I’m not saying anti-nuclear as a slander, but that’s clearly their position. Given their resume, I believe they came by it honestly, via years of experience and study. I don’t think I’m besmirching them by saying they’re anti-nuclear, and I think given the tenor of the article, they’d agree with me.
It is, however, something to be aware of when reading an article they wrote: they are not a fully disinterested observer, they have a pre-existing belief about nuclear, and their arguments for this article agree with those beliefs. That’s a thing to be aware of when one evaluates the set of facts they’ve chosen to present.
It isn't, because I don't think it's possible. Because of that, I think it's relevant to know what an author's preexisting opinions and beliefs were when writing the article. If, for instance, the author had been strongly pro-nuclear, then their conclusion that SMRs are a dead end would carry more weight, as they would have had to overcome their own biases. Articles that confirm an author's beliefs, on the other hand, are much easier to write.
