Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Winning War Of Public Opinion

By Eric McErlain
Polish scientist Przemyslaw Mastalerz on the futrue of nuclear energy:
The heavy opposition against electric power generation in atomic plants appears to be fading away with growing realization that atomic plants are safer than plants fired with coal because of the high death rate in coal mines. In addition, electricity from atomic plants is cheaper and its supply is more reliable than in the case of wind turbines and solar cells. In the past decades, when the fear of radiation prevailed, no new atomic power plants were built and the demolition of existing ones was considered but this seems to be over now. The fear of radiation is also decreasing with growing realization that low radiation doses are harmless or even beneficial to living creatures.
Thanks to Greenie Watch for the pointer. For NEI's latest public opinion data, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi,

Contrary to this claim, an ABC/Washington Post poll of June 07, 2005 asked 1000 randomly selected citizens "In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
64% said "Opposed"
34% said "Favor"
2% were "Undecided"

With regard to claim posted here that there is less fear about radiation because it is more broadly recognized that "a-little-dose-a-do-ya" you must have missed the June 2005 release of the National Academy of Sciences report on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR)VII once again confirming no safe dose threshold for radiation exposures.

I didnt notice any NEI Blog response to BEIR VII? Did I miss something? So the "beneficial dose of radiation" claim appears to be is once again unsubstantiated.

But, hey, its your blog...

Paul, NIRS
July 26, 2005 at 3:36 PM
Eric McErlain said…
On BEIR VII, our press operation was all over it. Just because we don't write about it on the blog doesn't mean NEI wasn't commenting.

Click here for our take on that topic.
July 26, 2005 at 3:45 PM
Kelly L Taylor said…
Donnie's comment here:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10911751&postID=112290493069507609

applies to this post, as well!
August 1, 2005 at 3:12 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more