How to spot nuclear bullshit

I’ve been away from TV most of the time since this began, and I’m currently visiting my apartment, watching CNN. One thing that I keep hearing is the idea of ‘background levels’ and ‘normal exposure’. When they start comparing this to cell phones and chest X-rays, you know that the script originated in a PR firm that handles nuclear power. When Christine Todd Whitman says that working in a nuke is as safe as working in a grocery store, you can be certain she got paid. (My friend Dominick asked me, “Well, is it?” and he is not dumb. People believe this garbage.)

The background level issue is used all over the environmental topic. If there is a dioxin release in your community you will be told, first thing, that it’s ‘no worse than the background level’ which means: you may be getting two background levels, one from the release and one from the (not so natural) existing level.

Next, we have some apologists getting on TV saying that in the midst of a catastrophe is not the time to be making decisions about future energy policy. I know that may seem to them like resolving to never drink again when you’re drunk — or perhaps more like drying up by drinking everything in the house. In reality this is the very time to make policy decisions, because this is what those decisions need to be based on.

Tracy just reminded me of this one. She writes, “Re propaganda — they’ve clearly sent a memo round — I’ve seen two ‘experts’ on Sky News, one British one from U.S., singing exactly the same song almost word for word — ‘there is no safe form of energy generation’ / look at the Gulf of Mexico / list disadvantages of all other methods / finish on ‘there’s no other way to meet power demand without carbon emissions’ (we’re nuclear because we care).” Yeppp. Listen for the talking points. They actually do send memos. If you happen to have got one of those memos, please feel free to send it and your secret’s safe with me — I’m an astrologer.

I am noticing that nobody is mentioning General Electric. No great surprise, that, but consider what a big part of the story it is. Finally, it seems that only Rachel Maddow had a guest on who said that taking iodine does not really help. I mean who knows, it might — but the key is to not get exposed, and to not eat contaminated food. One problem with reassurances of safety is that they are based on current (revealed) levels — not on what might happen. The problem is that all we can really do is prevent future ‘accidents’ — and that is actually possible.

At this point we don’t know how far this will go. If it all stopped right now, that would be bad enough. But as I said to my journalism collaborator at the deli, we are now at 9 on a scale of 10 that really goes up to 20.

If you have more examples of nuclear bullshit, please type them into the comment area.

10 thoughts on “How to spot nuclear bullshit”

  2. during my NYT bus reading this am [west coast version, 3.16]. . . i saw two items echoing eric’s EARLIER reporting:

    1) front page, article “As Routines Falter, So Does National Confidence” says, “Japan, a country lulled by the reassuring rhythms or order and predictability, has been jolted by earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis into an unsetling new reality: lack of control.” I was remembering the “control” incantations in eric’s podcast.

    2) Page A8, top half of page devoted to GE’s Mark 1 reactors, their less than robust containment structures, threats of suing G.E. in the late 1980’s due to containment insufficiency or flaws compromising safety, etc. quoted Mr. Lochbaum as well.

    all this more than confirmed for me — a newcomer to PW — that eric’s reporting is way ahead of the mainstream . . . thank you very much.

    indeed.

  3. Hey, Bullshit detector on High at the moment: they are changing their Tune!!

    this isn’t actually full-on bullshit, let’s call it calf-shit??

    I used to live in the PNW on an island..I have been monitoring the radiation detectors in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon for a couple of days because well, I don’t wait for people to tell me, public officials seem a little slow.

    anyhoo, I just went back on my rounds and noticed they have DEFINITELY changed the language from yesterday to today in Washington.

    yesterday it was “no health risk to Washington”..and now…it’s a little different…
    NOW it’s more like “radiation from the plants in Japan isn’t a risk because of…” then they go on and start contradicting themselves by saying:

    “but if it was a risk, it would be minimal”…..hahahahhaaaaa. sorry I’m sure they are under strict protocol but they are starting to backpedal on themselves and by the end of the update it’s almost like saying “yes,there is going to be radiation.”

    I think that they know what in the hell is going on, and if they just change the wording a little bit each day, they can move sneakily from “no danger whatsoever” to
    “here’s what we recommend to reduce effects”…

    here’s the latest from WA: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Topics/japan/safe.htm

    THey have also changed the language for Alaska similarly, but no change for you Oregonians yet

    offered in the spirit of Pooh..

