Following "Loose Nukes" on ABC News

I've been paging through the ABC News message board attached to this story, and some of the reaction from folks there can't be encouraging for the people who put together the series. Here are some choice reactions:

Can ABC and the students they used to gain access to the facilities admit that they lied to gain entry? That they used tactics and methods that would NEVER result in danger to the public? Why does ABC want to cut or dramatically reduce the research (including cancer and environmental research) performed at these research reactors?

Sad, really.

But wait, there's more:

One would have thought that the mainstream media would have learned it's lesson from the Dan Rather/fake National Guard documents debacle. Using dishonest journalistic techniques to push a crusading agenda is not the way for the mainstream press to regain lost credibility. Having your story become THE story is the surest way to end up with egg on your face. Is ABC News thinking of hiring Mary Mapes? Maybe they already have?

And it gets better:

ABC needs to come up with some more original topics for reporting. This kind of fearmongering is just plain wrong. I guess they've exhausted every possible angle on the killer hurricane subject, so now they have to move on to something else in order to scare viewers into watching and giving them the ratings they want. Sheesh.

For our coverage of this report, and the questionable reporting techniques used by ABC's crack group of interns, start here and follow the links. I had my TiVo set up to record the segment from today's edition of Good Morning America, and will have more on that segment tonight.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's some text from my NEI colleague Felix Killar that's pertinent to the research reactor portion of the ABC series:

Every research reactor has multiple layers and techniques of security. These include surveillance and detection equipment, and alarms with an armed security force response.

University research reactors are licensed and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since 9/11, the NRC has required site-specific security enhancements for reactors of two megawatts of generating capacity and greater, and for reactors of less than two megawatts of capacity. There continues to be coordination between the NRC and the research reactor community on ways to further enhance security commensurate with the small volumes of irradiated fuel in these reactors. A second round of security requirements from the NRC is expected in the near future.

All of the uranium fuel at research reactors is either in the reactor vessel or has been irradiated in the reactor and is securely stored. For this reason, even a suicidal terrorist who might be willing to risk lethal exposure to steal this material – which is typically quite heavy – would have to spend some period of time trying to steal it. The material is not accessible in a way that would allow anyone to make off with that material in 20 or 30 minutes.

The amount of uranium fuel in research reactors – most of which are below ground level – is sufficiently small that even in the event of accident – there is virtually no risk to the general public even in close proximity to the buildings that house the research reactors.

Definitely something to keep in mind.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: And speaking of research reactors...

LINK UPDATE: Here are a couple of blogs who are linking to the ABC content: Political Pit Bull and TVNewser.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Energy, Technology, Homeland Security, ABC News

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...

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

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...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog