Honestly, in these posts, I'd say it is about equal. The anti's can't stand when actual facts and science from neutral organizations are used to debunk radical claims of horrid destruction caused by the tiniest amounts of radiation. They tend to stick with "facts" as presented by CAN and their highly paid "nuclear experts." Those "experts" have made some outrageous claims. I also see facts that are being presented that are totally ignored. The same issues are brought up about a point that has been "cleared" by logical, scientific fact. You can scream "all radiation is evil" till you drop, but it just ain't so. Sorry, as in the name of the movie - Reality Bites.<quoted text>
lets vote, do these terms better describe supporters or antis?
On the pro-side, I have seen some dodging of issues and poorly worded comments that really don't have much meaning to the discussion at hand.
On both sides, I have seen highly charged negative language, name calling and other behavior fitting of 4 year olds. Continue to call each other names and anyone reading with any objectivity will quickly ignore your post, regardless of any truth you manage to squeak in.