The government has enlisted the aid of a brand consultant to give the image of nuclear power in South Africa a major makeover.

It is seeking to identify so-called "nuclear ambassadors" to endorse nuclear power stations in communities and the business world.

But opponents fear that the move may be an attempt to short-circuit public consultation as the government presses ahead with its programme to build a dozen more conventional plants and at least twice that number of pebble-bed reactors.

The makeover initiative was being led by the department of public enterprises, working with minerals and energy and Eskom.

They hired the services of brand consultants Freedthinkers, which calls itself a "research and development think-tank".

Freedthinkers had begun conducting interviews with a range of people in organisations including the business sector, large corporations, and NGOs.

According to the guide that Freedthinkers provided for its interviewers, the objective of the project was to "unearth the perceptions, misperceptions, fears and expectations surrounding nuclear power and related issues".

It also aims to "explore the prompts that will help thought-leaders and communities adopt more informed and balanced opinions", and "reveal the preferred touch points for different stakeholders".

Interviewees are told their input will shape a communications strategy "that is intended to help South Africans be clear and informed about all the relevant aspects of the nuclear programme in a truthful, balanced, and fair manner".

Most of the questions deal with the interviewee's perceptions and knowledge of nuclear power, and one probes the sources of that knowledge.

At the end, the interviewee is asked :"If you had to choose a South African to spread the message, endorse or be an ambassador for building nuclear power stations to your business, industry, or community, who would it be and why?

"Would you be willing to be chosen as a nuclear ambassador?"

Founder and owner of Freedthinkers Michael Freedman wrote in a pro-nuclear magazine article earlier this year that the misperceptionssurrounding nuclear power "could be the most catastrophic mistake humanity will make".

"Nuclear power needs an extreme makeover," he wrote.

"The myths need to be busted, blind emotion must be enlightened by knowledge and the costs of delay must be made manifest..."

"The challenge is to instil a sense of urgency by creating a national and global debate around the issues".

"It will take the most skilled in the communications industry plus a few billion dollars in the war-chest."

Last month nuclear advocate Geraldine Bennett, formerly linked to the pebble bed project, told a seminar in Gauteng that the nuclear industry had to overcome its "cloak and dagger" legacy, and that there

was a need for "streamlining a message democratically". Co-ordinator of the anti-nuclear Pelindaba Working Group Dominique Gilbert, one of those approached by Freedthinkers, said she believed the initiative was more sinister than just a branding exercise.

It should be seen in the light of Cabinet's approval last month of a nuclear master plan, after what the department of minerals and energy claimed were predominantly pro-nuclear submissions which activists noted were not made public.

She believed the Freedthinkers project was an effort, using taxpayers' funds, to create a perception of acceptability for the nuclear programme as a means of bypassing public participation processes.

It was also an attempt to probe information networks among anti-nuclear organisations, she said.

Spokesman for the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy Muna Lakhani said the initiative was very much in line with past attempts by the nuclear industry both in South Africa and elsewhere in the world, to "manage" anti-nuclear activism.

"My sense is that they wish to get to the heart of our campaign and then work out a spin strategy that will counter that," he said.

"So it would be most honest to view the survey with total cynicism."

Opponents of nuclear power said it was unsafe, hugely expensive, provided poor returns on the energy used to establish plants, and that the money sunk into new plants could better be used on developing renewable energy sources and greater energy efficiency.

They also pointed to the fact that the spent fuel from plants retained deadly radiation levels for tens of thousands of years.

Proponents said nuclear offered economically competitive, reliable and clean technology in a world increasingly concerned with the effects of global warming.

The department of public enterprises and Freedthinkers had been asked for comment.