Sturgis not only writes about the proposed clean energy bill and contrasts the Senate and House versions of the bill, but provides a source comparing the price of nuclear v.s. other energy and looks at the Senate sponsor's ties to the nuclear industry. Fred Gatlin criticizes the author for bias. In thinking about it, I have lowered my evaluation of the article to "somewhat fair" because, other than news releases from the bill's sponsors in both Senate and the House touting his legislation, Sturgis does not provide an opportunity for those being criticized by the watchdogs to respond. She has a point of view and does not hide it. After all, her organization's mission is to develop "research and publication projects that directly ... More »

This story is loaded with evidence and sources, and provides links to tons of information. Unfortunately the opposing view is represented with only one short sentence and a link; quite unfair.

After reading of health and insurance corporations bribing senators to kill reform in health care, this article tells of the nuclear industry corporations bribing senators to kill clean energy. The article is clear and good at exposing corrupt legislation that should arouse the public to contact their senators and representatives.

This article looks at both sides and discusses pro and cons also with the underlying motives (money) to Congress.

This is a biased article. When the only expert quoted is a Physicians for Social Responsibility member, this story lacks sources and has too many statements without any quote.