Same Old Anti-Nukes, Same Old Song and Dance

In today's Clarion Ledger, anti-nuclear activist Ruth Pullen trots out all the old familiar tropes about why America should reject expansion of nuclear energy. There are plenty of things to quibble with, but there's one particular passage that caught my attention:

Current studies indicate increased cancers and infant mortality in the vicinity of nuclear plants . . .

Now, as we saw on Friday, we're more than prepared to counter arguments like this one that have no scientific basis whatsover, and how anti-nukes deliberately juggle and distort data in such a way that would get a college freshman thrown out of Econ 101. Moreover, in the case we covered last week, Joseph Mangano's arguments have been consistently rejected by any and all public health agencies that ever reviewed them.

A number of thoughts struck me while reading: First, I couldn't help but notice the paucity of actual facts and figures. Here we are, more than a decade into the age of the Internet. Pullen was able to have these claim published in a daily newspaper, yet didn't provide a link to an online source that includes the data that buttresses her claim.

It's more than likely that such an online source doesn't exist. No matter, but when it comes to public debate, there should be a more rigorous burden of proof applied.

So here's the challenge to Ms. Pullen: Where's the data beef in this air sandwich?

UPDATE: Thanks to Alan Smith at Entergy for passing along a Public Citizen fact sheet that was apparently the source for the op ed piece. We're looking it over right now.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog