UK’s Geological Disposal Facility Community Partnership operates under restrictive government guidance and the management of Nuclear Waste Services
An interesting article recently sent to the NFLAs prompted a reply by our
Secretary identifying the limitations placed upon members of the Geological
Disposal Facility Community Partnerships wishing to source independent
information or commission bespoke research.
Such Community Partnerships operate under restrictive government guidance and the management of Nuclear Waste Services.
The Author and Article: A Quiet Resistance is run by a
writer, author, and marketing copywriter, living with her small family near
Millom. Understanding how language is used to persuade, convince, and
influence the decisions of mass populations, she set out to unpack the
messaging around the unfolding climate catastrophe, to help others decode
truth from fiction for themselves, and to open up critical thinking
pathways through the consumerism.
A Quiet Resistance documents this journey of discovery. AQuietResistance.co.uk –
https://aquietresistance.co.uk/the-media-scientific-consensus-toxic-nuclear-waste
23 April 2025. The media, scientific consensus, and toxic nuclear waste
When government agencies are hard to trust, who do we look to? Scientists. But
what job is the concept of scientific consensus doing in the marketing of
the GDF? ‘Scientific consensus’ carries a lot of weight in news media
discussing the proposed Geological Disposal Facilities (GDFs) (nuclear
waste dumps) in West Cumbria.
This consensus is also being used as a
persuasion tool in the official literature handed out to communities by
Nuclear Waste Services (NWS). Since most of us aren’t scientists in either
the nuclear industry or geodisposal, we have to turn to those who are if
we’re to understand what’s going to happen to our community. Alongside the
regular newsletters and other marketing from NWS, we usually access those
people through articles in the news and on the internet. But it’s important
to keep asking questions about what we’re reading. ‘Scientific consensus’
doesn’t mean the science is settled; articles can contain facts and still
be biased.
NFLA 16th May 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/A431-NB317-The-media-scientific-consensus-and-toxic-nuclear-waste-May-2025.pdf
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (83)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



Leave a comment