  4. PRWatch.org has a tag for nuclear power that has many pages of stories on nuke industry PR:
    http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/75

    When I used to work at PR Watch, we did an issue focusing on the industry and its spin. Since the issue is from 2005, it’s somewhat dated, but still a good illustration of how the nuclear power industry uses PR:
    http://www.prwatch.org/epublish/1/v12n1

    Here’s another article that illustrates how the industry uses PR and tries to influence journalist:
    http://www.prwatch.org/news/2007/03/5833/moore-spin-or-how-reporters-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-nuclear-front-groups

    What I find missing from most reporting is any really awareness that nuclear waste is going to be with us for a very, very long time and that there is NO answer to the question of how we contain it for 100s of years. (Not to mention 1000s of years.)
    Realistically, who will be responsible for those highly toxic decommissioned plants in 100 years? The poisonous burden we are leaving for future generations is truly mind blowing.

  5. MORE ON PRICE-ANDERSON- THE BAILOUT pre BAILOUTS circa 1957:

    Of Course there had to be something out there where they simply don’t have a NEED to think about safety..pure profit, the only losses would be HUMAN. and who the fuck cares about humans????

    GE and other “providers” have no reason to worry about being accountable, there is a BAILOUT already put in place dating back to 1957…
    it is pure win-win for them to go for the nuclear…
    I knew there had to be something out there they could “hide” behind with their brazen attitude. besides of course the cult of ego-power trip of splitting the atom I am sure has them riding high…..

    ‘Consequently, the Act is a dual-edge sword for the public that it purportedly protects. The legislation was intended first of all to bolster investor confidence, whereas victim compensation is secondary. Price-Anderson establishes only phantom insurance for the public, then provides a real bailout mechanism for the nuclear energy industry by reducing its need to pay for insurance, subsidizing the industry at the taxpayers’ expense.

    If proposed new reactors are as safe and economical as the nuclear industry claims, the industry should be able to privately insure these ventures without an extension of the Price-Anderson crutch. When Congress first enacted Price-Anderson in 1957, it was designed to be a temporary measure to prop up an infant industry. After nearly five decades and billions in hand-outs, it is impossible to justify extending subsidies like the Price-Anderson Act ‘

    that’s the just, but here’s a source for more:

    http://www.citizen.org/documents/Price%20Anderson%20Factsheet.pdf

    also, the older and sketchier the reactor, has no bearing on the amount of the insurance necessary…

    sorry, I’m calling BULLSHIT . dump. sorry about the smell…..

    BTW, the Price-Anderson Act expired in December 2003, however it was REAUTHORIZED for another 20 years in Aug. 2005 (Energy Bill)

  6. Ah, well, the US Nuclear Regulatory Chairman is telling Japan they are not evacuating far enough from the danger zone:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Nuclear-Chief-Says-Japan-Should-Expand-Evacuation-Zone-Around-Damaged-Plant-118124794.html

    bullshit factor being, we here in the good ole US know how to be safe and they don’t?

    Also later in the article are the to-be-expected comments by some Republicans about how nuclear energy is still an important part of our energy production.

  7. Follow any of the links listed on the page I’m linking to below, in order to get (more or less) live Geiger readings.

    It is one of the most important quantifiers we can access. I’d be even happier if I knew and trusted the person whose hand was holding the device – but in the absence of such, these readings are worth checking in with, to monitor changes in Tokyo (a more than reasonable distance from the immediate site crises and a major world impact site)

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread674581/pg1

    We need to get our bearings on what the ‘new’ normality is, or is about to become.

    I’m a little bit suspicious of the British and French recall of citizens from the country per se. It smacks of opportunism and I would not rule out attempts to gain advantage surreptitiously at this time by politicians of other developed nations.

    That said, I’m unclear on what radiation levels in say, Tokyo, would constitute grounds for wholesale evacuation.

    The whole concept of safety is going to undergo radical revision in the human psyche because of this disaster.

  10. I’ve been looking out in my local newspaper online (Sydney Morning Herald) and this is the only thing I have seen about General Electric:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/engineer-quit-over-reactor-design-20110316-1bwet.html

    I’m intrigued by the slow feed of information by these major papers. Last night (Wed) basically there were no substantial updates from around 4pm to 11pm. Interestingly, the related Melbourne paper, The Age, did have updates.

Leave a Comment