On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:43:17 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

If it came to a choice about impartiality I think the NEA would be a
long way ahead of the Sustainable Development Commission.

IIRC you have made similar accusations about the SDC before. If not
it was someone else. They were unconvincing then and they remain
unconvincing now.

People can check on the veracity of your assertions by looking at
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/page...issioners.html and
deciding for themselves. The quick check is to study the
commissioner who steers the work on energy, a director of AEA
Technology plc http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/bulkin.html

The idea that the rather mild SDC is a hotbed of people who would
never give nuclear generated electricity a hearing is disproved by
the simple expedient of reading their reports. Far from giving a
simple "anti-nuclear" stance, as some assert, they outline the
complexities of the discussion well. Sorry if this doesn't fit into
sound bites. They also indicate the level of support for various
propositions amongst the members when necessary, including their
report on nuclear generation.

If you really think they are a hotbed of anti-nuclear zealots then
take a look at http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page and
compare and contrast.

Two things to note about Nuclear Spin:

1) unlike their opponents, they are clear about who they are and who
funds them.

2) unlike their opponents, they do let others have a say. For
example the Sunday Times "cash for access" accusations against Ian
Fells have been removed and they have put his explanation up for all
to see, together with their own comments on it.

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Ian_Fells is the Nuclear Spin
page on Mr Fells. The accusations are at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...807791,00.html should
anyone wish to read them.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54