Читайте также:
|
In “the Basic directions of power policy … “ [32], constituted by the same atomic lobbyists, is indicated: “the polling carried out in Belarus has revealed, that the majority supports development of atomic energy in the Republic.” Is it so?
On the sociological researches in 1995 and 1997, which have been carried out by the Institute of sociology and the Institute of energy problems (IEP) (see [53]), 17 percents of the population of Belarus support the construction of the nuclear power plant, and 42,6 percents – are against.
The Institute of energy problems participated in sociological research, is the main initiator of construction of the nuclear power plant and, naturally, is very much interested in receiving of “certain” result. In this connection authors of research have decided “to mitigate the effects” of frank incorrectness of such system of organization of polling for what have involved as experts 254 experts of “high scientific and practical competence” (scientists of physical and mathematical, technical sciences and the humanities, experts of energy and managers). Organizers of polling selected Experts, naturally, on their taste. Certainly, it has yielded “required” result. From among experts, 61 percent have supported development of the nuclear power plant.
However, here also there was an unexpected fail of organizers. They tried to specify a question: “How you would react to construction of the nuclear power plant near to your city?” In addition, “adherence to principles” and “objectivity” of experts was showed! They did not like to live near so “harmless” structure: only 16,9 percents have remained supporters of the nuclear power plant, that is hardly more than one quarter of “experts”. From here, and the price of so-called “experts’ reports”. Those are experts of “high scientific and practical competence!” This situation reminds an old joke plot of times of collectivisation: “we are for collective farm, but not in our village!”.
During the poll of population the result has appeared not so contrast: from 17 percents of the supporters of construction of nuclear power plants in general agreed to live near to “risky site” 5,7 percents of number of respondents. Thus, 68 percents have shown “concern to a similar perspective”.
Thus, actually only 5,7 percents of the respondents supports perspective of development of atomic energy.
Whether it is possible to evaluate differently, as frank distortion, declaration for support of programs of construction of the nuclear power plant in Belarus with its population, which is contained in “the Basic directions of power policy....”[32]? We think, that you agree with that, that such “frank distortion» would be more correct to name “impudent lie”.
The conclusion of this section: the overwhelming majority of the respondents has no any desire to see in the country atomic energy sites. Even so-called “experts”, whose technique of selection is rather doubtful, do not wish to live near to NPP. Even participation in carrying out of polling, of organization most interested in support of the atomic energy – the Institute of energy problems, headed by the main “atomic lobbyist” Mihalevich A.A., could not break the attitude of people to this antihuman idea.
On this example you can be convinced once again how “honest” are our homebred atomic lobbyists, how far they are capable to go in distortion of the facts, in the roughest juggling and lie.
Дата добавления: 2015-11-14; просмотров: 36 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| Reasonable question: whether construction of the nuclear power plant releases Belarus from power or fuel dependence on countries of suppliers? | | | Whether we know all about possibilities of power? |