No, it is still the lowest forms of argumentation, not because of the factuality of the ties of a speaker with the technology or industry they are defending, but because they attack the speaker instead of the arguments they present
But the son was not presenting an argument. He was putting words in his dead father's mouth.
In any case, whatever he meant, it was a rhetoric statement, torn completely out of context and expressing a personal sentiment, not the official stance of the atomic energy program.
At least you're tacitly admitting that saving consumers money was never part of the nuclear fission story.