuclear.

Science isn't a popularity contest.

A somewhat amusing comment BTW. You know, there is quite a lot of academics who have studied the scientific community which more or less conclude, loosely speaking, that science in fact is a popularity contest. Of course, there are other scholars which oppose such views. I guess what you has been told about science mainly depends on who's outnumbering who :)

But of course, the above scheme is not absolute. Many times minor positions gain ground on basis of the contents of the arguments.

It's easier for "science" to avoid being a popularity contest in some fields. I'm not quite convinced that e.g. predictive climate science is one of them. Too much politics and orthodoxy.

(I'd briefly like to mention that i favour all carbon reducing measures. I live in norway, love tax.)