No Nuke Environmentalists

In your April-June 06 edition you covered "The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power" (archived at www.openexchange.org), including statements by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace. Mr. Moore and his organizations are fronts for the nuclear industry.

In the early 70s I was an anti-nuclear activist involved with stopping nukes at Point Arena and Porterville, CA. The reasons against nuclear power have not changed. They are dangerous. No amount of radiation is safe. A study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that those who lived down wind from existing plants have higher levels of cancer than those from surrounding areas. This study has never been discredited.

When the Three Mile Island nuclear plant malfunctioned, only luck prevented the loss of Detroit. The name Chernobyl should put a chill down everyone's spine.

In today's world of terrorist threat, nuclear plants become prime targets. Can the nuclear industry guarantee our safety? I question any such guarantee.

What about the radioactive waste these plants generate? This radioactive material must be safeguarded and stored for up to 200,000 years. No method to safely store this waste has been discovered to date. Nuclear power is not conducive to healthy living.

We can't speak to Patrick Moore's motives. As our article noted, however, most enviros agree with you that no nukes is good nukes. (Including enviro-wonk Al Gore---see elsewhere this issue.) The nuclear industry counters that coal, the only presently viable alternative to nuclear, is even more environmentally disruptive; that Chernobyl hasn't proven as health-threatening as feared; that nuclear plants can be made terrorist-proof; and that waste can be stored safely in deep caves, labeled with images of screaming faces to scare away trespassers for up to 250,000 years. We're not making this up: scary faces, really! Still, if not nuclear, how will we power our Priuses and iPods in the future? Global warming is real, our oil-based economy is not sustainable, and we have yet to develop safe, long-term energy alternatives. So we've got to think smaller, design creatively, and really conserve, or nuclear will win by default. Maybe stationery cycles at storefront fitness centers could be hooked up to PG&E's power grid. At home, pedal-powered TVs could turn lumpy couch potatoes into buns of steel! Personally, we're considering solar home paneling and electric bikes for errands around town. There's probably enough oil reserves for the next billion years of bicycle grease!

Hypnotherapist Licensed To Heal?

I'm glad to see so many alternative modalities in your directory. Do you monitor category integrity? Can an unlicensed person list themselves any way they may like? Last issue (OPEN EXCHANGE, April-June 2006 online and this issue) you published "Taming the Abusive Superego" by Cynthia Moore. Moore is listed as a "Counselor," yet, she is NOT a licensed pyschotherapist, MFT, or counselor. She is only a hypnotherapist.

This is a certification that many people receive over a two-day weekend course! You have a category "Hypnotherapy." Why is Moore not listed correctly? It is unethical in the state of California for a hypnotherapist to convey she is working with psychoanalytic models and terms. It is unfair to licensed psychologists, and a disservice to the public that an unlicensed hypnotherapist portray her qualifications in this manner.

While you cannot be held liable for the direct misrepresentation of advertisers beyond your control, this seems like an easy, manageable category distinction.

While OPEN EXCHANGE insists that individuals offering services represent their credentials and experience accurately and honestly (we discontinue listers who misrepresent themselves; see our Code of Ethics), we have never segregated categories by academic degrees. Thus, not all people listed under "Counseling" are licensed psychotherapists. Similarly, the experts in "Health & Healing" are not required to be MDs. We have on occasion considered implementing more rigid category requirements, but we believe that the current system works best to maximize freedom of choice and consumer options. How exclusive should a category be? Would readers prefer a "Psychiatrists Only" section, for example? An expert's listing with mini-resume should suffice. Is this misleading? We think not. However, your thoughtful letter opens up the topic for further discussion. Reader, what do you say?

Therapist Cynthia Moore Replies

First, regarding the training required to be a hypnotherapist: while it is true that the state does not regulate training hours required for a hypnotherapy certification, one cannot assume that all practitioners are undertrained charlatans. While some courses require only 100 hours of training, the more reputable courses require 250 hours, which includes internship training. Hypnosis Clearinghouse, for example (where I currently teach), is an intensive, in-depth 250-hour training program which boasts many highly effective and successful graduates. Most trainees in hypnotherapy pursue other modalities as well, including degrees in psychology, coaching, Reiki, or NLP.

There are currently many kinds of therapy, each effective in its own way. Hypnosis can open up areas of experience that traditional psychotherapies have not touched. While psychotherapy has sole dominion in areas of diagnosis and treatment of mental problems, the more behavioral and imaginal models can be extremely effective with habit control, inner dialogue modification (see my article, "Taming the Abusive Superego" ), and stress reduction, to name a few issues.

Personally, I have a certification in hypnotherapy (which I also teach), as well as a Masters in Clinical Psychology, which includes over a thousand hours of internship in that field. I include meditation techniques and shamanic approaches in my work. So, what do I call myself? I am not solely a hypnotherapist, although that is a modality I use, and I am certainly not a psychotherapist, or a counselor in the traditional sense. I do integrative work, using processes which combine hypnosis, meditation, and visualization. I call these processes "Core Integration." I make no claims to be a psychotherapist, nor do I misrepresent my qualifications. I make no claims to diagnose or treat mental or physical illness, and I inform clients of this in advance. If it is unethical to reference the ideas of Freud and Jung, which I have studied in depth, I was never informed of it. (Cynthia also references Buddha.---Ed.)

I choose to advertise under "Counseling & Therapy" because there are many alternative modalities represented there, and as a hybrid practitioner, I find it less constricting than the "Hypnotherapy" category. I have always appreciated OPEN EXCHANGE's openness to the multitude of therapeutic approaches in their categories, and many clients are served by such variety. I regret that there are unethical practitioners in the world, both trained and untrained, and I understand the concern, but I am not one of them. I stand behind the integrity of my work, and of my advertising.

Thanks to OPEN EXCHANGE for fostering alternative modalities, and for welcoming this dialogue.

Should Ammaji Stick To Hugging?

I found the Ammaji interview (OPEN EXCHANGE, April-June 2006) pretty "lame" in terms of philosophy—her forte is hugging people, not preaching—so I answered the questions myself, from the Gaudiya Vaishnava standpoint. I think I gave much better answers, but then, I don't hug millions of people. Compare and contrast: what do you think?

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your answers may be more eloquent than Ammaji's. Keep in mind that Ammaji, a native of India, was speaking extemporaneously and communicating through an interpreter, so she didn't have the opportunity to hone and edit her comments. We published Ammaji's interview because she is newsworthy, having inspired millions with a personal message of love and devotion. Without debating philosophies, could it be that maybe you need a hug?