“I do find it somewhat ironic that people who argue that we can’t trust high-level nuclear industry executives because they are all lying to us to protect their industry are also arguing that we should trust a former high-level exec from that same industry whose NEW job depends on him trashing the nuclear industry.”
I was pointing to TEPCO’s history of falsifying safety records - the company does not have a good reputation> I have not seen anything implicating Arnold Gunderson in anything similar. I think there is reason to be skeptical when choosing between the company that can be held liable and lose millions of dollars and people like Gunderson who will not. Some experts agree with Arnie and some do not. I put the info out there and let FReepers decide but I wonder if I should start labeling most of the Japanese Gov officials and all of the TEPCO spokespersons names and press releases with (PRO NUKE) if FReepers find it necessary to dismiss Gunderson as ANTI-NUKE. Happens alot - I post something and a pro nuke FReeper will post “Note that Fairewinds/Gunderson is ANTI NUKE” as if that means ‘nothing to see here -unreliable information’ but the company with a history of abusing the public trust, TEPCO, never receives the formal label “PRO NUKE”. So If I start labeling, that way both sides would be represented in my posts. For example, parents (ANTI NUKE) horrified by the government’s (PRO NUKE) decisions to up the radiation exposure acceptable for their children at school sent contaminated dirt from the school yard to those officials - that just may work.
I think it is clear to everybody that TEPCO is “pro-nuclear”. They built and run nuclear power plants. So, as you say, you take what they say with some skepticism; so do most of us.
On the other hand, most people have no idea who Gunderson is, and when he IS identified in an article it is almost always just as a former nuclear executive, suggesting he was a pro-nuclear person, and also giving him credence. They never say he is the head of an organization whose job it is to provide help to people suing to stop nuclear power.
Now, I suppose the name of the company “Fairewinds”, might be some clue, but you can’t just look at that name and know what their business is, like you can with TEPCO.
So yes, I feel it is important wherever Gunderson is posted to point out that he does have a point of view, and moreso he has money at stake based on his position. It might not be as much money as TEPCO, but relative to the size of his company, I’d say he has MORE to gain attacking nuclear power through this incident than TEPCO could ever gain by trying to stonewall the dangers that will, if true, become abundantly clear long before they are clear of the monetary responsibility.
I won’t try to argue your point about TEPCO having a “history” of falsifying records, because it seems they do so a bit moreso than others. But I would point out that, at least here in the states, the excessive government regulations and strong-arm regulatory agencies pretty much guarantees that every business of reasonable size is going to have a lot of these “black marks”.
That’s why whenever there is a mine accident, you will read stories about hundreds of safety issues with the mine — because you can’t find a mine that hasn’t been written up hundreds of times. I presume the regulators are measured based on how many things they can write up, like a cop meeting a ticket quota.
Again, TEPCO appears to be worse than most, although since I base that mostly on the anti-nuclear articles I read here, I certainly wouldn’t be saying that I have evidence it is the case.