My first idea was to ignore these statements. However, my friends told me that a charge un-answered is a charge believed. Okay. I'll answer.
My second idea was to answer the statements by leaving a comment on the Green Mountain Daily site. Unfortunately, you have to create an account on that site in order to post a comment. In other words, you have to give Green Mountain Daily your email address, get a password, etc. Setting up such an account is usually considered to be "opting in" to mailings from a web site, and becoming an addition to the site's mailing lists. Most people believe you should only set up such accounts with websites you trust. Since the latest Green Mountain Daily posting is filled with lies about my affiliations and background, I don't trust the site. Obviously, I chose not to set up an account.
Please note. I am not accusing Green Mountain Daily of mis-using their email lists. I am simply saying that I don't personally trust them, and I don't want to be on their lists.
So I had a third idea: answering the charges on my own blog and hoping Ms. Gundersen reads it. That's what I am doing here.
Lies and Truth
So. What did she say? Material in italics is written by Ms. Gundersen.
Finally, pro-nuke blogs from around the country, led by Vermont's own Nuclear Energy Institute's connected Yes Vermont Yankee, also jumped in to condemn the NRC meeting with the Intervenors.
Pro-nuke blog Yes Vermont Yankee is written by an industry insider who makes her money working for the industry as does Rod Adams with his Atomic Insights. Although they all portray themselves as independent concerned citizens, all receive income from the nuclear industry and are part of an online group that spreads the same biased (sic) throughout the country. Like the Vermont Energy Partnership, these blogs are heavily connected to the lobbyists and nuclear industry groups of which they claim to have an unbiased opinion. [Don't believe what I say, do the research yourself via SourceWatch and Google.]
Some General Issues
Where to start on Gundersen's assertions and lies?
Insider: I like the "insider" statement, so I will start there. Yes. I am very knowledgeable about nuclear energy. Does this make me an "insider" or an "authority"? You can guess the word I would choose.
NEI: Gundersen says I'm connected to Nuclear Energy Institute. No. I have no connection with Nuclear Energy Institute, beyond having their blog on my blog roll and having visited their offices once. They served some coffee, as I remember. (Maybe Ms. Gundersen is confusing Nuclear Energy Institute with EPRI. I was a project manager at EPRI, a research institute, and I am proud of it.)
Connections: I am not sure what Ms. Gundersen means by "heavily connected" to the industry. Does "heavily connected" mean that I read blogs and have friends? That I used to work in the industry? All true, and nothing I am hiding. (My blogger profile is a pretty good summary of my background. ) Perhaps Ms. Gundersen would like to be described as "heavily connected to anti-nuclear groups"? Sounds kind of sinister, doesn't it?
Sourcewatch and Google: I'm not on SourceWatch, and Googling me shows boring stuff about this blog and my company, Carnot Communications. However, there is a Meredith Angwin who lives in Australia, used to work for IBM, and visits Thailand. When I Google myself, I find her. I think she leads a more interesting life.
Down to the Real Issue: Do I Get Paid?
I'm not paid to blog. I'm not paid by the industry. Gundersen is simply lying about this. No possibility of just having made a mistake. (Nuclear Energy Institute versus EPRI could be a mistake.)
I do not "receive income from the nuclear industry" except for an occasional free-lance writing job for Fuel Cycle Week. These small freelance gigs add up to less than $1500 a year. This is not a major part of my income.
Ms. Gundersen also accuses Rod Adams of being an insider and "receiving income." Rod is a Naval Officer and unpaid nuclear blogger. He writes for Fuel Cycle Week on occasion and probably makes about the same amount of money I do. I know Rod pretty well, and he has no other income from nuclear.
Gundersen Gets Paid
Mr. and Mrs. Gundersen are heavily connected to anti-nuclear groups. (Hmm. I might enjoy writing this way. Live and learn...) Mr. Gundersen used to be paid by the New England Coalition. Now, Mr. Gundersen gets lucrative contracts on Vermont legislative panels, where his main activity is attacking Vermont Yankee.
Mr. Gundersen's going rate in Vermont is $185 to $300 an hour, according to public records. Unfortunately, though the contracts are public records, they are not easy to access. However, I was informed of Gundersen's rates in emails from the Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) and the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office. The Joint Fiscal Office also sent me a copy of their contract with his company, and I think I might be able to find the DPS contract if I were willing to spend more time on it.
Okay. I will also admit to finding these contracts a little weird, because Gundersen is not a Licensed Professional Engineer, and I thought that state governments were required to hire Licensed Professional Engineers for engineering assessment projects.
At any rate, we see that anti-nuclear activists often make a living at activism. Sometimes, like Gundersen, they make quite a good living.
In Contrast to Mr. Gundersen...
I don't have a job in nuclear. I don't get paid for blogging. I receive trivial amounts of money for writing occasionally for Fuel Cycle Week.
I think the Gundersens should follow my lead, and simply do everything they do---for free. They should aim at true purity of purpose.
Or maybe, just maybe, they should do whatever they want to do and earn money from people who will pay them. You know, it's a free country and all that.
However, they should also stop lying about how other people earn money, what institutions other people are associated with, and so forth. Instead, they should spend some time putting their own rather questionable (professional engineer? anti-nuclear guru?) house in order.