FURTHER PROCESSING OF (uranium and thorium) MINERALS AND MANUFACTURE OF MATERIALS CONTAINING RADIOACTIVE AND NUCLEAR SUBSTANCES
Two things stand out in this the second Issues Paper for the Scarce Nuclear Industry Commission.
One is the consistent use of pro-nuclear jargon/spin, the other is the frequency with which statements are accompanied by provisos.
The pro-nuclear jargon/spin started right from the beginning of this whole process with the name of the Commission. Instead of using the neutral, straight forward term “nuclear industry”, the value –laden, scientifically incorrect, misleading phrase “nuclear fuel cycle” was chosen. This was accompanied by similarly misleading, nuclear industry, feel-good phrases such as “value adding” and “enrichment”.
The most obvious nuclear industry ploy used in this discussion paper is to refer to “radiation” rather than “ionising radiation”. This is unscientific, misleading and potentially confusing to many…
View original post 1,290 more words