Analysing the arguments of the antinuclear movement in general, one is suprized to find that they are mostly of a pseudo-scientific nature. There is no hesitation to talk about 'half-life', 'kilowatts' or 'critical mass', let alone'Down's syndrome' or 'childhood leukemia'. Obviously, 'facts' are believed to impress more than ideological arguments. Judging from the success of the anti-nuclear movement, the hypothesis is correct. Information from nuclear industry lacks the doomsday note and drama that catches the attention of the media and the public. While the anti-nuclear message has the character of a virus, 'nucler' might instead be considered a vaccine - it does not cause much commotion when administered but has an extended protective effect. Most anti-nuclear arguments are variations of a few predictable themes: radiation, accidents, waste, proliferation, and economy. This could be considered to be in favour of 'nuclear'. It should be considred that there is frequent need for quick response.