Skip to main content

Freudian Slip by ABC?

By Lisa Stiles
Looking for the latest shots fired between ABC News and the nuclear research community, I googled the title of an AP article that I learned included some criticism about ABC's sham of an investigation. I was surprised when an ABC link was returned. I'll get to my reaction to the story in just a minute, but what nearly made me spew orange juice over my keyboard was that ABC has filed this under Entertainment. Frankly, I couldn't agree more with the placement.

Irony aside, most of the article just served to make me want to take the interns, their supervisor, and the ABC execs firmly by the ears and give them MY tour of a research reactor.

By now Eric and others have disputed most of the erroneous details of the story and have called out the powers-that-be at ABC.

But I want to take issue with the interns. The AP story says
Ross said it wasn't a case of the interns being taught "gotcha" journalism instead of investigative journalism. The students did a great deal of research into the nuclear programs before going to the universities, he said.
Yet, Dana Hughes, a journalism student at Columbia University, is quoted as saying that if all it took to get into facilities was talking like a student or flirting
some people could find that a questionable line of defense
Yes, I suppose that many people who are unaware of the vast operational and material differences between a commerical plant and a research facility would question the security. However, any honest research into the matter would have revealed that most university reactors do grant tours rather liberally with or without flirting or a student ID. Further research would clearly demonstrate the reason such tours are allowed, and that is that with minimal precautions (like not allowing bags into the area around the reactor) there really isn't anything a tourist can do to seriously jeopardize the security of the material or the safety of the public.

But that's the point, isn't it?

A journalist with integrity would have sought to educate the average American on this little known subject. But who needs integrity when a little yellow journalism will get you a cushy new job at ABC News?

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The ABC interns say they weren't lying when they said they were "students". Given that they were on assignment from ABC, I would argue that were at least being deceptive.

In another scenario, say of immigration, there would be no doubt. If an Australian university student, working as an intern for a media organization, attempted to enter the US on the visa waiver program, s/he would be quite rightly detained and deported because all journalists require visas to enter the US - it doesn't matter the purpose for which the journalist is entering.

I think we will find that all research and industrial facilities will in future require all visitors to complete security cards which would require them to disclose if they are journalists. And if it is a state or federal facility, then lying on such a form would be a serious offense.
October 14, 2005 at 2:01 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